Re: [EXIM] OFF-TOPIC -automatic spam reports

On Fri, 29 May 1998, Greg A. Woods wrote:

> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:19:51 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Greg A. Woods" <woods@???>
> Reply-To: Exim Users Mailing List <exim-users@???>
> To: Exim Users Mailing List <exim-users@???>
> Subject: Re: [EXIM] OFF-TOPIC -automatic spam reports
>
> [ On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 14:31:34 (+0200), Peter Gervai wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: [EXIM] OFF-TOPIC -automatic spam reports
> >
> > But there are many CLUEFUL admins (I count myself as one) sending in
> > reports and those reports got severely delayed or dropped because the high
> > load their processing requires at the abuse@ address.
>
> I can only submit that your proposal will only cause further delays as
> admins will be forced to request original copies of the headers and then
> again take the time to re-interpret those headers, thus wasting both the

No, the full original message including headers would be included as
the last item on the standardized report. The standardized report would
simple allow recipients to pre-process some of the information.

> submitters original effort at filling out the form and the time it might
> take for the original headers to be delivered. Any "interpretaion"
> implies loss of information. Even as a clue-full postmaster I wouldn't
> trust myself to interpret things in exaclty the same way you might,
> esp. since you might have other log entries which can give you a more
> complete view of the transaction audit trail. The *best* thing I can
> possibly do for you as the admin of the originating site is to provide
> you with full and complete original headers with my complaint.

And any suggestion I would make for the standardization of reports
would include the full original spam with all headers intact.

> If reports are being severely delayed or dropped because they admins
> handling them are unable to interpret headers directly, then no amount
> of pre-processing will ever help them -- they are hopelessly lost from
> the get go. The only way to speed them up is to train them in the
> proper interpretation of headers and log file entries.

I'm not suggesting this to make up for the inability of admins to parse
headers. I'm suggesting it to make up for the requirement that headers
must be parsed manually.

Compare one person parsing 100 messages (relayed thru different SMTP
servers to different recipients) by hand, with 100 people each parsing
one message by hand.



>

> -- 
>                             Greg A. Woods

>

> +1 416 443-1734      VE3TCP      <gwoods@???>      <robohack!woods>
> Planix, Inc. <woods@???>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>

>
> --
> *** Exim information can be found at http://www.exim.org/ ***
>
>


--
*** Exim information can be found at http://www.exim.org/ ***