The entity claiming to be Dave C. wrote...
> On Fri, 29 May 1998, Greg A. Woods wrote:
[...]
> > 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
[...]
> > 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,
[...]
> And any suggestion I would make for the standardization of reports
> would include the full original spam with all headers intact.
[...]
> 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.
To be honest as an admin/Pointy hair who has to deal with spam reports
and apply the cluestick to spammer as appropriate within the bounds of
AUP's Terms and Conditions and the law I will only trust my
interpretation of the headers.
I'm sure many other admins are the same, most people really don't know
how to read headers anyway (see Hotmail's bad reputation gained thanks
to uunet spammers with forged From: headers). In an abuse department
what counts (in my experience) is a clear simple complaint and a
complete set of headers.
Mark
--
Mark Lowes Home: <hamster@???> Work: <markl@???>
Webmaster, Listmaster, bofh and fluffy cuddly person.
http://hamster.wibble.org/ http://www.wibble.org/
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
