Jump to content

QuietQuality

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About QuietQuality

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://quietquality.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Currently: Istanbul, Turkey
  1. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    Thanks to both of you ~ I now understand fully and will speak with Kablonet later today. Stephen PS Since writing this I have now spoken to engineers at Kablonet, and I understand that they are already in contact with spam-COP about the spam blacklist, and also the rDNS issue.
  2. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    This is more likely to occur if there is a management committment that posts should be reviewed and suggestions acted upon, if reasonable. Is such a policy in place? Stephen
  3. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    Indeed, the forum is excellent, supportive and broadens one's perspective. It reminds me of something called 'The Reflecting Team' which is an up-to-date tool used by Family Therapists. Do constructive ideas expressed here in terms of product development get taken up? Does anyone know what changes have occurred that may be directly attributed to the forums? Stephen
  4. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    Well, we have already established in this thread that BT Internet, and AOL do get listed as carriers of spam, but the threshold is different for them. We also have established in the thread that the host advertised by spam-COP on its main page has been listed, and quite a few times. So it seems that no carrier comes our looking that good You seem to be writing as if you think that my posts are designed to vent feelings about my mail not working. If this was ever the case, it certainly is not the case now. But I would have liked to find a more accommodating page, and process, when first directed to spam-COP some months ago. I regret that a Turkish carrier, apparently delivered porn to your computer. Most Turkish people are in my experience helpful, peaceful and religious people who would not approve of porn at all. Highlighting them without reference to the American and other carriers of such material was I think unfortunate. Stephen PS Isn't a Betsy a slang expression for a large automatic hand-gun? Are you aware of this connection?
  5. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    Thank you ~ but I am still uncertain if you are writing about one thing, and I am understanding something different, and so we're going round in circles. My question is: If the rDNS is set by Kablonet then can I still send email via them and receive via my US based webhost and thus preserve the business name, rather than have to use an email address such as xyz[at]kablonet.com.tr In other words set outgoing mail server as eposta.kablonet.com.tr and incoming server as mail.quietquality.com Stephen
  6. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    Thanks, I'm not really in a frenzy, honest! But to return to my earlier point. If Kablonet fix the rDNS can I still send via them and receive via mail.quietquality.com? Having two servers to potentially send mail is a good fall-back in case mail is blocked either by spam-COP or some other application. Stephen
  7. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    OK, So if we look at my earlier message (No 2 in the thread), you will see that whilst I am sending via Kablonet (62.248.102.66), I am receiving via my website host in the States mail.quietquality.com. This allows me to send post, and receive it using my business name, rather than a kablonet.com.tr address. Can I still do this if the rDNS is set? and Since someone's likely to ask why don't I use mail.quietquality.com to both send and receive ~ the problem is that my website host also ran into problems with spam-COP a month or so back, and sending via Kablonet was what enabled me to continue my International business communications. I believe now however that my webhost is also not currently listed, since I sent the messages using mail.quietquality.com yesterday. Stephen
  8. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    62.248.102.66 is KabloNet the Cable TV company wholly owned and maintained by TurkTelekom the Turkish National Postal and Telecommunications Service. To Blacklist them would seem similar to blacklisting BT Internet, or AOL. But I am unsure what an rDNS is? I intend to speak with TurkTeleKom later today about this. Can someone explain what rDNS showing bad (no reverse DNS) means? Thanks, Stephen
  9. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    Is this true? Surely the point about spam is that it's large indiscriminate bulk email. When I am bounced and can't fix my conference notes for a World Congress with my colleague in Israel I am sending one email. What about using some of those funny little letters and numbers that appear on some sites just so that you can't automate the system. Come on you may be a happy spam-COP user, but how about some creativity, rather than no-can-do here! Stephen
  10. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    Yes, I agree a Not-For-Profit organization would be excellent. It might also result in a change in the PR focus slightly. Wouldn't it be great if you could buy spam-COP Christmas cards, (real ones not the e-version) because fighting spam seemed as noble as fighting hunger? Indeed if the Internet sinks under spam then a lot of people in both the third world and this one will go hungry. The problem as I see it is at the moment when my mail bounces as a result of a spam-COP mailing list, and I am led to the spam-COP site, (which of course I wasn't led to directly this time), I don't feel immediately among understanding friends. It may not be accurate to state that when important email bounces you have been 'mugged'. But it kind of feels that way. You're walking down the street, on your way to an important meeting, a hospital appointment or a date and 'wham' someone's knocked you down and you're in a police station, in a shocked and angry state making a report, and having to apologize to that date. "Hey I'd love to be out to diner with you, but I've been mugged" One great service would be if when directed via a message specific link to the spam-COP site there were a cut-and-paste window that would enable you to send your original message to its recipient. This would be like the police sergeant letting you use the phone and apologize to your beloved for not arriving at the restaurant. Using the link would of course be optional, rather like using the phone at the police station. Stephen
  11. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    I'm not sure that it needs to be an official agency ~ indeed were it an official agency it might truly get out of hand ~ would this message board exist, for example ;-)) I do think however, as a commercial concern it must not only behave ethically, but must also be seen to behave ethically ~ and advertising a webhost weakens that perception. The vigilante comparison is inevitable when using a police metaphor. I like your reframe 'etiquette at work', but an email exchange a month or so back with one of the 'deputies' did not reflect your sentiment. This is of course commendable Stephen
  12. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    Hey, Thanks ~ that's a good reply ~ I have a good relationship with my host and feel quite protective of them. They have worked hard over a couple of years now to resolve a number of problems both for me and for others. Hopefully my system will be able to send freely in 48 hours or so. I understand fully about the bandwidth swap. Indeed I thought that something like this had occurred. I think that it does leave spam-COP open to criticism to run that ad though. COPs have to be impartial don't they? Stephen
  13. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    Firstly, I guess there are two issues in my original post and that creates confusion. As however, I listed both in the post then let's get to them. I have absolutely no objections to banner ads on the spam-COP website. You may attempt to sell me cars, washing machines, insurance whatever except, in my view a hosting service. Why ~ because your business is, in its widest sense, to criticize other hosting services. Let's be clear when I arrive at your site because of a spam-COP listing due to an alleged error with my host, then I may be teed off with my host. The implication that the advertised host will be better by avoiding such problems, indeed some might think, whether true or not, that spam-COP endorses the host that is advertised. It's kind of like turning off someone’s water supply and then sending your own water tanker into the area. There is in my view an ethical conflict of interest here. And indeed although spam-COP is a truly brilliant marketing name, you are not truly cops at all, but a commercial organization, more like vigilantes, (no impoliteness intended simply a redefinition). Do others understand, or am I way off beam here? On the question of information here it is: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at eposta.kablonet.com.tr. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. removed[at]confidentiality-preserved-here.comConnected to 212.57.15.111 but sender was rejected. Remote host said: 550 This system is configured to reject mail from 62.248.102.66 (Host blacklisted in bl.spamcop.net) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <stephenbray[at]quietquality.com> Received: (qmail 26038 invoked by uid 0); 19 Feb 2004 07:00:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ctrl) (irembray[at]kablonet.com.tr[at]195.174.25.170) by 0 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2004 07:00:12 -0000 From: "Stephen J.M. Bray" <stephenbray[at]quietquality.com> To: removed[at]confidentiality-preserved-here.com Subject: RE: supervision Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:52:42 +0200 Message-ID: <FAEFIDHNCCBHLOPIAJEEIECACHAA.stephenbray[at]quietquality.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0017_01C3F6C5.BC19BF20" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000101c3f660$a3fbfe40$f400a8c0[at]mshome.net> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C3F6C5.BC19BF20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-9" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit OK then ;-)) -----Original Message----- From: removed[at]confidentiality-preserved-here.com Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 12:34 AM To: Stephen Bray Cc: From: removed[at]confidentiality-preserved-here.com Subject: supervision Dear Stephen, Here is a suggestion for the format: We decided to start as one hour session. And bring one case each session using 45 minutes for case 'discussion? dialogue? then use 15 minutes for questions.. This is a preliminary structure. we thought of evaluating the structure as we move along. when a need arises we can change the structure according to our needs. what do you think of our preliminary plan? Is 24th february 9:30-10.30 ok as a start off session? Love Vivi In your earlier reply you query if my intention is to get help, or just to have a beef. If you read both the content of the email communication interrupted by the spam-COP system, and also my original message I hope that you will interpret neither as aggressive. My aim is not simply to get my email working without spam-COP problems, but also to enter into a dialogue that might help all of us, including those working at spam-COP to lead happier lives. Does this make sense? Stephen
  14. QuietQuality

    Banned But No Link-Back

    Hello, My name is Stephen Bray and I do not send spam, maintain a mailing list, or send bulk email. But sometimes I do write to discussion forums, such as this one, and I do use email as a way of communicating with colleagues both here in Istanbul and abroad. I also post a contact address on our website http://quietquality.com A couple of months ago I became aware of spam-COP because an email sent to a colleague in Israel could not be delivered. There was a link on the email that led me back to spam-COP, including the very first words on its site, which is an advertisement for a web-hosting service, other than the one I use. I thought this more than a little unethical, since it's one thing to 'police' (after all the word COP is in the title), the Internet, and quite another to offer hosting. Suppose my local police force closed down the local Pizza Shop and then started selling pizzas ~ would that be ethical? By the way the spam-COP deputy wouldn't comment about this! Eventually my own web-host was cleared and my post started to roll again, that is until today. Today when replying to a modest email from a colleague in the same city to confirm an appointment for next week I found my mails blocked once again by spam-COP. This time though there is no link-back to the spam-COP site, no clear route to check why this has occurred. spam is a nuisance we are agreed upon this. However one nuisance effect is that businesses such as mine are impeded by spam-COP. I know that someone from spam-COP will say that spam costs millions. I guess it does, but my next recourse will be now to send spam-COP blocked mails through a Netscape account. And to do this I must, of course, trawl through pages of ads gratuitous headlines about Britney Spears and George Bush. In this sense spam-COP forces me to discard my ad-avoidant email service and instead be exposed to ads at Netscape, (or some other host). Those ads are there for a purpose, to sell me stuff that I probably don't need. Who's benefitting from spam now? Stephen
×