Re: Spamcop failing to detect true originating IP

Mike Easter wrote:
> 
> John Richards wrote:
>> My ISP prepends "[Bulk]" to the subject field of
>> suspected spam (an option I elected).  Aren't these things
>> technically "material changes"?
> 
> When we talk about a header, it might seem like it is sufficient to
> 'describe' the headers in some way which we feel like characterizes the
> issue;  but nothing characterizes an issue about a specific header
> related discussion as much as access to the 'real' headers themselves,
> instead of an inadequately described generi-cized description of what
> the poster is talking about.
> 
> Invariably there is some other part of the header which actually may
> come to relevance, and there is no substitute for the real header.
> 
> It takes much less 'space' to paste the tracker than even beginning to
> 'simply' describe a header, which description is typically going to
> somehow turn up inadquate in ways in which the original describer can
> not possibly anticipate.
> 
> If we are going to talk about a spam or a parse or what SC did with
> something or what something said or whatever;  we should be posting the
> tracker so that when the unexpected considerations arise, the original
> headers and/or spam are right there available at the tracker.

The quote of mine (above) does not pertain to a specific tracker.
AFAIK, SC does nothing with the Subject header.
I was merely trying to elucidate what changes are acceptable and
would not violate the the SC rule against "material changes".

-- 
John Richards