Starting to get annoyed.

[Mike Easter]

Posted to spamcop & spamcop.mail; followups to .mail

I've whitelisted an academic listserve I've subscribed to for four
months, but Spamcop continues to send its emails to "Held Mail."

- the spamcop ng is for general SC discussion, as opposed to the ng
spamcop.mail which is for discussing SC mail accounts and problems
- personally, I don't have any experience with a spamcop mail account,
but I read the faq and the forum and the ng spamcop.mail
- sometimes listservs are tricky to whitelist. It is my understanding
that SC checks the headers for Return-Path, From, and Sender for
whitelisted entries
- there is also a faq page about how the entries work here
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/304.html Some examples of
whitelist and blacklist matching

It
only just started doing this extensively, but has been accepting that
list email with no problems for months. What the deuce is the
problem?

Discussing a problem with heldmail is best done by discussing the
particular SC Xlines which show why it was held.

I'm also more than a little annoyed by the fact that 75% of my email
is now spam. Isn't spamcop supposed to help with this, and why
aren't they effective?

IMO SC spam reporting very very seldom does anything to prevent future
spam. The strength of good filtering systems is to prevent spam being
in the inbox and to prevent any goodmail from being in the spam. Those
of us who advocate reporting may report sources thru' SC so as to
contribute to the SC blocklist to aid in future filtering. Those who
like to notify spamveriders - spamvertiser providers - would like to
believe that might help squash some websites if a white hat provider
were involved, and that it contributes to the sc-surbl blocklist.

There's not much about the reporting of today's spam which actually
causes the securing of spamsources or the dropping of websites, so the
reporting doesn't actually lead to less spam in the combined inbox and
heldmail -- just an aid in the filtering process if you are using the SC
blocklist as one of your filtering aids.

I renewed the service recently, but it was
probably wasted money given the low level of service and the frequent
problems (such as those misidentified posts to the academic list).

I think it is very very bad if goodmail gets put in with spam. That
flaw in the configuration [likely] or execution [unlikely] should
certainly be corrected.

Seriously, how many times do I have to whitelist a sender for it to
take? Is anyone at Spamcop awake?

My first guess would be that there is something wrong with the/your
whitelisting configuration.

If things don't change this will be the last time I re-up with
Spamcop. They're just not coming through.

[Freewheeling]

Post by Mike Easter
Posted to spamcop & spamcop.mail; followups to .mail

I've whitelisted an academic listserve I've subscribed to for four
months, but Spamcop continues to send its emails to "Held Mail."

- the spamcop ng is for general SC discussion, as opposed to the ng
spamcop.mail which is for discussing SC mail accounts and problems
- personally, I don't have any experience with a spamcop mail account,
but I read the faq and the forum and the ng spamcop.mail
- sometimes listservs are tricky to whitelist. It is my understanding
that SC checks the headers for Return-Path, From, and Sender for
whitelisted entries
- there is also a faq page about how the entries work here
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/304.html Some examples of
whitelist and blacklist matching

It
only just started doing this extensively, but has been accepting that
list email with no problems for months. What the deuce is the
problem?

Discussing a problem with heldmail is best done by discussing the
particular SC Xlines which show why it was held.

What the heck is that, and why should it concern me in the least?
Seriously, if Spamcop can't accomodate my circumstances then I shouldn't
be paying them anything.

I've had lots of other problems, as well, such as their "bug" that
identifies my institution's email server as "open transfer" when it's no
such thing. This is GMU and they've been trying to get Spamcop to clean
up their software bugs for ages, to no avail. They won't even respond.
Hell, I'm ready to discontinue the service even though I'm paying for
it, the technical problems are so unsettling.

Bottom line is that, as yet, 75% of the emails I get in my inbox are
spam. The service is crap. There's just no other way to put it. My
fantasy was that the spammers were deliberately targetting Spamcop
because it was such an effective enemy, but it's been three years with
no policy changes, and apparently not even any sofware updates. Pathetic.

Post by Mike Easter

I'm also more than a little annoyed by the fact that 75% of my email
is now spam. Isn't spamcop supposed to help with this, and why
aren't they effective?

IMO SC spam reporting very very seldom does anything to prevent future
spam. The strength of good filtering systems is to prevent spam being
in the inbox and to prevent any goodmail from being in the spam. Those
of us who advocate reporting may report sources thru' SC so as to
contribute to the SC blocklist to aid in future filtering. Those who
like to notify spamveriders - spamvertiser providers - would like to
believe that might help squash some websites if a white hat provider
were involved, and that it contributes to the sc-surbl blocklist.
There's not much about the reporting of today's spam which actually
causes the securing of spamsources or the dropping of websites, so the
reporting doesn't actually lead to less spam in the combined inbox and
heldmail -- just an aid in the filtering process if you are using the SC
blocklist as one of your filtering aids.

Gawd, I'm being charged $30 for this? What a load of hooey!
I mean, it has its funny side I guess... because the basic assumption
was that buying into a spamcop account would have some relatiship to the
amount of spam I was likely to get (and hopefully a negative
correlation). Apparently that was all wishful thinking, but it was
wishful thinking that Spamcop cultivated so it could rake in the dough$$.

Time to pull the plug on this sucker, I think. I just renewed, but I'm
going to tell my bank to demand a refund, because the product was sold
under fraudulent circumstances. I'll also post about this on my blog,
which is reasonably well-read (top 30). A ripoff is a ripoff.

I'm really angry, and this has been building for some time. I can't
actually see any benefit at all to a Spamcop account. None. It's all
hype and wishful thinking. Heck, they don't even have a customer
complaint department. I'm posting this here, because it's the only
place there is. These jerks are probably all in Barbados, and for all
we know they're the ones PRODUCING the Spam!

(Yeah, it's cute. But not that cute.)

Post by Mike Easter

I renewed the service recently, but it was
probably wasted money given the low level of service and the frequent
problems (such as those misidentified posts to the academic list).

I think it is very very bad if goodmail gets put in with spam. That
flaw in the configuration [likely] or execution [unlikely] should
certainly be corrected.

Seriously, how many times do I have to whitelist a sender for it to
take? Is anyone at Spamcop awake?

My first guess would be that there is something wrong with the/your
whitelisting configuration.

If things don't change this will be the last time I re-up with
Spamcop. They're just not coming through.

[WazoO]

Post by Freewheeling

Post by Mike Easter
Discussing a problem with heldmail is best done by discussing the
particular SC Xlines which show why it was held.

What the heck is that, and why should it concern me in the least?
Seriously, if Spamcop can't accomodate my circumstances then I shouldn't
be paying them anything.

Of you want to resolve why something is or isn't working, someone has
to take a look. It's your e-mail, one would think you'd want to sort ot
out. If you don't know how, you're going to have to let someone else
"see" the data involved in order to offer up a suggestion or two beyond
what's already been offered.

Post by Freewheeling
I've had lots of other problems, as well, such as their "bug" that
identifies my institution's email server as "open transfer" when it's no
such thing. This is GMU and they've been trying to get Spamcop to clean
up their software bugs for ages, to no avail. They won't even respond.
Hell, I'm ready to discontinue the service even though I'm paying for
it, the technical problems are so unsettling.

And now you're hel;ping to confuse the issue .... You started talking
about a SpamCop.net giltered e-mail account, which is handled on
JT's hardware on the east U.S. coast. This last paragraph deals with
the Parsing & Reporting side of the house, which is hosted on IronPort
systems on the west U.S. coast. Not the same people, not the same
software, not the same functions.

Post by Freewheeling
Bottom line is that, as yet, 75% of the emails I get in my inbox are
spam. The service is crap. There's just no other way to put it. My
fantasy was that the spammers were deliberately targetting Spamcop
because it was such an effective enemy, but it's been three years with
no policy changes, and apparently not even any sofware updates. Pathetic.

Did you offer to take up JT's offer / request to work with a Beta system
quite a while back? No idea what you might mean as far as "policy
changes" ... the 'no updates' .. well, one thing that comes to mind was
the re-ordering of some of the tools on the e-mail systems, i.e., moving
SpamAssassin up in the sequence of events .. that has led to folks
believing that the SpamCopDNSBL had become less effective (hard to
say, as the issue is that so much stuff gets blocked by the SpamAssassin
tool before it ever gets to being naluzed by the SpamCopDNSBL)
(and this is coming from someone that doesn't have an e-mail account,
just some one who monitors traffic in the newsgroups and the Forum,
(which is the primary support venue for a spamcop.net e-mail account)

Post by Freewheeling

Post by Mike Easter

I'm also more than a little annoyed by the fact that 75% of my email
is now spam. Isn't spamcop supposed to help with this, and why
aren't they effective?

No one from this side of the screen can guess at just what your
configuration might be, what filters you've selected, how you
actually handle your e-mail.

Post by Freewheeling
Time to pull the plug on this sucker, I think. I just renewed, but I'm
going to tell my bank to demand a refund, because the product was sold
under fraudulent circumstances. I'll also post about this on my blog,
which is reasonably well-read (top 30). A ripoff is a ripoff.

If you'd care to follow the links provided, a refund is available for
the asking.

Post by Freewheeling
I'm really angry, and this has been building for some time. I can't
actually see any benefit at all to a Spamcop account. None. It's all
hype and wishful thinking. Heck, they don't even have a customer
complaint department. I'm posting this here, because it's the only
place there is. These jerks are probably all in Barbados, and for all
we know they're the ones PRODUCING the Spam!

Once again, "this is the only place" is a really strange statement.
The flip side to your story are a number of folks (three in just
the last two days) that basically started a bit of a rant like this,
complaining that after "having spent hours on your site and didn't
find squat" were extremely surprised to find the exact answers
they needed in one of the FAQs available within the Forum.
Two of those were issues with white/black-listing by the way.

Post by Freewheeling

Post by Mike Easter

I renewed the service recently, but it was
probably wasted money given the low level of service and the frequent
problems (such as those misidentified posts to the academic list).

Again, you are mixing up the services of different parts of the
thing known as spamcop.net. Take a look at "What is SpamCop?"
at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=faq&article=20

Post by Freewheeling

Post by Mike Easter
I think it is very very bad if goodmail gets put in with spam. That
flaw in the configuration [likely] or execution [unlikely] should
certainly be corrected.

But without the analysis on what is happening to the specific e-mail in
question, just how do you propose that nything "get fixed" ..???

Post by Freewheeling

Post by Mike Easter

Seriously, how many times do I have to whitelist a sender for it to
take? Is anyone at Spamcop awake?

One recent Forum conversation dealy with the difference between
"Forward and Whitelist" and "Release and Whitelist" ... so one
could ask the question as to just how you are doing your Whitelisting.
It is your account, you are the one making / selecting the the options.
Not sure just who you may be thinking of that sets around and watches
your keystrokes.

[Mike Easter]

Post by Freewheeling

Post by Mike Easter

I've whitelisted an academic listserve I've subscribed to for four
months, but Spamcop continues to send its emails to "Held Mail."

Discussing a problem with heldmail is best done by discussing the
particular SC Xlines which show why it was held.

What the heck is that, and why should it concern me in the least?
Seriously, if Spamcop can't accomodate my circumstances then I
shouldn't be paying them anything.

Well then, having a discussion here turned out to be a waste of my/our
time -- since you never described a situation where a wanted mail was
being held and so 'we' never got into a problem-solving mode. Too bad.

You just wanted to beef about something -- which I presently think was
your own incompetence to properly configure your whitelist, until proven
otherwise.

Post by Freewheeling
Bottom line is that, as yet, 75% of the emails I get in my inbox are
spam. The service is crap.

Sounds like you don't know how to properly configure to identify spam
and you also don't know how to properly configure to identify
whitelisted. On top of that, you also don't know how to 'configure' to
learn how to do it properly. I think it is time for you to skedaddle.

Post by Freewheeling
Time to pull the plug on this sucker, I think.

Mebbe so.

Post by Freewheeling
I just renewed, but
I'm going to tell my bank to demand a refund, because the product was
sold under fraudulent circumstances.

Most likely if you want a refund, the admin would be happy to give you a
refund, without you getting into a pissing contest between your bank and
your legitimate charges and your flakey opinion about those legitimate
charges.

Post by Freewheeling
I'll also post about this on my
blog, which is reasonably well-read (top 30). A ripoff is a ripoff.

Do you publish whatever anyone has to say in rebuttal to your misguided
opinions on your blog? Or is your blog a one-way, opinionated, no
rebuttals allowed, kinda blog?

Post by Freewheeling
I'm really angry, and this has been building for some time.

Maybe you should've gotten some help configuring your filters
appropriately before you got so frustrated.

Maybe you not only don't know how to configure, you also don't know how
to get help with what you don't know how to do.


He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool, shun him.^1



^1 Men are four: He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a
fool--shun him; He who knows not and knows he knows not, he is
simple--teach him; He who knows and knows not he knows, he is
asleep--wake him; He who knows and knows he knows, hi is wise--follow
him!

Author: Lady Burton
Source: given as an Arabian proverb