Re: Is it possible to submit spam via email without having to verify it online?

"Mike Easter" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]...
> posted to spamcop & spamcop.mail, f/ups to spamcop
>
> I'm interpreting your post as being one about reporting spam, not about
> being a subscriber to the spamcop mail system, which is described here
> http://www.spamcop.net/ces/individuals.shtml   SpamCop Email System for
> Individuals

My appoligies if the was the improper group to post to. I am registered for 
the reporting service, but I now I see that isnt the same as what is being 
discussed here.  I guess I misenterpreted what I initially read on the 
website.

> This newsgroup is about problems with that SC mail system, not about
> reporting issues, so I'm posting f/ups to my post to spamcop.  That
> group and spamcop.help are for general spam discussion issues, including
> reporting.
>
> Re cumbersome.  Do you mean you are pasting the spams into the webparser
> one at a time and finding that cumbersome, or do you mean you are email
> submitting many spams at a time and are finding it cumbersome to have to
> click up each link for the reporting process?

I am currently forwarding them via email, but I find the need to then 
interact with the website to complete the reporting process cumbersome.  I 
understand the need for checks and balances to make certain an automated 
system isnt fowarding out of control  - but trying to report spam in this 
manner (and for this ammount) is very tedious.  I am beginning to understand 
the underlying intent for signing up for spamcop service.  I unfortunately 
cannot allow my mail to flow through your servers for legal reasons.

> If you are submitting to the webparser one at a time, you can improve
> efficiency by submitting many spams at a time by email -- but that still
> requires individually approving the reports by following each parser
> approval link for regular reporting.  Another option is quick reporting,
> but it has some disadvantages.
>
> Regular reporting is a safeguard against spamsource mistakes made by the
> parser, because each report notify is reporter approved prior to being
> sent and counted.  Regular reporting also provides an opportunity for
> the spamvertised links to be reported.

Logical and understood. My 'problem' is that I have already taken this step 
prior to attempting to report it to spamcop (or any other source that can 
make use of the information I am trying to pass along) - so this is 
cumbersome for someone in my position.  Granted, everything isnt for 
everyone.

> Another alternative is quick reporting, which has requirements and
> disadvantages.  The requirements for quick reporting are that your
> request to quick report has to be approved, and you also have to be
> configured for a mailhosted account, which is described here
> http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/397.html  How do I configure
> Mailhosts for SpamCop?

Thanks for the info. I am understanding the process now.  I dont know how I 
missed that in the faq inititally.

> The advantage of the mailhosted account is that the parser is much less
> likely to make a mistake in indentifying the source, because the parser
> is configured to recognize your mailhost.  However, the condition or
> configuration of your mailhost can change unexpectedly, so even having a
> mailhosted account is not perfect assurance that some parsing error
> cannot occur.
>
> If a reporter is both mailhosted and approved to be a quick reporter,
> then many spams can be submitted by email at one time, and all of the
> spams are parsed for spamsource and reported without any approval
> process by the reporter.  That lack of oversight can cause a reporter to
> report their own mailhost many times if the parser makes an error, which
> could result in the reporter's own provider becoming blocklisted and
> causing significant grief to the reporter -- including loss of email
> account.
>
> Another disadvantage to quick reporting depending upon one's point of
> view is that only spamsource is counted, and there is no parsing for the
> spamvertiser, and no notification of the spamvertiser's provider.
>
> The principle advantage is that it is very fast compared to the regular
> report approval process.  Another advantage, depending on the point of
> view, is that the spamvertiser provider is not notified.  There are many
> blackhat providers which some reporters would rather not be providing
> with spam evidence which evidence is only superficially munged with
> standard SC mungeing.

I appreciate your time and effort to post such a well written reply.  I'm 
sorry that I may have wasted your time.