Possible to have this feature inserted to send it somewhere automatically and have the ISP that sent it notified?

I'd like a report to spamcop feature if it could be implemented.

If not a "copy entire message and headers to the clipboard" option would be a nice addition. A bit faster than manually downloading the whole message, highlighting it and copying it to the clipboard.

I don't like the idea of just ignoring Spam received - I like to feel I am doing *something*, whether it is actually working or not!

For this reason I report to Spamcop now (and have been doing for quite a while), but it's a manual process.

Rather than select "bounce" it would be great to be able to select "report"!

Peter R

That is an excellent idea Pete! Really don't see why both options could not be available, BOUNCE and REPORT buttons. Sure hope someone takes this suggestion seriously.

Hi there

There will be an option in future releases of MailWasher Pro to report spam to our own database(CFS) that will be monitored 24/7. There is a Report column to place a tick in so that when you click Process Mail that piece of spam will be sent to us for review.

This should be up and running after we have finished beta testing which is happening now.

I'm really glad to here of this upcoming feature.I beleve I requested this same feature somewhere around v 1.32 if memory serves.If Nick and the MW team are not planing to process the spam as SpamCop does then I would OPT for the send to SpamCop option as I also have been using SC for a coupla years.

It appears some interest has been generated by this topic and I am very glad to see it. My problem w/MW is the very purpose of the program is being defeated by not being able to bounce messages back to the sender due to their trickery. So are we destined to just live with it? I hope not! In this world of all the technical knowledge and availability of same, surely there is a way to disarm the spammers!

"In this world of all the technical knowledge and availability of same, surely there is a way to disarm the spammers!"

Yes. Change how the email system works.

CFS is going to be a human moderated blacklist of spam reported by mailwasher users. It is likely that it will be able to avoid blacklisting nearly every newsletter and promotional e-mailing out there.

SpamCop has gotten so bad at adding innocent folks that it is becoming more and more worthless. I have had to add all my newsletters to the friends listing to get SpamCop to quit marking them as spam.

At the rate things are going as AOL (suing spammers), Microsoft (eg Exchange Server 2003), I won't be surprised become mandatory for bulk email marketeers to register themselves into master whitelists like how you need a license to buy a gun.

I really hope CFS takes the bonded sender program very seriously. The trust level to allow 'known spam' to be deleted automatically without having to double check for false positives will improve considerable.

Why would MW include a report to SpamCop option if they are setting up their own blacklist?

A blacklist, I might add, where everyone (MW users) can report to, not be used for tagging spam unless you shell out more cash for it.

Too bad

"Why would MW include a report to SpamCop option if they are setting up their own blacklist?"

Yes. There is no real need for that. Spamcop plays a very important role in alerting ISPs of open relays and misuse. MW's filtering system is something like a VPN protecting users of the software by carefully identifying spam (through user reports and expert human review) and then providing the option for users to auto-delete the spam so that you don't get to see it - i.e. like it never existed.

For users to trust auto-delete, Firetrust needs to build INCREDIBLE TRUST with its users that false positives are virtually impossible.

imho, I think 5 things must be in place in order for this to happen (also to protect Firetrust from unwarranted complaints)

1. All identified spam to be auto-deleted has to be double-checked against a user's own whitelist prior to deletion.

2. A master whitelist needs to be maintained for public record by the CFS system. Bulk emailers can register for that list (perhaps for a reasonable admin fee) - provided they meet strict conditions eg. valid email, no spoofing of any kind, no phonography or other objectionable content, etc. A public feedback forum could be useful for users of MW to complain on abuse of these rights, and for the bulk emailer to explain themselves if needed.

3. A clear rules of engagement (how spam is tagged) must be defined and made clear to all users of MW CFS.

4. Users who consistently report valid email as spam should have their CFS account canceled with no refund - that should put some discipline to all those lazy and careless spamfighters who mess things up for the rest of us.

5. A database of the most reported spams (with reportable header and body) by CFS users should be set up so that CFS users can bring the fight to the next level. ISPs should be given access to this database too so that CFS users know that their efforts are able to be monitored by the people who can make things happen to stop the culprits involved.

Well since MailWasher uses SpamCop as a blocking source (not a very accurate one) and SpamCop does benifit all e-mail users by notifying the people responsible for the networks the spam was sent from it would be nice to provide them some input.

It would be better if the CFS system did similar abuse reporting and we could accomplish the same thing with a single click on "report spam".

OK, so Mailwasher has it's own CFS reporting function, in preference to using SpamCop reporting. OK, I accept that.

But, why is SpamCop blacklisting valid addresses? Simple, someone has reported the address as a deliverer of Spam.

And this is where user-generated lists are tricky, I may think of something as Spam, where you think of it as legitimate mail. If I report the address as Spam, you should be able to "unreport it", as well as the actual owner of the email address having the right to respond to Spam accusations.

If the owner of the list then decides to remove it from the list then I still have the option of considering it to be Spam - by adding it to my own blacklist. So, everyone is happy.

Isn't democracy a wonderful thing?

Peter R