Sheila King wrote:
>This is the reply I received:
Well, here's how I'd respond...
>>The reason I refuse emails from spamcop, is because of a
>>problem that happened to me not too long ago. I run about 6
>>websites, some of these sites provide services to webmasters.
>>When a webmaster, uses one of these services, he is sent an
>>email from our server to confirm, or to thank him for using
>>the service. We never used emails to advertise anything, we do
>>not even have an email news letter. However, one of spam cop
>>users who used our service reported us to spam cop by mistake.
>>Spam Cop junk software which is not monitored,
It is not monitored because it processes roughly 30,000 reports
per day. Of those massive amounts of reports, only a handful
are ever proven to be erroneous. Any efforts to be proactive
instead of reactive to such errors would be a monumental waste
of time.
>>sent me and My ISP a warning. My ISP shut down my site for
>>three days pending a spam investigation.
It is unfortunate that your ISP has a shoot first ask questions
later type of policy, but that is not SpamCop's fault or
responsibility. Like any other webmail service, it simply sends
messages based on input from the users. Would you expect
Hotmail to be responsible for the content of messages going
through their servers? How can they, or SpamCop, be anything
but reactive?
>>I took action on the same day, emailed the user, Spam Cop, and
>>my ISP. The user admitted his mistake, and that the email was
>>ligit, with no advertising attached. Our ISP was slower to
>>respond, they put the site back after they seen the evidence
>>that our site was not involved in any spam. However, Spam cop
>>took no such action, they never verified if the email was a
>>spam, the junk software they use was to blame, but they never
>>apologized for the mistake.
The only action SpamCop can take is to punish the user for
filing an erroneous complaint, and you must initiate that
process. The software was NOT to blame. It did not point the
finger at your website unprovoked. It was basically "asked" to.
If you want an apology, it is the user who should give it, not
the computer.
>>And to make things worse the domain was put on a black list of
>>spammers, causing all emails to bounce back.
Any blacklisting by SpamCop DOES NOT result in bounced emails.
Period.
>>It took me more than ten days to fix the problem. I know spam
>>is bad but the methods used by spam cop are worse. I did
>>change MY ISP since then, and filtered all spamcop emails out
>>of my websites. I hope you understand.
I'm sorry, but I don't. Seems to me that your method is akin to
blocking all of a certain ISP because you received *one*
erroneous message. In fact, that's *exactly* what you've done.
>>The same way you like to protect yourself from spam, I would
>>like to protect my websites from junk software.
It's not junk as long as it's used properly.
>>You might say spam cop has a section where you can report
>>false accusations, that is true. But do you think spam cop has
>>a 24/7 support for websites that has been shut down based on
>>the emails they send to ISP's.
How could SpamCop *possibly* have 24/7 support? It's not AOL.
Besides, I'd venture a guess that the help you would receive
from the deputies or the argyles would be infinitely more
helpful than anything you could get out of a company like AOL.
>>When spam cop starts monitoring these emails and to
>>investigate before the fact, I will gladly accept the emails.
>>But untill then I will not risk another shut down. It is "
>>Innocent untill proven guilty, not the other way around ".
This is not a court of law..."innocent until proven guilty"
doesn't apply.
>>If you disagree with me , please send me another email. And
>>let me know what you think. I do not mind any fruitful
>>arguments, and I am not stone headed. I will change my mind if
>>you convince me otherwise.
>
>Do I have a point? Hmm. Dunno. I'm just sharing, I guess, and
>interested in other's reactions to this situation. I did
>respond to him again, but don't think that is relevant. I'm not
>really trying hard to "convince" him that he should accept
>Spamcop addresses.
Seems to me that he is at least somewhat stone headed...because he
is doing exactly what he is accusing SpamCop of. That
is...shooting first and asking questions later...
--
SpamCop user, not the admin. Ideas expressed are my own.
Please reply to group unless you have a specific issue with
me. Spam will be promptly and happily thwhacked with my
very largest mallet...
_______________________________________________
SpamCop-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-list
