Jump to content

[Resolved] Cannot report 14085 - your reporting privileges have been suspended


iixii

Recommended Posts

OK, since three weeks it's now impossible for me to report any spam. My reporting privileges have been suspended by some SpamCop Admin, and it was all a silly ISP's fault. The complete exchange with that ISP is attached below (actual spam snipped for brevity, except the pertinent received lines), and was already CCed to that SpamCop Admin. When no reaction ensued, I asked directly for my reporting to be re-enabled.

Twice. Still no reaction whatsoever. Then I wrote to deputies[at]spamcop.net a week ago, quoting all of the below and asking yet again for my reporting to be re-enabled. Nothing.

I know that it won't be resolved by posting here, what I want to know is:

Has anybody been in the same situation and has any idea how I should proceed now? I don't mean getting the reporting privileges suspended, that seems to happen often enough, as a forum search shows. However, all these forum entries tell me that people got their reporting back within hours of resolving the problem, while I'm stuck for three weeks now and have no idea how to proceed. That's the situation.

In fact, I'm pretty pissed off at Spamcop now. I'm paying for the ability to report spam, and it has now been revoked for weeks without anyone caring. Again, I know that protesting here will not solve it, but I want people to know how unfriendly Spamcop has been to me lately, and would love to hear if someone has any thoughts about this.

Exchange with stoopid ISP:

28.01.2007 02:03:29, SpamCop Admin <service[at]admin.spamcop.net> wrote:

> I am sorry to report that the spam you get cannot always be processed

> correctly by our system, resulting in SpamCop accusing your own service

> provider as being the source of the spam you are reporting.

Which is not what happened, see the exchange quoted below.

> I'm sorry, but I can't allow you to continue reporting your own service

> provider

Which I didn't, it was completely the ISP's fault, and I am really miffed

that you blocked me from reporting solely based on this mistake of theirs,

without so much as asking me for a statement first.

> so I have had to suspend your reporting privileges until you get

> the Mailhost configuration completed.

I did this a couple of days ago.

> As soon as you're finished, please let me know so that I can reinstate your

> account and get you back to reporting spam.

Please do so.

>- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

> service[at]admin.spamcop.net

> http://www.spamcop.net/

Exchange with Easynet about their mistake (which BTW was CCed to you):

======================================================================

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:18:43 +0000

From: Easynet Abuse Team <abuse[at]uk.easynet.net>

To: volker[at]spamcop.net

Cc: Easynet Abuse Team <abuse[at]uk.easynet.net>, service[at]admin.spamcop.net

Subject: Re: [spamCop (82.110.105.40) id:2117961867]Lea hat letzte Nacht 376.-

US$ gewonnen

Message-ID: <20070128231843.GA22681[at]abuse.noc.uk.easynet.net>

On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 11:31:24PM +0100, volker[at]spamcop.net wrote:

> Quoting Easynet Abuse Team <abuse[at]uk.easynet.net>:

>

>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 06:32:25AM +0100, Volker Krüger wrote:

>>> [ SpamCop V620 ]

>>> This message is brief for your comfort. Please use links below for details.

>>>

>>> Email from 82.110.105.40 / Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:32:25 +0100

>>>

>>> [ Offending message ]

[snip]

>>> Received: from pop.1und1.de [212.227.15.162]

>>> by mailgate.cesmail.net with POP3 (fetchmail-6.2.1)

>>> for volker[at]spamcop.net (single-drop); Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:43:12 -0500 (EST)

>>> Received: from [82.110.105.40] (helo=mail5.extendcp.co.uk)

>>> by mx.kundenserver.de (node=mxeu1) with ESMTP (Nemesis),

>>> id 0MKpV6-1HAgAr0hTn-0006NA for info[at]pensau.de; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:32:25 +0100

[snip]

>>

>> Hi

>>

>> IP address 82.110.105.40 is in fact allocated to our customer Heart

>> Internet, and it appears likely that you are their customer.

>

> I am not, and never was, a customer of Heart Internet or Easynet.

>

>> Specifically, it is likely that Heart Internet provide the incoming

>> email infrastructure for the domain to which the Unsolicited Bulk

>> Email reported above was originally transmitted.

>>

>> It also appears that you have your domain's Heart Internet hosting

>> account set up to forward mail received for your domain to an account

>> for whom kundenserver.de provide the inbound mail infrastructure.

>>

>> As a result, 82.110.105.40 appears likely to be playing no part in

>> the Unsolicited Bulk Email transmission, other than in respect of

>> forwarding set up by yourself, and entirely under your own control.

>

> The spam quoted above was received by kundenserver.de on behalf of

> info[at]pensau.de, and for all I know originated from 82.110.105.40. If any kind

> of forwarding to info[at]pensau.de exists at Heart Internet, it is fraudulent.

> Unfortunately, the forwarding mechanism (if it's indeed that and not just some

> hacked service at Heart Internet) neglects to put any information about the

> forwarding in the headers of the E-Mail, not even the domain for which the spam

> was originally received.

> Please supply this information about the supposed forwarding so I know what this

> is about.

Hi Volker

Thank you for the above information, which is most helpful.

In fact, having tested further, it appears that 82.110.105.40 is

currently acting as a multi-hop open SMTP relay, with 81.154.124.155

being the input point.

I will contact Heart Internet and inform them of this, and expect action

to be taken to secure the vulnerability at the commencement of the

business day tomorrow.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience that this incident

may have caused.

Kind regards

Anthony Edwards

--

Easynet UK Abuse Team - Easynet Ltd

Tel: 020 7900 4444

Fax: 0845 333 4503

http://www.uk.easynet.net/legal/acceptable.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

something else....

From the brief snippet of headers in your post, it's apparent you've got a SpamCop email account (you might want to edit out your actual address, which you've exposed in the post) and it seems that you're having the SpamCop system pop your mail from the "1und1.de" system....why? I advise SC email account holders to have their mail automatically forwarded to their SC email address by the host server which initially receives the mail. Using the "mailgate" pop system has some disadvantages, and complicates things unnecessarily.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

something else....

... and it seems that you're having the SpamCop system pop your mail from the "1und1.de" system....why? I advise SC email account holders to have their mail automatically forwarded to their SC email address by the host server which initially receives the mail. Using the "mailgate" pop system has some disadvantages, and complicates things unnecessarily.

Huh ?

No consensus nor is that advice in the FAQ I think.

Please, lots of ISPs don't offer forwarding but POP is standard !

And as many a post on this forum testifies, if POP doesn't work the user can try doing it themselves AND Spamcop Mail shows error codes. If forwarding fails the mail may just vanish or the error codes may be visible only to ISP support staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, lots of ISPs don't offer forwarding but POP is standard !

Exactly. I have 4 different mail accounts filtered through my Spamcop account, and only one of those has the option to forward at all.

And as many a post on this forum testifies, if POP doesn't work the user can try doing it themselves AND Spamcop Mail shows error codes. If forwarding fails the mail may just vanish or the error codes may be visible only to ISP support staff.

Spot on as well. Spamcop has not worked, one way or the other, on 7 (!) distinct times during the past year. This is something else I just put up with, but when it happens, I'd rather be able to fetch my mail directly.

Plus, Spamcop's outgoing bandwidth sucks. Mail is trickling in at about 20 kB/s, instead of the 250 kB/s I'd get directly from the ISP. If some goon insists on sending something big by mail, I fetch it directly from the server.

Using the "mailgate" pop system has some disadvantages, and complicates things unnecessarily.

As I see no obvious disadvantages, would you please elaborate? It sure wouldn't have avoided the ISP screwup, and following Spamcop denial-of-service, so to speak, that my initial post is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you tried using the VER interface with full reporting? see http://forum.spamcop.net/scwik/VER

Remember that reporting spam from WebMail is a form of Quick Reporting which makes reporting your own ISP very easy if MailHosts is not properly configued.

You could also try full reporting through a free reporting account to be able to test how SpamCop is handling the reporting.

Until you have done some full reporting and are able to confirm that reporting will work correctly, I doubt if Don will be willing to reinstate the quick reporting option that automaticly comes with WebMail.

So I guess one question would be, is full reporting from VER also disabled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you tried using the VER interface with full reporting? see http://forum.spamcop.net/scwik/VER

Remember that reporting spam from WebMail is a form of Quick Reporting which makes reporting your own ISP very easy if MailHosts is not properly configued.

You could also try full reporting through a free reporting account to be able to test how SpamCop is handling the reporting.

?

I actually have no idea what you mean by that advice, as it has absolutely no relation to the problem I posted about, viz. Spamcop wrongfully revoking my reporting abilities and not reinstating them for weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it has everything to do with your problem.

Quick Reporting is dangerous!

WebMail, by default uses Quick Reporting

Full Reporting allows the option of reviewing reports BEFORE they are sent allowing you to cancel any that would report your own ISP.

The other thing to keep in mind is that SpamCop Email is a entirely separate product handled by a separate company that has links to the SpamCop Reporting System which is handled (owned) by IronPort

Don represents the Reporting side the of the company.

Don seems to like proof that the reporting problems have been fixed before allowing quick reporting to be used again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it has everything to do with your problem.

Quick Reporting is dangerous!

If it's properly configured, it's absolutely not.

Don seems to like proof that the reporting problems have been fixed before allowing quick reporting to be used again.

OK, it has now become painfully obvious that you haven't taken the trouble to actually read the exchange I quoted in the initial post. Short recap for you: There were no reporting problems, there was a correct quick report for me to an ISP with an open relay, the ISP screwed up, blaming me, it was Don who took it at face value and blocked my reporting without giving me the chance to correct the ISP, and it is damn well justified for me to be pissed off about having no reporting for weeks because of something that is entirely not my fault.

And if what you say is true and someone wants more proof beyond the painfully obvious proof consisting of the exchange initially quoted by me, he/she could darn well reply to me about it instead of just not reacting at all!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attitude has been discussed at length on this forum. As has the effect of attitude on the responsiveness of members of this peer-to-peer support fourm.

You have received suggestions, which match my experience, for how to resolve your reporting issue. You have dismissed them out of hand and bad mouthed the member offering help.

Your attitude is assuring that your statement "I know that it won't be resolved by posting here," will be true.

I suggest that what you really want a venue to rant. As such this should be move to the lounge.

Lou

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm paying for the ability to report spam, and it has now been revoked for weeks without anyone caring.

Technically, a SpamCop.net e-mail account subscription comes with an 'enhanced' version of a free-reporting account. However, the e-mail systems and the Reporting system are owned/operated by different entities. The FAQ does state that Reporting privileges can be recoked without interfering with the use of the e-mail account itself .... see SpamCop Reporting Accounts for the latest copy of that data ....

Again, I know that protesting here will not solve it, but I want people to know how unfriendly Spamcop has been to me lately, and would love to hear if someone has any thoughts about this.

Not for me to say too much here, seeing as I have my own issues and problems .....

Point is that me tossing up an e-mail on your behalf probably wouldn't help ...

Just back to stating the oft-repeted data .... there are the three paid staff involved, handling their self-described 800-1800 e-mails a day. The tone and content of e-mail sent there may have some bearing on things ...?????

One thing does have me curious, not having gone through the "been Banned/Revoked" situation .... when does this "error message" show up? Just wondering how it is that you could change settings, preferences, MailHost Configuration data, but not actually Report a spam ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No consensus nor is that advice in the FAQ I think.

The FAQ doesn't cover everything, but let me quote from the official (as opposed to user-edited) version regarding "SpamCop Email Setup"

"The easiest and most reliable way to get email into the SpamCop system is to have your ISP or present email service forward it to your new email address."

(quoted from: http://mail.spamcop.net/setup/setup_forwarding.php)

"If your ISP refuses to forward your mail for you, you can have SpamCop POP it for you."

(quoted from: http://mail.spamcop.net/setup/setup_pop.php)

Sounds like the forwarding method is recommended by JT. The user-submitted-and-edited FAQ and pinned items have some flaws....for example, in this item:

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=13

You'll see this claim:

"Please note that AOL Users incur minutes for the privilege of checking mail in this way. If you are not on an unlimited plan, beware!"

which is false. I've pointed this out multiple times and it was removed from the official FAQ, but apparently not from the pinned item. (Wazoo! that item is "Closed" -- please fix the false information)

Please, lots of ISPs don't offer forwarding but POP is standard !

Have you tried POP'ing from AOL or Hotmail? And while forwarding isn't universal, it's quite common.

And as many a post on this forum testifies, if POP doesn't work the user can try doing it themselves AND Spamcop Mail shows error codes.

And almost all your mail will be delayed due to the way that SpamCop checks only a few times per hour. I prefer getting mine right away, if I happen to be online.

If forwarding fails the mail may just vanish or the error codes may be visible only to ISP support staff.

Now that's a bit more convincing, except that I don't think I've ever had that happen. I suppose if my mail were coming from a host that was prone to showing up on blocklists, I might be a bit concerned, but in that case, the mail would simply wind up redirected to my Held mail folder. YMMV, I suppose.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's properly configured, it's absolutely not.

I'm not commenting on your main problem other than to say I have never seen Don take ANYTHING at face value.

Quick reporting CAN be dangerous anytime one of the ISP's in your path makes a change. It has been demonstrated here a few times to have caused problems in the past. I have never had a problem myself, however.

My usual plan is to manually report the spam that comes in over night (as a test) then quick report the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spamcop has not worked, one way or the other, on 7 (!) distinct times during the past year.

"One way or the other" can cover a lot of ground...it's vague. Since you're a fan of letting SpamCop grab your mail, I'm guessing that some of those 7 times had to do with failures of that system? Or?

Plus, Spamcop's outgoing bandwidth sucks. Mail is trickling in at about 20 kB/s

Huh? I just sent an MP3 file to my SpamCop address and then timed the download. The total size of that email was 1.8M and it took a little more than 4 seconds to download.

As I see no obvious disadvantages, would you please elaborate?

You don't think that having ALL of your incoming mail delayed is a disadvantage? That's *exactly* what happens if you configure SpamCop to pop it. I'd rather get mine as quickly as possible.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's properly configured, it's absolutely not.

OK, it has now become painfully obvious that you haven't taken the trouble to actually read the exchange I quoted in the initial post.

Actually it was hard to tie all the pieces you listed together.
> so I have had to suspend your reporting privileges until you get

> the Mailhost configuration completed.

I did this a couple of days ago.

This would imply to me that it was not set up correctly before a couple of days ago.

The lack of full headers or tracking URL leaves a lot of other possibilities open.

The fact that you acknowledged that your MailHost was not set up correctly prompted my response and suggestions.

The fact that the ISP did acknowledge the problem on their end does not fully offset the problems on your end that you also acknowledged.

Don loves to complain that we treat posters unfairly.

We simply try to provide what little help we can based on the limited information provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have received suggestions, which match my experience, for how to resolve your reporting issue. You have dismissed them out of hand and bad mouthed the member offering help.

Not true, neither have I called anyone names, nor have I dismissed anything that would have resolved the issue. I dismissed advice that was not addressing my problem, viz. Spamcop staff not reacting to resolve a wrongful reporting ban. If I am to be scolded for doing that, the attitute problem is entirely not on my end.

Technically, a SpamCop.net e-mail account subscription comes with an 'enhanced' version of a free-reporting account. However, the e-mail systems and the Reporting system are owned/operated by different entities. The FAQ does state that Reporting privileges can be recoked without interfering with the use of the e-mail account itself .... see SpamCop Reporting Accounts for the latest copy of that data ....

Does that mean that none of the money actually goes to the people running the reporting system, it's all just to pay the e-mail side of things? If true, that would of course mean that I would be wrong to expect any more service regarding the reporting part than any other non-paying user. On the other hand however, while it's an interesting technical detail, it's not something that the user should have to care about as long as Spamcop is shown and paid for as a single entity. If it's not, that should be visible.

Just back to stating the oft-repeted data .... there are the three paid staff involved, handling their self-described 800-1800 e-mails a day. The tone and content of e-mail sent there may have some bearing on things ...?????

Certainly. What I'm worried about is that there is no reaction at all, I didn't get a "please supply more info" or "please do this or that" reply which would indicate that I have to actually do something to get my reporting back.

One thing does have me curious, not having gone through the "been Banned/Revoked" situation .... when does this "error message" show up? Just wondering how it is that you could change settings, preferences, MailHost Configuration data, but not actually Report a spam ....

Logging in to the reporting account is not affected, I can use the interface, change options and everything. Error messages only appear when I select the "Report spam" menu item ("Sorry, your account has been disabled.") or when I use the "Held Email" page and choose one of the "Quick..." or "Queue..." items ("Cannot report xxx - your reporting privileges have been suspended"). The webmail is not affected at all, it works exactly like before.

And almost all your mail will be delayed due to the way that SpamCop checks only a few times per hour. I prefer getting mine right away, if I happen to be online.

That is true, it is a drawback when popping instead of forwarding. But having mail delayed by 5 minutes on average (as Spamcop checks about every 10 minutes) is quite bearable for me. If I do expect urgent mail, I can always fetch directly from the original server.

I'm not commenting on your main problem other than to say I have never seen Don take ANYTHING at face value.

Well, there's always a first time. He did not verify the ISP's claim that I reported my own forwarding account, when in fact it was an open relay. He did accept it at face value. He could also have contacted me first for a statement.

Quick reporting CAN be dangerous anytime one of the ISPs in your path makes a change.

True, but while I it can happen, I believe it's highly unlikely on the whole, at least with any of the ISPs I use. Even when I had not configured and used the mailhosts system, as Don asked me to do, Spamcop never larted any ISP it shouldn't have.

"One way or the other" can cover a lot of ground...it's vague. Since you're a fan of letting SpamCop grab your mail, I'm guessing that some of those 7 times had to do with failures of that system? Or?

I don't remember all the details from the whole past year, but what I do remember is that 3 out of the 7 times, I had no route to the Spamcop domain at all, while there were absolutely no problems with any server around the world at the same time, and tracerts always stopped quite close to spamcop.

Huh? I just sent an MP3 file to my SpamCop address and then timed the download. The total size of that email was 1.8M and it took a little more than 4 seconds to download.

Interesting. Are you living in the US, maybe even geographically close to the SpamCop servers? If yes, that would indicate that Spamcop's ISP has a totally lousy uplink to the rest of the world, as I'm living in Germany.

The lack of full headers or tracking URL leaves a lot of other possibilities open.

No, not at all. The IP of the open relay is there, plus the acknowledgement from the ISP that it indeed was an open relay. What else do you need to know? I mean, sure you can have the tracking link, but it won't tell you anything that I haven't told already.

The fact that you acknowledged that your MailHost was not set up correctly prompted my response and suggestions.

I hadn't configured the mailhost system before Don told me so, but the quick reporting had still worked flawlessly as all my ISPs were using one-hop SMTP without any forwarding. If it had been configured, it wouldn't have prevented this wrongful ban at all. I did configure it immediately after Don told me to, and I wrote back saying that it's now configured, with that precise message from several weeks ago quoted in my initial post.

The fact that the ISP did acknowledge the problem on their end does not fully offset the problems on your end that you also acknowledged.

Where did I acknowledge any problems on my end? There weren't any, it was entirely the ISPs fault.

We simply try to provide what little help we can based on the limited information provided.

That's nice. But please don't claim that you didn't have enough information when you really overlooked parts of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true, neither have I called anyone names, nor have I dismissed anything that would have resolved the issue. I dismissed advice that was not addressing my problem, viz. Spamcop staff not reacting to resolve a wrongful reporting ban. If I am to be scolded for doing that, the attitute problem is entirely not on my end.

I agree with you that your attitude is merely being annoyed with the spamcop reporting system ban. However, since there is nothing that anyone can do about that, people are assuming that you posted here, not to rant, but possibly to find a workaround.

Does that mean that none of the money actually goes to the people running the reporting system, it's all just to pay the e-mail side of things? If true, that would of course mean that I would be wrong to expect any more service regarding the reporting part than any other non-paying user. On the other hand however, while it's an interesting technical detail, it's not something that the user should have to care about as long as Spamcop is shown and paid for as a single entity. If it's not, that should be visible.

Not sure of the financial arrangements. AFAICT, there is no difference in reporting side support for email customers or reporting-only, free or not.

Just back to stating the oft-repeted data .... there are the three paid staff involved, handling their self-described 800-1800 e-mails a day. The tone and content of e-mail sent there may have some bearing on things ...?????

Certainly. What I'm worried about is that there is no reaction at all, I didn't get a "please supply more info" or "please do this or that" reply which would indicate that I have to actually do something to get my reporting back.

IIUC, any email that requires a 'please supply more info' goes to the bottom of the pile, and sometimes never gets answered.

<snip email portion since I am not email customer>

Well, there's always a first time. He did not verify the ISP's claim that I reported my own forwarding account, when in fact it was an open relay. He did accept it at face value. He could also have contacted me first for a statement.

I thought that quick reporting required that mailhosts was set up. Don may have wanted you to set up mailhosts rather than 'accepting' that you were in the wrong.

<snip>

I hadn't configured the mailhost system before Don told me so, but the quick reporting had still worked flawlessly as all my ISPs were using one-hop SMTP without any forwarding. If it had been configured, it wouldn't have prevented this wrongful ban at all. I did configure it immediately after Don told me to, and I wrote back saying that it's now configured, with that precise message from several weeks ago quoted in my initial post.

Email does get 'lost' but although I can't see your original post, I think that you have tried several times. It might work better if you stuck to the fact that mailhosts configuration has been done and quick reporting has not been reinstalled rather than bringing up the original problem. I know that you would like an apology for the wrongful ban, but reading the entire scenario and checking up on it takes time which might make such a request get set aside for later when there is more time.

<snip>

HTH,

Miss Betsy

PS In spite of the fact that the other suggestions didn't help you, they might help someone else to understand about the advantages of forwarding vs POP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that quick reporting required that mailhosts was set up. Don may have wanted you to set up mailhosts rather than 'accepting' that you were in the wrong.

I'd love if that was the case, but, quoting him:

> I'm sorry, but I can't allow you to continue reporting your own service

> provider

Email does get 'lost' but although I can't see your original post, I think that you have tried several times. It might work better if you stuck to the fact that mailhosts configuration has been done and quick reporting has not been reinstalled rather than bringing up the original problem.

Hm, OK, I'll wait a couple of days and then write again, skipping all the rest and just saying "I got my reporting abilities suspended and was asked for completing the mailhosts configuration, which I did quite some time ago, so please re-enable my reporting."

Maybe that'll finally get the right attention. Thanks for the suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My research shows that your email about the Mailhosts situation made it to our system, but not to my Inbox.

I am really miffed that you blocked me from reporting solely based on this mistake of theirs, without so much as asking me for a statement first.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I really don't have any other alternative. When I discover a reporting problem, I have to take action immediately. I can't wait for a response from a user who may continue the errors for days before he responds, or, as is the case with many users I write to, never responds at all.

The fact that I was misinformed by Easynet is unfortunate, but irrelevant. I acted on the best information I had at the time.

I reinstated your reporting privileges.

Please accept my apologies for the delay and frustration.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

service[at]admin.spamcop.net

http://www.spamcop.net/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My research shows that your email about the Mailhosts situation made it to our system, but not to my Inbox.

So posting here did resolve my problem in the end - YAY :D

*happy dance*

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I really don't have any other alternative. When I discover a reporting problem, I have to take action immediately. I can't wait for a response from a user who may continue the errors for days before he responds, or, as is the case with many users I write to, never responds at all.

Yeah, I understand.

Many thanks for clearing this up, and keep up the good work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when does this "error message" show up?
It shows up when you log into your account. If you send spam in for reporting by email, you'll get an error message back.

Just wondering how it is that you could change settings, preferences, MailHost Configuration data, but not actually Report a spam ....
Only spam reporting is disabled. You can still manage your account (Mailhosts, email address, whatever) except for spam reporting and requesting a new password if you can't log in.

If I want to lock a user completely out of the account, I suspend the account and reset the password so he can't log in.

Also...

"Quick" reporting for email filtering users via webmail or the Held Mail folder is part and parcel of the service, but "quick" reporting via email submission is not. It has to be individually authorized by me.

- Don -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errrr... now that I actually tried to report stuff, I still get "Cannot report 14085 - your reporting privileges have been suspended"....

Geez... not your day, I guess. Apparently, I only *thought* I reinstated your account.

It's fixed now, though.

Rock On!

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

service[at]admin.spamcop.net

http://www.spamcop.net/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...