Re: Wondering about how SpamCop works two or more users]

G|_|Y |\/|AC0|\| wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote...
>
>> and that one human (reporting account) is sufficient if that human
>> account approves sufficient numbers of reports, such as two.
>
> That would be a Bad Thing.  I think that it is safe to assume that
> Spamcop has some method in place that at least attempts to stop a
> single human from causing a listing.  if it was simply a matter of
> getting a reporting account and faking two reports, I think that we
> would be seeing a lot of "revenge" listings.

There are a lot of areas in which there are vulnerabilities to the
system for abuse by a willful malcontent, and I don't think that
'directly' submitting bogus spams from a registered account would be a
'healthy' strategy for causing trouble or getting revenge -- so
defending against that by requiring more than one account isn't a very
sturdy defensive structure.

Reporter reports only count 'one at a time'.  Causing spamtrap hits
causes the report numbers to be squared or multiplied into the next
order of magnitude.  Also, causing spamtrap hits could be done
'remotely' -- without exposing the actual account of the perpetrator.

Creating an algorithmic defense requiring one more reporter account
doesn't make much sense to me, while allowing all kinds of other
hi-jinks.  It is just as 'easy' [or hard] to get 'another' reporter
account as it is to get one reporter account

And besides;  the logic or sensibleness of what we are talking about is
a separate issue from what I'm trying to 'develop' in this discussion.
I'm trying to get some admin in charge to categorically state this
simple clarification about SC blocklisting.  The faq goes into great
details with exact numbers and all kinds of mathematical examples, but
even when asked directly the admin hasn't stepped forward and
straightened out this issue beyond the fact that more than one report is
required.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin