Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MyNameHere

SpamCop doesn't like users?

Recommended Posts

Maybe that's a little extreme, but I would like to point out that:

  1. The SpamCop home page says "GET HELP Get information from SpamCop's extensive FAQ and active user community." But there is no link to the newsgroups, forum, or any other user community portal.
  2. The SpamCop FAQ still, after several months, have holes in them from a bug that was deleting sections when updated. Like the entire "SpamCop Mail Service" FAQ main link goes nowhere.*
  3. There is less and less visible activity on these forums, which I suspect is due as much to their being secret as to anything else.
  4. Ditto for the newsgroups.
  5. Why do we need Facebook and Twitter if SpamCop's official web site doesn't contain usable FAQ and has no link to the SpamCop community?

It makes me wonder whether the overall SpamCop user base is shrinking. What with the user-hostile mailhosts requirement for reporting,** the fee-based mail service in a freemail world, and lack of actual help features, how can SpamCop expect to recruit a paying user base? Or is that not the business model?

Okay, I'm done.

*On page SpamCop FAQ, the link labeled "SpamCop Mail Service" leads to http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/289.html, which has nothing on it.

**I realize the mailhosts process might be necessary, but it strikes me as an awfully high barrier to new users.

Edited by MyNameHere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I have to agree with you that "SpamCop don't like users". I've been using Spamcop since 2004 as my primary e-mail service but today I discover that I cannot login and pick up my email. Failures happen, servers go down, but there is no excuse for not posting an annoucement on your website that you have technical problems and how long you think the service might be down for.

SpamCop --> IronPort --> Cisco

Great products and a reliable service -->Innovative security products --> ????

Has something changed!

I'm happy to pay for an e-mail service and to contribute to the fight against spam but I expect some support in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I guess I have to agree with you that "SpamCop don't like users". I've been using Spamcop since 2004 as my primary e-mail service but today I discover that I cannot login and pick up my email. Failures happen, servers go down, but there is no excuse for not posting an annoucement on your website that you have technical problems and how long you think the service might be down for.

SpamCop --> IronPort --> Cisco

Great products and a reliable service -->Innovative security products --> ????

Has something changed!

I'm happy to pay for an e-mail service and to contribute to the fight against spam but I expect some support in return.

No, SpamCop reporting and DNSBL are owned by Cisco IronPort. We do not own and have no control over the SpamCop email accounts. They're two entirely separate businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who do we complain to at Cisco/Ironport then? I've had no incoming mail for over 4 hours now.

They should, whomever they are, be posting progress reports here. Spamcop is Spamcop to us, no matter who owns what.

Edited by Ex_Brit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wazoo has just posted elsewhere, no news yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for Cisco Ironport. CESmail owns the email accounts. You can complain to me but I can't do anything except listen, and I don't have any more information than you do at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. It's Ok.

It's working...my mail just came in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, SpamCop reporting and DNSBL are owned by Cisco IronPort. We do not own and have no control over the SpamCop email accounts. They're two entirely separate businesses.

I apologize for my ignorance.

Is it correct, then, that the reporting interface at http://mailsc.spamcop.net/ is not owned by Cisco IronPort?

If so, then I guess my issues are with CESmail.

I do wonder, though, what the Facebook and Twitter accounts are for... just for the Cisco IronPort products or for the CESmail users as well?

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it correct, then, that the reporting interface at http://mailsc.spamcop.net/ is not owned by Cisco IronPort?
No, not correct.

Mailsc.spamcop.net is part of the reporting system and is owned by Cisco IronPort. It has nothing to do with the email service.

The Email Service and the Reporting Service coordinate very closely in order to facilitate spam reporting by the Email Service users, but the two services are owned by completely separate companies, and are run on completely separate systems, which are located clear across the country from each other.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it correct, then, that the reporting interface at http://mailsc.spamcop.net/ is not owned by Cisco IronPort?

Perhaps just as confusing when tryng to explain.

Start with SpamCop Staff

Then see What is VER (Very Easy Reporting)?

If so, then I guess my issues are with CESmail.

It would be an easy assumption that what you are referring to is the recent outage of the e-mail system. Don's statement that It has nothing to do with the email service is not quite true. This specific webpage gets you into a bit of hacked-together-code (noting that the last commentary on this code-section was that it wasn't going to garner any furture work) that does in fact have you logged into a Cisco-owned web-page/server, but .... the credentials used and the reach-around to interface with your e-mail account folders are performed by then connecting to the CESmail servers. However, that these systems are owned, managed, and maintained by different folks and companies is definitely correct.

I do wonder, though, what the Facebook and Twitter accounts are for... just for the Cisco IronPort products or for the CESmail users as well?

I have no idea just why Kelly created those pages/accounts. Most companies use those venues as advertising, marketing, breaking news, status updates, etc. The twiiter tool is especially known for being the quick, easy, keep-on-top-of-it scenario. Yet, being the alleged perfect spot to get the news out quickly to "all the friends/followers" nothing made it to a tweet. So I'd say it didn't work for the usual purposes .... although, you could be correct in your question thoughts. As the failure today was not strictly a Cisco asset, there may be some merit. However, I'd rather go with that the actual use of the FaceBook and twitter accounts hasn't actually been determined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This still appears to leave Cisco Iron Port responsible for the dead links on the pages identified by MyNameHere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This still appears to leave Cisco Iron Port responsible for the dead links on the pages identified by MyNameHere.

Looked at from another perspective, cosider that the page itself pulled up OK. It was when attempting to use the VER interface to connect to an external site that actually ended up with a failure. Yes, this specifi URL offers the integration between the multiple systems involved, but from the Cisco point of view, the e-mail service is an external entity. Consider it in the same mode that the newsgroups, this Forum, and the Wiki are in. Not Cisco owned, maintained (... but thus far happy to be still alive, even appreciated by some folks?????)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but from the Cisco point of view, the e-mail service is an external entity.

Yes, and from my point of view, dead links are a reflection of the lack of professionalism by the maintainer of the webpage, regardless of where they point. Which is Cisco, and thus not a reflection on this Forum and the Wiki. Which are appreciated by myself and many others, I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apologies for my intemperate message above. I was frustrated by the lack of information and understanding about whom to contact when experiencing a problem.

i've used the SpamCop e-mail service for some years now and always found it reliable and easy to use. This has been my first experience of a failure.

That said - reading the messages above - i'm still confused about who exactly owns/does what? I now appreciate that different parties are involved with different parts of the service (provision of e-mail boxes, reporting of spam etc.) but I'm still confused about who is responsible for providing the e-mail service that I use. Is it Cisco, Iron Port or CESMail? When we pay for a mailbox who are we paying? And who do we turn to when we need support?

I appreciate that failures happen but it would be good to know where we should look when they occur to check for news and information about the failure?

And while I'm asking so many questions I guess it would be good to know who runs these forums (CESMail, Iron Port, Cisco or maybe someone else!)

With thanks ... (especially to whomsoever fixed the e-mail problem yesterday!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apologies for my intemperate message above.

<snip>

...Speaking for myself, I see nothing at all "intemperate" about it. You expressed an opinion, albeit strongly, but in what could not be considered a clearly objectionable form.
That said - reading the messages above - i'm still confused about who exactly owns/does what?

<snip>

...Here's how I understand things:
  • Main SpamCop pages (http://www.spamcop.net): SpamCop, a "division"* of IronPort, itself a "division" of Cisco (I use "division"* in quotes because I do not know the official terminology for the organizational identities involved)
  • SpamCop spam parser: SpamCop/ IronPort/ Cisco
  • E-mail service: CES (principally JT)
  • This Forum: CES (principally JT but with most administrative work delegated to Wazoo)

*Edit: See post by SpamCop Staff member kmolloy, below -- Cisco calls these business units rather than divisions.

Edited by turetzsr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That said - reading the messages above - i'm still confused about who exactly owns/does what? I now appreciate that different parties are involved with different parts of the service (provision of e-mail boxes, reporting of spam etc.) but I'm still confused about who is responsible for providing the e-mail service that I use. Is it Cisco, Iron Port or CESMail? When we pay for a mailbox who are we paying? And who do we turn to when we need support?

And while I'm asking so many questions I guess it would be good to know who runs these forums (CESMail, Iron Port, Cisco or maybe someone else!)

Why are there so many different account names/passwords needed? for the best starting point, as you seem not to have checked the previously referenced link provided that identified "staff"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Speaking for myself, I see nothing at all "intemperate" about it. You expressed an opinion, albeit strongly, but in what could not be considered a clearly objectionable form....Here's how I understand things:
  • Main SpamCop pages (http://www.spamcop.net): SpamCop, a "division" of IronPort, itself a "division" of Cisco (I use "division" in quotes because I do not know the official terminology for the organizational identities involved)
  • SpamCop spam parser: SpamCop/ IronPort/ Cisco
  • E-mail service: CES (principally JT)
  • This Forum: CES (principally JT but with most administrative work delegated to Wazoo)

This is correct.

Cisco calls these "business units," but "division" is functionally equivalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I work for Cisco Ironport. CESmail owns the email accounts. You can complain to me but I can't do anything except listen, and I don't have any more information than you do at this point.

I cannot fathom how SpamCop/Ironport can so easily dismiss its part of a promise to provide overall email services.

Paid users pay one entity: SpamCop/Ironport. CES is basically a "supplier" to SpamCop/Ironport. If the quality of what they provide your customers deteriorates, it is reflecting on SpamCop/Ironport, and it is the duty and responsibility of SpamCop/Ironport to its paying customers to call that supplier and either get things straightened out or find a new supplier that can handle the load.

The ease with which SpamCop/Ironport continues to "brush off" the CES connection as "your problem, not ours" amazes me. It's like eBay saying, "Well, you bought the crap so it's up to you to get your money back..." and we all know that just doesn't fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SpamCop 98 I am afraid you have your facts mixed up. I do realize that there is a confusion due to the use of the SpamCop name for multiple products. IronPort/Cisco do not receive any funds that are paid toward the email service. The entire amount goes to CESmail. CESmain is NOT a supplier to IronPort. IronPort purchased the reporting side of SpamCop, they did not purchase the email side of SpamCop. See http://forum.spamcop.net/scwik/SpamCopHistory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpamCop 98 I am afraid you have your facts mixed up. I do realize that there is a confusion due to the use of the SpamCop name for multiple products. IronPort/Cisco do not receive any funds that are paid toward the email service. The entire amount goes to CESmail. CESmain is NOT a supplier to IronPort. IronPort purchased the reporting side of SpamCop, they did not purchase the email side of SpamCop. See http://forum.spamcop.net/scwik/SpamCopHistory

I do not have my "facts mixed up."

On July 6, 2009—as I have every July 6 for the past 11 years—I paid an entity called "spamcop" via PayPal.

To tell the consumer that is mere semantics is disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not have my "facts mixed up."

On July 6, 2009—as I have every July 6 for the past 11 years—I paid an entity called "spamcop" via PayPal.

To tell the consumer that is mere semantics is disingenuous.

The history as I remember it?

Originally SpamCop reporting and email were one, owned and operated by Julian Haight (Argyle).

To help keep SpamCop above water the email side of things was sold to Jeff Tucker (JT) and became two separate but symbiotic services. Part of SpamCop email subscription pays/paid for reporting spam via SpamCop

Things were still not looking good for Reporting side of SpamCop (denial of Service attacks and Lawsuits) and was eventually sold to Ironport to keep the reporting service alive. Ironport has since been sold to CISCO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not have my "facts mixed up."

On July 6, 2009—as I have every July 6 for the past 11 years—I paid an entity called "spamcop" via PayPal.

To tell the consumer that is mere semantics is disingenuous.

You need to view Spamcop as a brand similar to the Virgin brand. Virgin airways is unrelated to Virgin trains or Virgin Media. They all get called Virgin but are entirely unconnected other than by name. As much as I might try, Virgin Media will not & cannot help me with train or plane bookings. yet they all appear on my credit card bill as Virgin.

Likewise with Spamcop... Your PayPal payment goes to Spamcop (Email service). Any liability is with the franchisee of the name - in this case CESMail. Not Spamcop (spam reporting service) part of Ironport.

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can easily see how anyone without prior knowledge of the situation would conclude that the SpamCop Email system is part of the Cisco family of products. Just look at the official FAQ found at http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/109.html It makes no comment about and difference in ownership between the various products and carries the following tag line at the bottom of the page: © 1992-2010 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. When you click on the email link for more information the only indication that you have gone to a different company is the tag line at the bottom of the page which now reads as: Copyright 2002-2006 Corporate Email Systems, All rights reserved

The spamcop.net domain is currently registered to Cisco IronPort, LLC.

With the sale of the reporting side of SpamCop to Ironport, Corporate Email Systems retained the right to use the name SpamCop and the SpamCop.net domain. There are also links between the two systems that are transparent to users; which adds to the confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to view Spamcop as a brand similar to the Virgin brand. Virgin airways is unrelated to Virgin trains or Virgin Media.

That's just off-the-chart insanity. Comparing a $7b multi-national comprised of more than 400 companies around the world to an email service? Puh-lease.

With the sale of the reporting side of SpamCop to Ironport, Corporate Email Systems retained the right to use the name SpamCop and the SpamCop.net domain. There are also links between the two systems that are transparent to users; which adds to the confusion.

Prezactly.

CES is basically licensing the SpamCop name. It's up to SC/Ironport to ensure that their service is consistent and responsive.

There's no dispute: SC/Ironport can't just brush the dust off their hands, say "not our job" and walk away without risking lost value of its mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has drifted pretty far from the original post, which was a comment on the inaccuracy or incompleteness of some of the spamcop.net pages and links. Regardless of who owns what, unless someone here is in a position to say "I can take care of that," or "I can forward your comment to someone who can take of that," further discussion doesn't help much.

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  

×