Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
turetzsr

Rude Participant

Recommended Posts

<snip>

You ask "why is my e-mail blocked", then show results of some IP that says that this IP is not blocked.  Let's go back to the beginning ... do you have something that says "your e-mail has been blocked due to being found on the SpamCop DNSbl"  ..???  If so, can you provide a copy of that blocking notice?

The original blocking notice appeared in a modal dialog. I did not make a screen shot of it. It contained a URL, which I typed into my browser. This opened the report I quoted in my original message. Clear enough?

<snip>

I think it's pretty clear what happened here. SpamCop erroneously blocked the message. Obviously a bug, and very annoying. spam is a nuisance, but I think in this case the cure might be as bad as the disease.

Or perhaps one of your correspondents doesn't want to hear from you any more.

No, that's not the case, but I could do without hearing any more from you.

Or perhaps one of your correspondents doesn't want to hear from you any more.

No, that's not the case, but I could do without hearing any more from you.

...Not that it means that much, since my help is not generally as useful as that of people like Miss Betsy, but with that response you have sacrificed any future help from me.

...Not that it means that much, since my help is not generally as useful as that of people like Miss Betsy, but with that response you have sacrificed any future help from me.

No problem. If you think her attitude was appropriate I don't need any responses from you either.

...It's really, really good that I don't run these forums -- dlivesay would be LONG GONE. Fortunately, JT, JeffG and Wazoo are more phlegmatic than I. :)

So why is my mail being blocked?

Here is what the report says:

> Query bl.spamcop.net - 69.3.249.56

> 69.3.249.56 is h-69-3-249-56.phlapafg.covad.net

>

> Lookup another: 

> (Help) (Trace IP) (Senderbase lookup)

>

> 69.3.249.56 not listed in bl.spamcop.net

>

> SpamCop has no record of this system

Now, maybe I don't understand how this system works ....

<snip>

...Now that seems to be pretty much a sure thing! :)

Edited by turetzsr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Steve, unbelievable attitude (literally) for someone "seeking help". Evidently he was more in the way of testing out some theory, too contemptuous to suffer diversion and typically evaded/ignored/slapped down anything "off the track". Wonder what he learned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrast that with the results of Jennifer's inquiry in the same topic.

(Added) see later posts, same topic over at the Help forum. The guy has some valid points/understandable outlook but over-riding all is the factor that the attitude you bring to any forum is what you get back (just like in "real life"). Phlegmatism, as Steve has pointed out, is a valuable attribute (which would make phlegmaticness a valuable commodity ... but I digress)

Edited by Farelf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and the abuse continues ...

I don't think...

Clearly. If you think "Right" and "I don't think so" make rhetorical points then thinking is not your strongest suit.

...This forum application needs something analgous to a kill file .... :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phlegmatism, as Steve has pointed out, is a valuable attribute (which would make phlegmaticness a valuable commodity ... but I digress)

As in any fights, there are losers and winners, and the occasional <<agent provocateur>>... Rudeness does not help anyone's cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the occasional <<agent provocateur>>...

It is not in this thread, but it is on topic. what the internet calls <<agent provocateur>>... is a 'troll'

In the help forum, a troll is a real nuisance because the person coming for help usually doesn't understand the thread and gets frustrated trying to find legitimate answers.

However, in the lounge, answering troll questions can be fun to do and to read. True 'trolls' are not interested in proving a point, but in getting a flame war going.

yourbuddy is a not a true troll because he has a particular viewpoint which he frequently posts and once it was explained about the help forum, he has been very considerate about not posting 'offtopic' remarks in the help forum. I think he was the one who said that the topic would be moved to the lounge - IMHO, this whole thread is not 'trollish' nor particularly offtopic - but it is beginning to be and maybe should be moved. Occasional long threads of debate are educational to newcomers who find out how interesting forums can be - especially if there is no longer any hope of finding an answer. If posts are continued to be made without the original poster chiming in, then it probably should be moved.

dlivesay is not a 'troll' either - even if he is abrasive.

People tend to call those who are rude or with diametrically opposite opinions 'trolls' but IMHO, they are posters and unless someone really complains about the kind of language they use, should be able to say what they want if it is on topic (which in the Lounge section it always is)

People call answering the posts of real trolls, or rude or abrasive people, "feeding the troll" It gives hir an opportunity to make a smart comment back. But as I said before sometimes those who are witty have a great time and it's good fun to read.

My $.02 USD

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points Miss, if the two aformentioned have a groudge with spamcop, why don't they take up with their sys admins rather than start a war in a help forum?

Their rudness and <<abbrasiveness>> adds nothing to the help content meant for this forum. I am all for free speach, I like places like Hyde Park and the like, where all the crazies of the world climb up on boxes and scream for fun...why not, in the past they used to be thrown in azylums, was that more humane? :huh:

I suggest that type of information should be move to something like SC feedback, or such a place where people could vent frustration and flame wars without attacking newbies that come here for help and support... :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As in any fights, there are losers and  winners, and the occasional <<agent provocateur>>... Rudeness does not help anyone's cause.

Some thoughts, for what they're worth ...

Actually, I'm fairly sure that most fights between amateurs end in stalemate (nobody wins). And, while I agree rudeness is never justified (particularly when directed at strangers), we all have to cope with it occasionally and this place is no different. The trick of not feeding the flames *ought* to be easy in the relatively dispassionate medium of these forums but the lack of real consequence encourages an expanding troupe of participants to "keep on punching". I don't enjoy spectacles but I do value an alternative viewpoint. A confereracy of like-minded people would be very comfortable and pleasant but like any "mono-culture" it would be insulated from the real world and vulnerable to its intrusion.

I come here to learn. As James Mill had it, "One of the grand objects of education should be to generate a constant and anxious concern about evidence." I try, constantly, to be anxious but with limited success. I need all the help I can get to "educate" myself. dlivesay may not agree with the SpamCop way of fighting spam but he evidently knows incomparably more than do I about the use of the internet. I learn from him (not a lot so far, but he's not entirely absorbed in his own agenda). yourbuddy, I think, with uncommon wisdom once said something along the lines of "you can't argue with fanatics." To his eternal credit he keeps on trying ;-) I learn from him too, and he's helped many people. I don't value these people's contributions more than those of the mainstays but neither do I discount them.

We don't want to be like Dilbert's boss when he came to enact his vision of embracing the rebels in the organization and enshrining their values in corporate policy, only to be reminded by Wally that the last one had been sacked for wearing culottes on casual day. "We have sarcastic," says Wally, helpfully, "can you work with that?"

Erm ... sorry if I'm the only one believing the Dilbert strips are the only valid contemporary management manuals.

Edited by Farelf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye dunno why I'm opening my yap (My handle was supposed to discourage this. It doesn't work.) here, but... IMHO, I consider the dlivesay thread that inspired this thread to be a 'draw'. (I really shouldn't be jumping into this. What can I say, it's raining out.)

Yeah, probably he came in the door ticked off, but then we know that's bound to happen when someone's had their email snagged. Again IMHO, there was an escalation of attitude on both sides helped by over-sensitivity to innocent remarks, and heated reactions to some genuinely snotty remarks.

Looking back, I see the ball got rolling after the "Or perhaps one of your correspondents doesn't want to hear from you any more." comment, which I did not take as offensive as I believe I know what she was trying to say, and did not read as an insult. But it's easy to see how that could set someone off. Did he over react? I think so, BUT...

Personally, I like the informal nature of spamcop forums (but for selfish reasons). It's a different story when someone comes in the door who's mail's been blocked. It's not their choice and a surprise to them, they're gonna be ticked. You can have an attitude like "hey, this is the real world get used to it", but don't be too surprised if that doesn't un-tick them. Point I'm trying to make is people are going to come stomping in here hopping mad and snippy, and that's a real world fact too. It's true that *some* of the those people will never be happy no matter what you tell them or how nicely you do it. At the same time, *none* of them will be cooled down by flaming them back. Am I saying "you should all be coddling people"? I don't think so. I just think that this guy is not the best example of a "Rude Participant", because he came in for help, started quite calmly, and things went sour only after a (IMHO) probably misunderstood remark. Yes, he could have responded with something less snotty. But then (I'm getting tired of typing "IMHO", consider it implied) the responses could have worked on diffusing things. No, he didn't provide much detail until prodded, but again; real world, happens all the time, might be best to get used to it.

I have more points about the exchange in mind, but it all comes down escalations of accusations and assumptions on both sides. Yeah, I call "draw".

Don't ask me why I'd care about all this, I should be doing other things right now. Oh wait, now I remember... I was wondering what this deal was with this:

"Okay, here is what I know: my wife tried to send an e-mail message to Villanova University. Instead of sending, the e-mail client displayed a dialog saying that her message was being blocked by SpamCop, and it presented a URL she could use to find out why."

Isn't it kind of unusual for a client SENDING to be accessing block lists? I don't know, maybe it isn't, I'm no expert. Just wondering. This was never really addressed. No, I don't believe it is an issue for spamcop to solve. If it were me this had happened to, I'd be bugging the ISP/IT about it. It just seems like an odd thing. We never found out what client he's using etc. Things had gone very sour by the time this was talked about, so no surprise it wasn't pursued. Then again I may be wrong about it being interesting.

Uh, this has dun gone to ramblesville. I'm deleting two paragraphs re my views on the blocking list blame game, it's all been said. My point if I had one was, you can maybe put out a flame if you work on it sometimes. Takes about at much work as fanning it.

NotAsSilentAsHeShouldaBeenLarry

Edited by silentlarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh, this has dun gone to ramblesville. I'm deleting two paragraphs re my views on the blocking list blame game, it's all been said. My point if I had one was, you can maybe put out a flame if you work on it sometimes. Takes about at much work as fanning it.

Some people don't consider this a flame - that's the way they communicate. Other people are grateful for 'water'

The OP was mad - everyone can understand that. Before he posted specifics of the problem (and there were several posts about possible scenarios - including spamcop errors), the problem was fixed - or at least his wife could email who she wanted to. No one knows how it got fixed because the discussion evolved into whether blocklists are a good way to control spam. I personally do not feel that there is a 'flame' It is a debate and debates are good at exploring options and weaknesses and strengths. Perhaps, new ideas will emerge that will incorporate enough of both viewpoints that there will be a stronger position against spam.

My position is that blocklists are the way (and perhaps the only way) to control spam. the OP and yourbuddy have different viewpoints (AFAIKT for different reasons)

No one has convinced me that another way is better. I am open to a different solution, but none of my arguments has been refuted (to my satisfaction) or an alternative proposed - except yourbuddy where we are at a 'draw' as you say since I think content filters are not doing anything to stop the problem and he prefers them to blocklists - even if they are not doing anything to stop the problem.

Don't be silent - you probably could add something to these discussions!

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well shunkin's Miss Betsy, since you ask s'nicely ...

Yes, a "content filter" (like POPFile, for instance) can filter out

nearly 100% of my spam - and I can do it as an "individual" and

not participate in a "mad crowd of (well meaning) vigilantes".

My way protects me, and hurts no innocent bystanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My way protects me, and hurts no innocent bystanders.

Maybe, I have tried a dozen commercial filters, they crash the computer and they don't stop spam. And why should I pay for being victimized by the criminal spammers?

I am sure there is something more effective than filters out there and it's free. Spamcop is one of them...

Good job SpamCop!

Edited by dra007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My way protects me, and hurts no innocent bystanders.

Maaybe, I have tried a dozen commercial filters, they crash the computer and they don't stop spam. And why should I pay for being victimized by the criminal spammers?

I am sure there is something more effective than filters out there and it's free. Spamcop is one of them...

Good job SpamCop!

Oh my, the guy that wants people behind barbed wire again ...

Well, dra007, if your computer crashes - it just may be the operator.

POPFile is open source and free and does a better job than SpamCop.

So, there's a couple of things that make your statement ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
POPFile is open source and free and does a better job than SpamCop.

That's rather silly, the whole point of spamcop is to fight spammers that visctimize many of us as a community that simply want to benefit from the open communication on internet, and as a community this is a common fight that is a lot more effective as a group....

I don't want to have the expertise to deal with spam on my own, I just want to be free of that garbage, fraud, and criminal intent... I will report it to a common data base and hope more will join this fight and leave the technical dertails to the experts... SpamCop does a good job keeping the spammers in check!

If you want to be one of the experts go ahead, make a useful contribution, so far you have not...

Edited by dra007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well shunkin's Miss Betsy, since you ask s'nicely ...

I didn't know you needed asking! It was silentlarry that I was encouraging.

My way protects me, ....
.

Which is precisely the difference between your viewpoint and mine. I see the internet as a community which only works because of the cooperation of individuals and the control of spam is something that can be done to create, at least, a neighborhood of minor inconvenience from spam.

In addition, any content filter that I have used has always found false positives or let spam through. If I had my druthers, I would prefer that real emails to me that are suspected of spam be returned to the sender so that they can correct the problem. Most content filters cannot 'return' the email without parsing the headers because they have to accept the email to filter it.

You are not 'discussing' the problem of spam and how to handle it. You are sticking to one position. you and I have to agree to disagree on the question of blocklists vs content filters as a method of controlling spam.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are not 'discussing' the problem of spam and how to handle it.  You are sticking to one position.  you and I have to agree to disagree on the question of blocklists vs content filters as a method of controlling spam.

Would it do any good here, to discuss any method other than SpamCops

as THE WAY to control spam :D Note that I say "control spam". If you can

suggest a really workable way to STOP spam, then I'll help you incorporate

and become your first Shareholder - and we'll be bigger than Microsoft :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STOP spam, then I'll help you incorporate

and become your first Shareholder - and we'll be bigger than Microsoft

Sounds like you are not just knowledgeable, you are rich too! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it do any good here, to discuss any method other than SpamCops

as THE WAY to control spam

I don't think it would do any good to discuss any plan that excluded blocklists. Many admins use a combination of blocklists and filters to control the spam that comes to them. Filters are essential while there is still so much spam.

IMHO, more blocklists with different criteria are really necessary in order to create, at least, a neighborhood where people are not usually bothered by it or by any anti-spam methods. That's because some ISP's won't use existing blocklists for this reason or that. There will always be some problems, but they will be infrequent and not long lasting.

And there needs to be a lot of good PR (like the stupid butterfly) to educate people to choose responsible ISP's.

If I could do it, I would organize ISP's into an association that published their own blocklists and did the PR.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STOP spam, then I'll help you incorporate

and become your first Shareholder - and we'll be bigger than Microsoft

Sounds like you are not just knowledgeable, you are rich too! :P

Yes ;) Read my Profile.

Are you getting smarter? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, a "content filter" (like POPFile, for instance) can filter out

nearly 100% of my spam - and I can do it as an "individual" and

not participate in a "mad crowd of (well meaning) vigilantes".

My way protects me, and hurts no innocent bystanders.

Ok, but...

I'm not getting how blacklists are a intrinsically a bad thing, content filtering could be misused much the same way. Seems to me a head-up-his-dark-place admin could just as easily impose content filtering on a system level (and for the sake of example, let's say he makes it real aggressive). I'd bet that in the great big wide world this has happened a few times. Would this not also be as problematic as imposing a block list?

Isn't this pretty much the age old blame-the-user-or-the-device argument? (Crossing my fingers that this thread doesn't morph in a gun-ownership pie-fight.) Some of us are choosing to filter our own mail with block lists. My feeling is, this fact pretty much establishes that blacklists have use as a legitimate tool.

On the other side, another thing I don't get is imposing on a mass basis, any sort of spam filtering that is susceptible to false-positives (see paragraph 1). I don't get that at all. I use SCBL but I have to whitelist everybody I know, and keep an eye on it. It's more aggressive than I'd like, but I can turn it off any time it causes a problem. It's a different story if you don't have those choices available.

Might the widespread application of block lists lead to the scouring of spam from our lives? Hmm, maybe someday. Meantime I need to get the mail. I couldn't live with, for example, the SCBL imposed on me with no whitelisting or way to bypass it. If my ISP did that, I'd find another ISP. BUT, I'd do the same thing if they imposed some nasty aggressive content filter on me too. I wouldn't take the position that blocklists or content filters were to blame. I'd take the position that my ISP/admin/whatever was a horse's ass. (Uh, I *think* that was the point being kicked around. Maybe I got it wrong. If so; "Oops".)

SL

[How ironic is that? My "blocklists; good or evil?" rant rises from the trash...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there , silentlarry ...

The comparison (mine, at any rate) was being made between individual

content filters (on your own computer system, under your own control),

as compared to a DNSbl (used by a unknown ISP somewhere, who may

be "out of control" or not smart about using a DNSbl - often a problem).

Using a DNSbl on a system under your own control is no problem to me.

We use Spamhaus sbl and xbl as a DNSbl, and they're used by business,

government and military - and (seldom) make a mistake (but even then,

we check "the rejects" - because I don't trust someone else to decide).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The comparison (mine, at any rate) was being made between individual

content filters (on your own computer system, under your own control),

as compared to a DNSbl (used by a unknown ISP somewhere, who may

be "out of control" or not smart about using a DNSbl - often a problem).

Using a DNSbl on a system under your own control is no problem to me.

Alright. If we agree that the existence of block lists is not an evil thing, and the problems are more related to the indiscriminate application of same... I'm curious what exactly is at the heart of your dislike of spamcop, such that you spend time engaging in these spirited discussions?

I understand you don't think much of the accuracy of the SCBL, but there are I think, legit uses for tools of varying "sharpness". (I have my own ideas about uses I think SCBL would be ideal for, but that's a different topic.)

...and I can do it as an "individual" and

not participate in a "mad crowd of (well meaning) vigilantes".

Well, ok but are these guys really "vigilantes"? I know some of them *root* for the vigilantes, but isn't the SCBL just the rope? My view is it's the "unknown ISP somewhere" doing the hanging. *I* still need to buy rope, which I won't be using on others. Is it that it's harder (way harder) to go beat on the unknown vigilante, but the rope manufacturer is easy to find?

Or is the beef with the spam reporting end of things?

Asking in the spirt of curiosity, in case that doesn't come across. Could be you've elaborated on this previously(?). If so feel free to point me in that direction rather than repeat it here. You've made a bunch of posts, and I'm pretty lazy.

SL

[straying off topic here...]

As an aside, I find that a lot of the anti/pro spamcop arguments (not necessarily yours) often stir the block list, reporting, ISP policies and such into a messy muddled mass. Eh... whadday gonna do?

Edited by silentlarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an aside, I find that a lot of the anti/pro spamcop arguments (not necessarily yours) often stir the block list, reporting, ISP policies and such into a messy muddled mass. Eh... whadday gonna do?

The major problem with the scbl is that it depends on reporters to add to the bl. Reporters who know nothing about headers and IP addresses and don't follow instructions often report non-spam and sometimes IP addresses are listed that shouldn't be. Some whitehat ISP's ignore spamcop reports because they are almost always mistakes.

Another problem is that spammers are constantly trying to find ways to 'trick' the bl. That starts a rash of mistaken additions to the bl until Julian creates a fix.

Another misunderstanding is how the bl is used. People who complain about the use of the bl should complain to the ISP who is using it, not spamcop.

It is generally a muddled mess because the person complaining about being blocked doesn't have a clue what a bl is, how bl's are used, and how they contribute to spam control. They don't know anything about how irresponsible some ISP's are, where spam comes from, etc. Trying to explain when they are just frustrated because their email is blocked tends to get muddled. [OT - I tried to send a Word file as an attachment and got an undeliverable message. I sent the raw undeliverable code message back to the abuse desk and asked what it meant. The reply was that my attachment met their criteria for a Netsky virus and I should clean my computer. If I didn't know how to find the message source, I might have spent several frustrating attempts to send that file and by the time I got to an abuse desk would not have been in a mood to listen to explanations - especially if they told me I had a virus. And especially if I took the time to run a virus scan and had none and called back.]

In addition, posters who reply have a different emphasis on what is the problem. Those who deal with spam at the server level are a lot less sympathetic - after all, if people who used the internet knew what they were doing, it would make the whole spam problem go away. End users who are not technically fluent like me and dra007 are more sympathetic and try to explain why blocklists are a good idea.

And when you get someone who is against the use of blocklists entirely (or against the use of the scbl because of the high probability of false positives specifically), then there is a completely different argument.

yourbuddy allegedly was blocked because of a mistake on spamcop's part which is why he is against spamcop. he is not against all blocklists, but prefers content filters. He has never posted any real explanation of the spamcop's error. he also once defended the idea of sending targeted unsolicited email. I am lazy, too, or I would find that topic (it's in the Lounge). it was an interesting discussion.

And finally, web forums are not at all easy to read concerning discussions with more than two participants. Newsgroups are much easier and don't become as muddled.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He has never posted any real explanation of the spamcop's error.

I have noticed that, his attitude also suggest something fishy about his desire to discredit spamcop... If he was really upset about spam he oughtta re-direct his displeasures... Makes one wonder why he is really here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×