Note: The following archived history was originally part of the Original SpamCop FAQ & Added Forum Items, Never up to date, changes often topic and has been split off to this new topic to make the active FAQ more user friendly.


A big THANK YOU to Wazoo for giving this more exposure throughout the forums. I'll try to do my part in contributing some new new info on webmail issues, and maybe Richard will have a chance to make a few updates before the yet-to-be-named Ironport staffer takes over the FAQ.

BTW, I see that the number of pinned items in the Help and Email are now 10 and 8, respectively. I think that's too many, and will lead to users, both old and new, missing the imporant ones. I think that some could be consolidated, or you could have a pinned item that contains a collection of links to important archived posts. I think that in those two places, there really shouldn't be more than two or three pinned items on a regular basis.

DT

If you look a bit closer, you'd see that most of the Pinned items are added to this version of the FAQ ..... That Mis Betsy and yourself are the only two folks that have mentioned this recent addition .. (well, not true, I just remembered that at least one of the great Steve's has already linked to it <g>) ... I wasn't sure if it was time to removed some of the items from their Pinned status. The fact that my fine ISP decided to "perform maintenance after midnight because no one is on-line at that hour (?)" ... and said maintence included doing fiber repairs .... which turned out to take more than the proposed 6 hours ... well, just back now ... have to play catch up ...

...While catching up, I'd suggest suppressing the urge to reply to anything posted by pwhaughey or follow-ups thereto. <big g>

Wazoo, thanks for the great effort.
When did you ever find the time to accomplish so much is such a short period.
It's going to take me a long time just to review what you have done.
What an improvement.
Thank you

Ah, now that's embarrassing. But thanks.


That's the embarrassing part. What you had seen wasn't really that much effort .. well, OK, it wasn't a walk in the park either <g> ... but basically all it amounted to was grabbing the HTML from the SpamCop page, converting that to whatever the code this stuff uses (I keep seeing something about BB Code, but ..??) ... once I got the patterns figured out, it was just a handful of Replace commands and a few individual touches here and there ... I'll agree and take the hit .. this should have been done long ago, just caught up in the waiting for something better to show up ... blame DavidT for making me do it now <g> .... it's the next level that's the hard part.


Please do ... I already blew some time this evening trying to track down a dead link .. turns out the link went to a JeffG post that I had later revamped, updated, modified, and replaced .. thus the original message ID number was toast ....

But now it's down to trying to find all those posts that had the good stuff in them that could use a direct pointer to them, then deciding whether they need rewritten to stand alone or just point to them where they set, still in the middle of a conversation ... now I'm spending real time <g>


Wish I could be so sure. Am still seeing queries posed that are in fact already answered ... and that's after changing the Topic titles in each of the Forums to define FAQ .. but that's always been the bane of the support side of things <g>

But again, thanks for noticing <g>

I hope that you do not really think that even a perfect FAQ will stop all duplicate queries. Some people are just to lazy to look first, they rather take a short cut and just ask.
What is important about the FAQ is that is provides a easily accessable source of answers for the serious looker and makes the entire system easier to learn and use for everyone.
Thanks again.

Hardly .... been on the support side for too many years to even think that. That was just one of those "letting frustration out" moments ... I also frequent several Microsoft peer-to-peer newsgroups, and they drive me nuts, even more so now that Microsoft put up an absolutely stupid web-page interface to "ask your question" that dumps it into the newsgroup, so most posters never figure out how to see a response ... like those complaining that all they see are questions, no one ever answers anything, but not knowing what the plus sign at the left of the subject line does (expand the thread) .... and seeing the same 300 questions asked 1,000 times a day, every day, day after day .....

And having written manuals, even I know that RTFM isn't always the solution <g>


As compared to those that don't have the time to go looking for stuff .. then get all ticked off when the answers aren't magically poofed in 30 seconds or less ? <g>


Flip side is that magic list of 'answers' that can be referenced, vice typing it all in, over and over <g> The down side is that a couple of folks over in the newsgroups liked being able to point at things in these Forums, but that conversion from HTML to this software has that a bit screwed for the pointers I'm adding in that point to other posts, dang it ....


and you're quite welcome again <g>

Question for you / anyone .. is there a FAQ existing on a mailsc.spamcop.net page that has additional content?

No. The "Help" and "FAQ" found at http://www.spamcop.net/help.shtml and at http://mailsc.spamcop.net/help.shtml are identical.

dt

...It also makes it easier or those of us trying to help OPs since we don't have to re-type the answers -- we can just include a link to the FAQ item! <g> As already noted by Wazoo:...BTW, Wazoo -- is "vice" a synonym in your part of world for "versus" or is that a typo?

Let's call it "my" world <g> ... background showing .. single syllable and one less "s" sound, better for radio chatter ... 4 letters as compared to 6, to shorten up message traffic ... 20+ years of that sort of thing is hard to work out of my system <g> (if you had any idea of how much editing I end up doing on some of these posts when I'm trying to keep up with my thinking <g>)

When you are typing, 'vs' is faster. 'vice' is probably the spoken version.

Miss Betsy

And after answering so many questions on what "vs" meant, I quit using it. <g>
This is from back in the Teletype days, where all kinds of things could go wrong between the draft at one end and the hard-copy at the other ...

What do you think about adding the following to the bottom of each forum list of items.
"How to get support"

I am refer to todays post

After which I reviewed the list of items in the FAQ and did not find a logical place to start to look for it.

Since I am a bit confused as to syntax
Why is the reference alway made as "deputies <at> spamcop.net"
instead of as direct email link which would automaticly open up a response window making much easier to reply?
I personally find the syntax "deputies <at> spamcop.net" confusing, but at least I understand how to translate it. But I would believe there are a lot of newbies that might have trouble with it. Then again, maybe it is just me.

Edit based on the following replies.
Thanks for the education, I have edited the post.
It would be helpful to add this information to the FAQ or the How to Use sections
To repeat, I found it a bit confusing, so I would think that someone new to the internet might be completely confused.

Because these forums don't appear to be protected from spiders, so we should never put an email address in its actual form. I'm sure that the deputies get plenty of spam as it is. Please edit your post, as you've just potentially further compromised the address.

dt

...Hi, Wazoo -- do you have the power to do what dt suggests, in the absence of compliance by dbiel? ty

Nope <g> ... jumped back and pulled it up to edit the data, was confused as what I was going to edit no longer existed ... dbiel was already in there ... <g> ... I think I also recollect a post over in test, now that you mention it though ....

As far as adding in more instructions on "how to post in here" ... let me start by pointing out that I've already made over a dozen changes to the FAQ today, some additions, some re-directed ... as big as it is already, can anyone notice? <g>

...Ah, yes!...Thanks, dbiel!

In response to the listing of email address, would you want to adjust the following:
[QUOTE]username @ spamcop.net
username @ cesmail.net
http://webmail.spamcop.net/horde/imp
Your username is your whole SpamCop address, such as: you @ spamcop.net
If you've truly forgotten your password, there's nothing for it but to contact Jeff, the owner of the email service, by writing to him here: support[at]spam---cop.net Domain name munged due to spiders
He'll need some details from you so that he knows you own the account you want a password for.
The link is http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1001
Or does not making it a clickable link serve the same purpose?

So which method is perfered for listing?
username @ cesmail.net or
username <at> cesmail.net
I would assume that the 2 spaces render the first address useless to spiders.

...Oops, you did it, again!
...You may be absolutely correct, but I wouldn't make the assumption. Even if true today, it may not be true tomorrow. I vote for "username <at> domain".

Actually that was a direct cut and paste from the SpamCop site, I did not see how to edit it with out losing the entire point. but will go back and corrupt it now.

...Yes, I took it as that.

...Looks like you did fine! <g>
...Thanks! <g>

I have been slowly trying to read the entire FAQ, all lot of information to go though.
The master list is a big improvement over the old FAQ
Two points I would like to bring up

First, pinned link to FAQ in each forum
I think that was a great idea
The following forums do not have the link
Administrative Anouncements (you may or may not want to include it there)
Mailhost System Beta Test (should definately added here)
Test (I would agree with not having one here)
All other forums already have the link
Thanks for doing this Wazoo

Second, in reviewing the FAQ master list, I can not find any reference to Mailhost.
Am I blind and just not seeing it, or is this just one of possible others that there has just not been time to add? I believe that it is extremely important to add, even if it is only a link to the Mailhost forum.

Thanks to all who have contributed to the FAQ, good job!!!!!

That Mail-Host stuff is not included is mentioned right at the top, in that first block of text. As to why, I'll point you to http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...indpost&p=14439 and note that there has ben no response or the appearance of a new or re-written FAQ.

Announcements - no placed there intentionally, little impact seen especially after finding out that most folks didn't see that Forum anyway .... (actually, as editing only results in an edited version, I'm wondering how many folks have made a repeated visit, not seeing that Topic show up as "new/unread" most of the time.)

But again, this wasn't intended to be the ultimate resolution .... I'm still hoping for a bit of reconfiguration of this whole Forum thing ...

I'll repeat your thanks to all concerned also, wondering if they've seen the contributor's list added a while back <g>

The "Why am I Blocked?" FAQ is looking wonderful - a great job
I like the use of color.
One thoght, (feel free to ignore it) might be to change color between the question and the answer
current:
Q: What does SpamCop do with my email? A: Nothing

Alternate:
Q: What does SpamCop do with my email? A: Nothing

One other suggestion, since 198.162.250.196 is a valid IP for Centra Gas British Columbia Inc. how about changing it to 10.162.250.196 which is a non routeable address?

And as a work in progress, I look forward to seeing the finished link
- another great idea.

Thanks to all for the great work!!!!

With everyone else can I add my thanks for this work. Much appreciated.

Andrew

May I suggest a slight change in this pinned post as follows:

This is a Forum to help users with the SpamCop Reporting System. Questions about SpamCop Email should be directed to that forum (via this link which opens a new window), not this Forum. If your mail is being blocked, please read the the pinned item Why Am I Blocked? FAQ, before posting anything. You will also need to provide the complete text of the error or bounce message, including the IP Address of the system being blocked

Wazoo, you have done a great job reducing the number of pinned items.

Edit 8-16-04: Thanks Wazoo for updating the pinned post

From the newsgroups, a bit of concern over some reference terms in use .... specific FAQ reference is;

I've got a specific FAQ on this "problem" sitting at (dang, is this where the confusion started?)
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1848
which is found from a link at
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2238

"DN" <address removed> wrote in message
news:cgo5ec$lnq$1[at]news.spamcop.net...
>
> My problem, like many people asking for help, is that I do
> not know all the details of how spamcop works. Therefore,
> I cannot know what information is relevant when I ask for
> help. I was not deliberately withholding information.

Though there is nothing there to debate, the question always
seems to be why folks seem to then err to the side of not
providing enough data. Where it really hurts is when the
newbiw wants to appear more knowledgeable, so the tech
terms come out, them thinking that they will explain all to
the "experts" ... not realizing that their use of mis-applied
terminology only serves to confuse the hell out of the query.

> Now WazoO's FAQ mentioned in one of the posts, is a bit
> clearer than spamcop's own site, and made some of the
> things clearer.

First of all, it isn't "my" FAQ. Due to the Forum reconfiguration
request never having been acted upon, all I've done was to
convert the www.spamcop.net series of Help pages into a
linear web-page access point, then expanded that to include
items that only exist within the Forums at this point. There's been
a lot of work by many folks to make that content appear.

> But I wouldn't dare show that to our
> B.Sc. Management students, as it rushes through the
> steps too quickly for those unfamiliar with the
> internal workings of e-mail.

Though definitely not meant to be an e-mail primer, your
remarks raise some issues. Checking the contributor's list
on that referenced FAQ item, there are some folks that
make the claim that they know nothing about the technical
details of e-mail, SpamCop, the Internet, etc. .... yet,
pointing out errors, suggesting re-wording, etc. was performed.
There is a number on screen showing the "number of times
viewed" .. but this is the first "complaint" I've seen about this
particular FAQ item.

> Personally, I'm all in favour of making machines think
> like human beings, rather than forcing humans to think
> like machines. We should not have to learn about
> different types of bounces or any of the inner workings
> of e-mail, any more than we have to learn about the
> organisation of the Royal Mail.

Not sure about needing to know about the organization,
but it certainly appears that the Royal Mail has its rules
and regulations that one would want to follow and adhere
to if one gets involved in their process (and that's only
after looking at a handful of Google responses) <g>
Just off hand, there are numerous human beings I can
think of that placing their thought processes into a machine
would simply scare the hell out of me. Some of these
folks are too dangerous while still cocooned within that
frail human body <g>

Wazoo, I got lost reading your post.
Not sure what the intent of the post is.
Is it to garner a change in how we are developing the FAQ?
It appeared to me that the OP was complaining about how the FAQ was set up, yet at the same time saying that Wazoo had made things a bit clearer than the SpamCop original FAQ

Just to restate my point of view.
I believe that the newly developed forum based FAQ structured by Wazoo utilizing contributions from many sources is a vast improvement over the official SpamCop FAQ and that the work begun should be continued despite the lack of any official sanction.

Is is a perfectly formated and structured FAQ - of course not. It is not meant to be one. It is the notebook for pulling related information together in a useable format that might one day be formalize, but in the mean time is very usable and helpful in meeting the needs of SpamCop users.
Lets keep up the good work, with special thanks to Wazoo and all who have contributed.

The phrase "Wazoo's FAQ" hit me hard enough this time that I had to comment specifically on that "title" .. What was in my mind when carting this over 'here' was to make sure that I'm not about to suck up credit for all the work done by others. Even the specific FAQ item in question was started by JeffG, worked over by several folks .... I think my "contribution" was adding in some additional stuff (yours, I believe <g>) Sorry for the confusion, it was a bit of a snap decision in the middle of other things going on <g>

On the other hand, I'm behind in checking to see what other changes may have sown up in the Ironport staff work .. adding more sections is in the air, darn thing is monstrous as it is <g>

Bottom line ... thanks to all that have helped ... wish I could keep up, knowing there've been a number of posts recently that need to be added pointers from that FAQ .. all the recent step-by-step e-mail stuff to be specific

If you have a problem with the Royal Mail, you had better know the right terminology and why you think it is a problem to you!

I don't have to deal with the Royal Mail, but if it is anything like the US Mail, there are things you do have to know if you are working with it - which many spamcop users are - either as online merchants or as server admins.

For the average end user, it is more like an automobile. There are some people so clueless that they throw away a tire when it goes flat rather than getting it repaired. There are others who can actually do minor repair or maintenance jobs (like change the oil or replace a battery). And there are some people who remember how a piston engine works from science class even if they couldn't identify the actual parts in a car.

The problem, FMVP, is that people who know nothing about email ask questions about it that are the equivalent of asking why doesn't my automobile fly like a plane. And worse than that, argue over the answers.

OTOH, often the techies tell way more than you want to know (I am not a techie), but there is no mystique about it. It is like having the mechanic explain to you what is wrong with your car. Sometimes it is good to know a little bit more than "it is ready for you now."

The trick on FAQ is to have levels of information - basic and advanced so that some users don't get overwhelmed and others who want to know 'how it works' can find out.

Miss Betsy

Miss Betsy, the original poster will never (?) see this ... I had copied that post over from a thread in spamcop.help .. Subject Line = E-mail reporting now broken for 4 days ...

That's ok if the OP doesn't see it. It is a general comment.

Too many people think that email is 'too complicated' - yet people manage to be consumer savvy about many other products that they use daily that are just as, or more, complicated.

If they don't have the time, inclination, or ability to manage their cars, bank accounts, etc., then they hire mechanics, accountants, and other people who have the expertise.

However, they don't pick those people blindly - they rely on recommendations and other criteria. One has to know /something/ about how it works to know whether you are getting good advice or not.

It used to be that people treated medical doctors as 'God' - some, I suppose, still do. But consumer savvy people know a little bit more about health issues nowadays and can make decisions on their own to get second opinions. There is no reason why ISPs and techies should be regarded as the only ones who can understand the concepts of email and whether a particular course of action is best.

My point for months (years?) is that if consumers got involved in spam fighting, it would 'tip the balance' so that spam would be a thing of the past. ISPs don't seem interested in enlisting their customers in the spam fight (any more than doctors liked being knocked off their pedestals). One of the ways to get consumers enlisted is to banish the bogeyman of "I don't understand the jargon" Probably no one considers fuel injectors and carburaters to be 'jargon' Why should they consider the difference between 'bounces' to be jargon?

Miss Betsy

Excellent thought. Just remember that it makes the FAQ that much harder to create, but will probably be worth the effort in the long run.

Whoever it is that has been tasked to update the www.spamcop.net FAQ pages has been busy. Things have moved around a bit, some stuff re-titled, some stuff added ... for instance, there is now a FAQ on configuring MailHosts (although it turns out that this FAQ entry actually feeds one directly into the configuration process ..)

Have added some stuff to this version of the FAQ to better match with that version ... also made another request to somehow make contact with whoever this person turns out to be ... One item being re-named "How to submit spam" but that item doesn't actually hold that information (maybe I'm jumping the gun, but ....) another one that specifies "forward as attachment" for e-mail submittals, but doesn't take into account that some e-mail apps don't have this function ..

Pointed out that I've no knowledge if this person monitors either the newsgroups or here, so not sure where to actually post anything to get that person's attention .. the FAQ entry on updating the FAQ has a link to a spamcop.net page that lists both Forum and newsgroup links (and again, the Forum link brings one directly into the Help Forum, rather than at the Top level that would allow one to see that there were other major divisions of subject areas)

Anyway, after all these years, there is some action on the FAQ. Hooray!

Brought here from a discussion started in the Help Forum.


You have me there .. I thought this would have been addressed in the Title I used "Original SpamCop FAQ & Added Forum Items" ... any idea on how else to word it to indicate that it's an amalgamation of both the "original" FAQ and the additional items I've added from here, there, and other places?


I find this a bit confusing actually, but trying to remember that you didn't look at the FAQ here either. First of all, you hit at an interesting time, as there has been an IronPort staff person tasked with updating the FAQ data you mention. (As a matter of fact, that person just made contact with me yesterday afternoon) The "pointing to the Forums" I see in several places. I can't talk to the e-mail pages, but logging into a www.spamcop.net page and hitting "Help" there send me to a page that includes;

SpamCop forum

New web-based forums have many extra features, including built-in search capability. Please observe the posting rules.

And clicking on the "posting rules" link (I know, silly assumption that most folks would at least peek at this link) .. I see a page that includes;

Web-based forums
New web-based forums are now the primary method for getting help.

(Now that's interesting ... this page has been "touched" just this afternoon/evening ... earlier today, I had complained that it pointed directly into the Help Forum, asking that it be changed to drop users into the "top" level of the Forums .. now unfortunately, it's a circular link, pointing back to the page with the "posting rules" link on it .. dang it ....)

So to try to make sense out of what's going on ... there's a paid IronPort employee tasked with updating the www.spamcop.net FAQ pages .. part of the (as described in the press as) "Ironport buying SpamCop" deal. Once upon a time, I was advised that Julian and JT "shared" the servers these FAQs were residing on (and RW was doing the FAQ care-taking). The actual status today is unknown to me at present. On the other side of the house, JeffT has his business going and some of the things he provides is the hosting of the newsgroups, Forums, and the paid SpamCop e-mail accounts. I'm just volunteering my time here. The FAQ found here is something I threw together, intially as a temporary thing, waiting and hoping that JT would blow the structure and content of the web-Forum out a bit and include a section to hold the FAQ (see http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1672 ) As such, the Forum-FAQ includes (again, pointing to the Title I used) the contents of the spamcop.net FAQ pages but also including pointers to items within these Forums (and elsewhere) ...

As I type this, I've no idea whether this is something the IronPort employee can do, as I don't believe that Ironport bought JT's side of the house (bought into is something I also don't know anything about) .... so there's the strange issue (perhaps) of corporate structuring that may be in play here.

Anyway, here's some history, some background, but as you can also see, I'm not following some of your statements. Again, I can't talk to following Help from one of the e-mail screens, and even from the path I defined, if you jump immediately into the FAQ links, I agree that the Forum FAQ doesn't show up .. yet, I'm also back to the way I titled the FAQ "here" which I thought made it obvious that there was "more" .... How else could it be stated (recalling that there is a limit to the number of characters involved <g>)

Maybe if you changed the sequence.

FAQ about Spamcop Reporting & Email Service (including links to web page FAQ)

That keeps it honest, but shows people it is different.

And if you are talking with Ironport, see if you can't get them to change that 'primary' method of help for the reporting side to 'Help on Reporting is available in a Forum and Newsgroup format' The Forum contains an expanded FAQ - especially for those who have received notification that their IP address is on the Spamcop Blocklist.


Miss Betsy

...and here's something interesting....when I clicked on that link ("Add first hosts"), it took me to the "Add mailhost" form, but with an Ironport employee's address filled in the box! That happened because the link was hard-coded with her "authcode." I clicked on the buttons to send her some test probes just for fun and then I also sent her an email message detailing the problem...she has now removed the link.


I know who she is...I'll PM it to you. :-)

DT

I saw that also, wanted to believe it was a fictional address. Was a bit shocked when her e-mail arrived here and it was the same address. Another death in the family offered up some distraction, but finally got an e-mail composed and sent to her which included this bit of data <g>

In the midst of defining that actually. Have asked if updating the FAQ is her primary mission or if it's just an "additional duty as assigned" thing. Also asked if she has the time and / or authorizatin to delve into / use any data found "here" ... Am awaiting a response to a query as to just how much "input" she wanted, offering samples of a typo to the 'submitting by e-mail' item that only specifies "forward as attachment" without mentioning that some e-mail apps don't have this capability ... added in the circular loop pointers mentioned in a previous post here with a suggested/requested change in some of those links ...

Anyway, got a note from RW and he's also still involved with the web-page FAQs, so there is actually a lot going on (in the background <g>)

Hi! I am the mysterious Ironport employee mentioned above.

I welcome your feedback on the FAQ. Feel free to PM me your suggestions. I'll handle them as I can, I can't promise all changes will be made.

I am NOT overhauling the FAQ, that is way outside of the scope of my current effort. I am, however, trying to hit the entry pages and most frequently visited pages to make improvements. So again, feel free to forward suggestions.

- Courtney

One definite PLUS about this FAQ-PLUS is that it is, not up-to-date, but constantly being updated by someone with some knowledge of what it's all about. (The old and still extant FAQ was good, as far as it went, but IMHO it wasn't updated often enough). Thanks Wazoo (and the others).

Now I got a problem with one sub-sub-chapter of this FAQ (actually in the old FAQ but listed in the new one too), in "How do I get... the full, unmodified email?", under "Netscape Webmail", http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/59.html : (1) with the current format of the Netscape Webmail, the indicated procedure shows the full headers but with spurious blanks and linebreaks; and (2) HTML bodies are not shown properly.

I'm asking because my POP3 client is on sick leave and (AFAICT) Netscape Webmail refuses to "forward" (as attachment) emails which are not in plaintext to begin with... (My Netscape.net account is full of spam and I wouldn't be using it if my usual one was working.) Also, Netscape Mail is supposed to be able to access the Netscape Webmail accounts using some kind of proprietary variant of IMAP but I can't get it it right. Oh, well... maybe it's just AOL hand-in-hand with the spammers again

Thanks for the kind words on the FAQ here.

Looking at the FAQ contents, the only thing I would try to guess at is asking if there might be some option settings on controlling the view brought up by the click on the yellow triangle ... I'm comparing this to option found under HotMail and Yahoo accounts for what "can" be displayed.

That said, fired up a Google search ... made it to a Registration page that stated that if I had an AIM acount, I could "login" using that data. No idea if it's due to using IE, mt security settings, whatever ... but that didn't work. So it does appear that I'd have to download and actually install Netscape to go there.

So then ended up on the "Netscape Unofficial FAQ" page. No one has yet asked anything like this (most dealing with why they can't access Netscape Webmail with something other than Netscape) ... but, Jay Garcia posted a note about a "direct" contact person. (In the back of my mind, I'm thinking that Jay used to be an "AOL inside contact" person that Julian talked to .. but it may just be another guy with the same name?) But, maybe there's some help via that support Forum or even this contact point ..???

http://www.ufaq.org/modules.php?name=Forum...1ed77d4f071a019

Here's hoping that this helps.

BTW: this search led me to the PA Attorney General's page that has a few more "how to see header" instructions ... (though the instructions for Netscape Webmail are a match for what's already been suggested)
http://spam.attorneygeneral.gov/header.cfm

and yet another possibility: Free E-Mail Providers Guide http://www.fepg.net/

No official notice that I've found anywhere ... discovered while researching the status of an ISP/user query as to status of a specific IP address ...

Start with doing the lookup for an IP's BL status by plugging in the IP at http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml

If listed, there is now appearing some data, instructions, and an address selction box for an admin to request an automatic de-listing of the specific IP address. Heavy emphasis that this is a one-time courtesy based on the "promise" that no further spam will be spewed and no more complaints are expected. So one should make sure that the issues have actually been addressed before attempting this action.

Further data may be made available sometime .. or this may only be a beta and may disappear if it gets abused.

Text seen this morning looked like;

In light of the most recent change in reporting limits I would like to suggest the following change in our FAQ
Current FAQ layout (edited section) items of interest in red


The 48 hour reporting limit is buried in the Parsing & Reporting spam - decisions, problems link.
The Is there a limit on reporting spam? references only the quantity limit.

The change I would like to suggest is to alter the Is there a limit on reporting spam? link (click on the link for the example of my suggestion)
What do the rest of you think about this idea?

Not the way you presented it, but .... List added too much blank space/lines, so dropped that, went with the "arrows" .. again, fighting with the way this thing handles white space. So precedant set .... <g>

When I started this, it was only supposed to be a temporary thing, only waiting for JT to set the "new" Forum section just for FAQs and such data. That's why I only pulled over the "top" level www.spamcop.net FAQ entries, thinking that all the sub-topics would flush out the categories in the FAQ Forum Topics (or at least along that line) .. I'm still not sure of all the impacts of the changes over there that Coutney did, though haven't found any massive differences, added a couple of entries here that I caught. I'd kicked a note to all concerned yesterday about a few FAQ items ... RW changed the 72 to 48 hours entry, explained his way of thinking on another, admitted that he'd seen some discussion on another but didn't know what the results were or why that one hadn't been changed .... Courtney has been assigned to other duties (the latest web page layout was her prime task)

Think what I'm trying to get to is that I suppose I could bring over all the sub-levels also, but ... there have already been the many comnplaints that it's too big the way it is. One of those things where it's too bad it wasn't done from the start, but for the same reasons, I hate to think of going through all of that work and only then would JT find the time to add in some of the other Forum sections. On the other hand, I never did get a response back on how to format a request to make it easier for him to "build" a new layout. Going through the documentaion on this thing, trying to keep what's present really mucks up the works (back to comments made when he upgraded the software .. that would have been the best time to reconfigure stuff, although for trouble-shooting purposes, also the worst time <g>)

Anyway, are you agreeable to the way I slipped the data in there?

Using your method I would delete the hyperlink in the "Is there a limit on reporting spam?" as it is redundant to the link "3,000 per day"
My thought was not to expand the base list at all but when you clicked on the link "Is there a limit on reporting spam?" that would take you to a new sublist.
Personally, either way works for me.

(this one points both there and within "here") so maybe even this effort has been wasted .. but hey, it's a start.

Last Revised : 24 Nov 2004

Iam not quite sure HOW or WHY you would think it wasted time...this site isnt even configured for a 'casual" browse thru" to find one single answer to any simple answer.

Try putting the information in a 'glossary" index...i.e..."Copy/Pasting the Reporting of SPAM email address"

hey, what the heck, just a thought.

getsteppin

The "waste of time" dealt with the (then) upcoming re-writing of the original FAQ pages on the www.spamcop.net pages .. and the anticipation that JT would blow out the structure to include more sections ... the first happened but the version "here" still contains additional data ... the second hasn't gone anywhere.

Your statement "to find one single answer to any simple answer" is a bit amusing. You started three new Topics in the "E-mail Set-up" Forum, which is self-described as "how to set up a SpamCop E-mail account" .... but the question I'm thinking you asked (logic provided in the answer t"there") dealt with that you have somehow lost any reference to an e-mail reporting address that would have been provided in the first e-mail from the SpamCop system at the time you registered for a "Free-Reporting" type of account. This same data would be seen on the screen seen at the time of logging into a www.spamcop.net web-page. (To save future search time, I'd pointed this user back to the sign-up page to get another accouint started.)


That one has me confused. On one hand, I did start a Glossary, which does include a word followed by a definition. Folks already complain that the single-access point structure I used for the FAQ is already much too large ... adding in the actual data contents to that one screen seems pointless.

If I actually understood your question (posed in those other new Topics you started) ... I have been accused a number of times for apparently calling people stupid ... I'm not sure how to actually write something up to tell them that they should keep a copy of the 'welcome' e-mail, make notes somewhere containing the account data included in that e-mail without sounding like that going on ... Where and how do you store the information needed to log into your ISP account, your HotMail account, your Yahoo account, etc. ...???

Wazoo,

Would you please look into why there are three sections to "SpamCop Mail Service", and consider changing its name to "SpamCop Email System" for consistency with JT's original naming of Forum #4?

Thanks!

At the time, I was thinking that there were multiple 'parts' of the e-mail system, such that there would be some sense to breaking things out a bit. Looking at it now, I'll admit that this seems to have been lost sight of ... (then again, on pain pills, antibiotics, haven't eaten real food for a number of days now ... taking a 3/4" drive torque wrench to the face has me a bit on the incoherent side of things for a bit <g>)

Anyway, noting other oddities, items titled the same, but one points to a www.spamcop.net entry, the other pointing to a Forum discussion (guess which one has more data <g>) ... I edited a bit, added more entries here and there, then started in with the not able to focus my eyes again .... I'm thinking that that the e-mail section needs a good bit of work, looking at re-sorting to get back to that original thought of sectionalizing it a bit ..... even now recalling the bit of debate over me sliding e-mail spam submittals into the E-Mail Forum ... which now that the E-Mail section has been renamed to E-Mail System & Accounts would now be wrong .... as compared to my original viewpoint that there were either problems with the actual parsing and reporting or it was an issue with the e-mail submittal process .. this is why I moved most of those Topics to the e-mal section ... now I wouldn't, as that situation no longer fits the current Forum description. But, should I go back through and move all those old posts between sections again? (not tonight, for sure <g>)


It's been so long, I've forgotten what the original name was actually. I went ahead and changed to what I renamed that section to a while back ... but, I will point out that this particular section started with the original www.spamcop.net FAQ, and if one was to look at http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/289.html ...?????

I hope I made sense in here somewhere <g>