[Scspamcop] Re: pharm sites not resolving in parser

[Mike Easter]

Brandon wrote:

> As for the notion that reporting them is a waste of resources... it
> depends on who you ask.  The links are what people click on and provide
> personal information/funds to spammers to keep their organizations
> running; I'd argue they are just as important as the IP where the
> message was sent.

The debate is not whether it would be important for some exceedingly rare
spamvertiser provider to take action against the spamvertiser if a
spamvertiser provider were an exceedingly rare whitehat.  The issue is
when such reporting is more harmful than good which is generally true
rather than generally untrue.

The point I'm arguing is that if the spamvertiser provider is
nonresponsive or blackhat, that notifying the blackhat/ nonresponder is a
waste of SC & reporter resources to -1- submit the spam in a manner which
requires time-consuming oversight by the reporter -2- use lots and lots of
SC resources to parse the spambody, then resources including 'tying up'
the resolver with b0rken nameservice belonging to all manner of spammy
nameservers, then resources to process the IP to determine or not
determine some kind of useless notify address and then -3- the reporter is
handing over evidence which may aid the spam generator to the very
blackhat who is often profiting from the spamgeneration itself.

That is, the only spam which spamvertiser provider should be notified is
the pure whitehat provider, not the blackhat, not the grey clueless hat,
generally not even the 'unknown hat' -- because the whitehat is so rare
that you can count on unknown hats to be clueless and unresponsive at
best, blackhat at worst.



-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin