Getting blocked even if not sending email

[millssae]

Since when can an agency be dinged by SpamCop as a spammer when they simply host a web site for a company that the email points to? This does not seem to make sent to me. First of all, it was an erroneous report, but how do we get hit when we were not related to the actual mailing.

Does this mean if someone is sending out spam and a link points back to amazon.com then amazon is seen as a spammer?

I guess I do not understand this, could someone please shed some light on this for me?

Thanks

[Wazoo]

Duplicate Topic deleted. user PM'd on that action. (Wondering if there's some significance to posting in the Reporting Forum rather than the Blocking List Forum.)

The remaining query? After one asks for some details to work with, points out once again that the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) is a good starting point for doing some research?

Maybe 'you' could start with explaining "dinged as a spammer" .. perhaps get into exactly what the issue is (web-site, e-mail, general rant ...) ... maybe get around to specific items that someone "here" could look up and maybe talk about?

As in the past, this will stand for a bit here, but .... lack of follow-up, details, something .. it'll be shuffled off to the Lounge. There is nothing in your post that references a specific "problem with the reporting system" ...

[agsteele]

I guess I do not understand this, could someone please shed some light on this for me?

23602[/snapback]

Why not tell us the actual circumstances that caused you to post here. Better still share the contents of the report/Email/failure message or whatever that you received. That will give us a chance to comment.

As it is, and as Wazoo noted, you're asking for help without providing any indication of where we might look to advise.

A bit like going to the doctor and saying, "Doctor, I don't feel well." Some history and symptoms make the job a whole lot easier.

Andrew

[Merlyn]

Are you saying you host spammers?

[sommerfeld]

Since when can an agency be dinged by SpamCop as a spammer when they simply host a web site for a company that the email points to?

Since when? since shortly after spammers started abusing weaknesses in the mail

protocols to obscure the origin of their offal.

It's much easier to track down and hurt the spammer via the spamvertised website than via the mail origin.

Yes, this is not perfect (see "Joe Job"). But a joe-job victim can often adjust their website in a way that makes it clear that they don't want to benefit from the spamrun.

[Miss Betsy]

Clarification: all SpamCop does is send reports to the administrators of web sites that are spamvertised. It does not add the IP addresses to a blocklist. Any subsequent action is done by others (including 'dinging') and there are a lot of people who do all kinds of things: from blocking that website to hitting it with automatic requests so that it is unusuable. And they do not use SpamCop to discover what web sites are spamvertized, but have other ways to decide.

SpamCop, for the non-spammer, is an early warning system that something is wrong. If one erroneous report got your website closed down, then what is wrong is that you have an incompetent host. OTOH, it could be that a 'partner' has decided to spam or don't know about confirmed subscription lists. If it is truly a mistake on the part of the reporter, then the interruption is minor compared to the good that reporting does.

Miss Betsy

[millssae]

Betsy:

Thank you for your comment.

To everyone else, sorry for the lack of clarification. We are hosting campaign landing pages for a client and the email is being distributed via the client's in house system using opt-in lists. (We are also an ESP, but that should not be relevant in this discussion.)

The emails they are sending out point links to our landing page. Last night we received an email stating that anything that supports spam in any way can "harm us" in the eyes of spamcop.

From the email I received from SpamCop, it sounds like anything related to a "spammer" can mark the non-email parties as spammers.

I hope that clears thigns up and any more info someone has would be great.

Thanks,

millssae

[StevenUnderwood]

The emails they are sending out point links to our landing page. Last night we received an email stating that anything that supports spam in any way can "harm us" in the eyes of spamcop.

From the email I received from SpamCop, it sounds like anything related to a "spammer" can mark the non-email parties as spammers.

23632[/snapback]

Well both of these statements are true but it is also true that spamvertized sites are not added to the blocklist, only true sources of the spam. There is no DIRECT link between you hosting spamvertized sites and future business.

You can be "harmed" because many spam samples end up posted in the newsgroups which can be searched. Someone doing their proper research looking for a hosting company will see that by hosting their web sites, you are supporting spammers and will avoid your services because of it.

You could be "marked" as a spammer by people deciding to use spam sightings to decide what IP addresses to block from their networks, limiting your sites visibility.

However, your emails will not be blocked (at least widely) because you are hosting spammers, because the messages are not coming from your servers.

[sommerfeld]

Betsy:

Thank you for your comment.

To everyone else, sorry for the lack of clarification. We are hosting campaign landing pages for a client and the email is being distributed via the client's in house system using opt-in lists. (We are also an ESP, but that should not be relevant in this discussion.)

Note that it appears to be routine for clients to use creative/fraudulent definitions for "opt-in".

If you can't figure out how to opt-in, and then opt-out, an address to a client-run list they're probably not really opt-in.

[Miss Betsy]

The emails they are sending out point links to our landing page. Last night we received an email stating that anything that supports spam in any way can "harm us" in the eyes of spamcop.

Not in the eyes of spamcop because it is an automatic reporting system and does not make judgments - in addition, it does not list web pages.

However, if the emails point links to your landing page, you are a spamvertised site if you continue to permit them to send such emails. (If I understand what is happening. It sounded as though it was your client doing the mailing.)

Opt-in lists are worthless unless they are confirmed subscription. Did you look at the 'mailing practices FAQ'? That explains the difference.

Miss Betsy

[Wazoo]

The emails they are sending out point links to our landing page. Last night we received an email stating that anything that supports spam in any way can "harm us" in the eyes of spamcop.

From the email I received from SpamCop, it sounds like anything related to a "spammer" can mark the non-email parties as spammers.

I don't receive a SpamCop paycheck, so I'm not in the know ... However, over the many years of using and being involved with the SpamCop system, I'm not aware of anyone from SpamCop "headquarters" e-mailing someone out of the blue and advising folks that they are or could be potential spammers. On the other hand, there have been numerous e-mails created and sent that spoofed a SpamCop address in the attempt to spread a number of falsehoods. It is possible you did receive an e-mail from a SpamCop user that had received one of your described e-mails, but that's not the same as "coming from SpamCop" ....

I hope that clears thigns up and any more info someone has would be great.

As far as getting to the meat of your first query (?) .. nothing really cleared up ... as already stated, every spammer in the world has made the same statement that you've made ..."our list is 100% opt-in" ... which is the same thing legitimate list owners say .... and from this side of the screen, it looks and sounds exactly the same, yet the unsolicited crap still shows up in my InBox ... the scumsucker hitting me 30 to 200 times a day with the repeated copies of the same 2 t 4 pharmaceutical spams, arriving from compromised computers from around the world, advises me in each one that "I opted-in" ...

Your first post went with being "dinged as a spammer" .... your 'explanation' would come closer to being 'dinged as a spam supporter" ... but none of this is a function of the SpamCop parsing and reporting tool. An analogy is offered in the Forum FAQ comparing SpamCop to a Credit Reporting Agency. Have you wandered through any of the data provided there yet?

[millssae]

Are you saying you host spammers?

23609[/snapback]

No. Not at all

[millssae]

Note that it appears to be routine for clients to use creative/fraudulent definitions for "opt-in".

If you can't figure out how to opt-in, and then opt-out, an address to a client-run list they're probably not really opt-in.

23636[/snapback]

They have opt-in records for all of the recipients. The problem is that most "spam complaints" come from people that dont really know the definition of spam and report it because they dont keep track of where they sign up for things. Would you agree or do you think most people who report spam is Legit?

I am obviously talking about legitimate brands here not get your viagra now type email.

[millssae]

Your first post went with being "dinged as a spammer" .... your 'explanation' would come closer to being 'dinged as a spam supporter" ... but none of this is a function of the SpamCop parsing and reporting tool.  An analogy is offered in the Forum FAQ comparing SpamCop to a Credit Reporting Agency.  Have you wandered through any of the data provided there yet?

23640[/snapback]

Yes to a degree, but wanted a better explainition from some of you--which you provided. Thanks for the info.

So please help me with this to make sure I am using the term correctly. When I say "opt-in list," the visitor has come to an information form via search enine, direct mail, etc., clicked the "I would like to receive email updates" field and fills out the rest of their information and clicks "submit." Am I using the term "opt in" correctly in this instance because that is what this campaign is.

Thanks again everyone

[Wazoo]

I believe suggestions have already been offered to at least one link dealing with "how to run a list" ... but also noting that the FAQ here has several links available that try to cover that ground.

Yes, you are using the term "opt-in" correctly. However, if you follow some of the links suggested in the above, you'll find that your description of how you are using / performing your "opt-in" flat sucks. There is nothing in your description that prevents "me" from signing "you" up in one of those forms. And therein lies the problem. You'll note a number of descriptions for a controlled sign-up procedure that strive to ensure that the person signing up is the person signing up, and the typical spammy-speak is to call this something like "double opt-in" just to make it sound both stupid and hard ... in reality, it's more of a "closed-loop confirmation" thing <g>

If I've got my Topic right, the other problem in your suggested scenario is that (ignoring all kinds of fine print for the moment) I signed up to receive notice on an update for application CoolStuff .... However, comes a day that I receive an e-mail trying to tell me all about ThisIsEvenBetter, and having that e-mail tell me that I did in fact opt-in ...??? but nowhere is there a clue offered that the CoolStuff company sold either their mailing list, company, or assets to the ThisIsEvenBetter outfit .... one person is dancing the "it's all legitimate, here's the proof" jig, while the other person is 100% suure that he/she never even heard of this 'new' company ... therefore it's all spam!

[Miss Betsy]

So please help me with this to make sure I am using the term correctly. When I say "opt-in list," the visitor has come to an information form via search enine, direct mail, etc., clicked the "I would like to receive email updates" field and fills out the rest of their information and clicks "submit." Am I using the term "opt in" correctly in this instance because that is what this campaign is.

That is an 'opt-in' list, however, there is another step to prevent either malicious entering of email addresses or typos. After the person submits the information, a confirmation email is sent to that address. If there is no reply confirming that the person at that email address wants to be on the list, then their email address is not added to the mailing list. If there is a reply that yes the person does want to be on the list, then there is proof that the person signed up. If there is a spam report in the future, if someone forgets or makes a mistake, then the list owner can show that the person did in fact sign up.

The correct process is 'confirmed subscription'

<a href='http://bestprac.org/' target='_blank'></a>

The problem is that most "spam complaints" come from people that dont really know the definition of spam and report it because they dont keep track of where they sign up for things. Would you agree or do you think most people who report spam is Legit?

Disagree. Most spam complaints are from people who are receiving unsolicited email that they never signed up for.

However, every list owner has people who do forget or simply miss one. That's why confirmed subscription is good because they can show that the person did sign up. The number of mistakes is miniscule compared to the total of spam reports. Having to deal with the few mistakes is part of the total bill that the spammers are imposing on us all.

Miss Betsy

[sommerfeld]

The problem is that most "spam complaints" come from people that dont really know the definition of spam and report it because they dont keep track of where they sign up for things.

y'know, when you spew obvious B&^%S$[at]# like that you sound like a spammer.

Before you reply, you should be aware that we've all heard these other excuses, too..

[dra007]

This is beginning to sound more and more like a spammer not knowing what spam is!

[agsteele]

From the email I received from SpamCop, it sounds like anything related to a "spammer" can mark the non-email parties as spammers.

I hope that clears thigns up and any more info someone has would be great.

23632[/snapback]

As I said yesterday, please share the actual message you received. That will allow someone to offer practical assistance rather than guessing at the issue.

Andrew