[Scspamcop] Re: "ISP resolved this issue sometime after Fri Nov 14 07:45:35 2008 -0800"

[Twayne]

> Tim McGraw wrote:
> www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z2408843925z2a43fe896c1a28984cf1a44f41c850d1z
>>
>> AFAICT, all received headers indicate spam was sent and received
>> since Fri Nov 14 07:45:35 2008 -0800. Shouldn't this be reportable?
>
> I tend to disregard or rather reinterpret a lot of the words which
> occur in SC verbose in favor of my own 'vision' of what is going on.
>
> SC's philosophy is to have a default mode of notifying a provider
> whereas it is my personal belief that the default mode should be to
> not notify.  I also think that those who administer SC and its
> default modes are aware of some of what is wrong with a default
> notify mode and choose to have notify be the default because that is
> much of the basis between SC and the SC reporters and what reporters
> like about SC....
>
> ... (default notify) until ....
>
> ... any provider who doesn't want to be notified about something or
> other 'speaks up' and then the dominant mode becomes to not notify,
> and the SC reporter's feelings about notifying become considerably
> less important than unwanted notifying.
>
> I say dominant because SC plays a little game with its reporters about
> allowing paying reporters to 'appeal' to SC about notifying and then
> not allowing appeals anymore and blah blah blah.
>
> Insinuate into that model the mechanism by which a notified is able to
> communicate with SC about not wanting to be notified.
>
> I've never been a provider, so I haven't seen all of the interfaces
> between SC and providers, but my concept of some of the interfaces are
> oversimplified by the concepts:
>
> - I never want to be notified about anything, no way, no how
> - I do want to be notified about /some/ things, but I don't want to be
> notified about a lot of other things.
> - I don't want to go on record as not wanting to be notified about
> anything, so I will simply respond in some way that lets you know
> that I don't want to be notified about /this/ thing any more
>
> SC has provided an interface, perhaps to mollify the SC reporters,
> that when a provider has communicated in the #3 fashion above, that
> SC will 'present' the issue to the reporter as if the provider _had
> said_ that "spam will cease" -- whereas in reality the provider said
> "I hear what you are saying and I don't want to hear it any more."
>
> That may seem to be a long-winded version of what I think, but it is
> actually the short version.

lol, I'm sure it is!  The short version, I mean.  But I agree with your 
thoughts for the most part.  Good response, actually.

Twayne