Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
QuietQuality

Banned But No Link-Back

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't follow your logic at all as far as seeing a banner ad on any web-site.

But, if you're asking for some type of assistance, there's plenty of folks here that will chime in. But, that you've not offered any data, any evidence, any particulars of your siuation, I'm not sure what you expect.

So for starters, what is the IP address that's causing you grief? As you're talking about an e-mail issue, then we'd need to know the IP address of your / the e-mail server in question. Do you have a copy of the alleged bounce message that states the problem?

SpamCop does maintain an active list of IP's known to be sending out spam, primarily as a tool to "flag" incoming mail to its users as probable spam. This same list has been made available ot the public, and there are a number of ISPs that use it to reduce the amount of spew coming into their systems, though most seem to use it for flat out blocking ...

Your mention that once there was a "link back" and this time there wasn't raises a question or two. First of all, the ISP that allegedly rejected your e-mail should have followed guidance and included data that would have taken you to a web page so you could look up the issue yourself. If that data isn't there, that needs to be brought to that ISP's attention. However, this also suggests that if that data wasn't there, then why are so sure that SpamCop was even involved?

Anyway, unless you are running your own e-mail server from your own IP address, the "problem" would be an issue with your ISP ... specifically, how are they handling spam coming from their system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  But, that you've not offered any data, any evidence, any particulars of your siuation, I'm not sure what you expect. 

I can sympathise with the original poster. You say he hasn't provided evidence, but that's not the point. If you look at the evidence you'll see that he's not to blame and he'll be unblocked. But in the meantime your activities have disrupted his life. ISPs are scared of spam so if they get a spam report that links to them they'll suspend the offending site. To quote the FAQ:

Unfortunately spammers like to include innocent parties in their spams in order to confuse administrators. ISPs must make this decision for themselves and take whatever action they feel is appropriate.
Do you really think ISPs do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately spammers like to include innocent parties in their spams in order to confuse administrators. ISPs must make this decision for themselves and take whatever action they feel is appropriate.
Do you really think ISPs do that?
Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can sympathise with the original poster.

So can I.

You say he hasn't provided evidence, but that's not the point.

If he's only here to pitch a gripe, I'll agree. On the other hand, if he was asking for some help, which is the normal assumption to be mnade here, then the lack of any data doesn't allow for any research to find out just what the situation is.

ISPs are scared of spam so if they get a spam report that links to them they'll suspend the offending site.

Let's get a bit of reality in here .. yes, there are some ISPs that may do what you suggest, but they are pretty rare. What "we" see on the other hand is ISPs that don't give a dang ... Comcast in the US, Chinanet in Asia .. just a couple of examples ... Thousands of complaints a day and absolutly no action taken at all ...

So, back to ground zero, SpamCop is simply a tool used to track spam to it's source, and send the complaint. It still boils down to a decision from the ISP in question as to what happens next. Whacking a web site due to a single complaint is pretty severe, but ignoring thousands of complaints definitly jades the average reporter. And at this point, the only thing "we" know about this poster's issue is that he's pretty ticked off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That the SpamCop tool is known by some to be wonderful and that others despise the concept is known and understood.

The ad for Webmasters (if that's the one that caught your eye) was a bit of a swap .. ad space in exchange for bandwidth, hardware, etc ... now that IronPort has made some heavy investment and the actual system moved to one of their facilities, I'm not sure that there's even a connection at this point .. none of my business anyway <g>

OK, now that we've got an IP address to work with, here's the link that ISP (name removed) should have provided as part of the bounce message: http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblo...p=62.248.102.66

there, you'll note the first issue .. someone needs to fix / finish the configuration of that server. There are ISPs out there that will bounce traffic due to the lack of rDNS.

Second issue is that there have been spam reports made recently. Note, the reports / complaints were probably not made against you, but the traffic came from the server at this IP, which your outgoing e-mail also used.

Though the number of compaints is low, unfortunatley, so is the "sampled traffic" from that IP, so the percentage of good/bad traffic makes it easy to get listed. It appears that this IP will fall under the "will be removed within 48 hours after the spam stops"

I know that the next question / comment is going to be about the "sample spams" provided ... it used to be that much more data existed, but it was seen / felt that spammers were using the data found there to keep ahead of the curve and keep their spew running ... "spammers ruin everything" ....(Larry Kilgallen)

In your earlier reply you query if my intention is to get help, or just to have a beef.

I have to point out that this comment was not in reply to you, it was to another poster that questioned why the lack of data was an issue. As I'm sure you can imagine, situations like this leave some folks just driving by and leaving some pretty wild comments and thoughts, but never come back ... apparently happy enough to have just vented and forever more to talk of the nasty folks at SpamCop .... so until you came back, there was that question ...

Not sure I've helped you much, but at least we have a starting point .. and perhaps in a few hours, there will be some more folks about that might dig a bit deeper for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

criticism - sure .. Julian (owner / developer / programmer) has definitly has his share <g>

impartial - absolutly .. I believe it was a previous hosting service he'd arranged things with .. folks made the assumption that being advertised on the front pge must have meant some kind of recommendation .. definitly surprised when they found out the hard way that this ISP not only hosted the SpamCop tool, but also harboured a number of hard-core spammers, thus having a bunch of their IP's always listed in the bad side of things ... that strange bedfellows thing

The ast item listed on the report page suggests that it may come off the list later today, but no way I can say that for sure ... just crossing fingers <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that it does leave spam-COP open to criticism to run that ad though. COPs have to be impartial don't they?

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?

I do understand and agree that spamcop would be more effective if it were not a business.

However, it is more like a co-op since many customers are ISP's who are pooling their resources (by donating spam) to get a workable spam blocklist to use. Individuals who use spamcop (unless they are running a server) do so the way people carry a trash bag to pick up litter on walks - just to be good citizens.

It is not a criticism of other email providers because spamcop does notify them and there are a number of ISP's who are happy to get a heads up that there is something wrong. Also, it is not spamcop who is sending the reports, but the reporter who is using spamcop to find the proper abuse desk quickly and easily.

Although people often use "vigilantes" in relation to spamcop, IMHO, it is not vigilantism, but etiquette at work. Miss Manners says that the proper manner towards those who do not abide by etiquette rules is the "cut direct" Blocklists are the internet version of totally ignoring those who are rude and irresponsible. Spamcop's blocklist is unique in that it is automated so that IP addresses are added and dropped as spam is sent or stopped.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do understand and agree that spamcop would be more effective if it were not a business.

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.

Although people often use "vigilantes" in relation to spamcop, IMHO, it is not vigilantism, but etiquette at work.

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.

Spamcop's blocklist is unique in that it is automated so that IP addresses are added and dropped as spam is sent or stopped. 

This is of course commendable

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 wasn't suggesting an "official" agency. My vision is more of a grassroots, not-for-profit organization. That's the best. The next best is a service by an ISP organization for its members that would also be educational for the non-technically fluent end user.

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.

I am sorry to hear that. I hope that you caught them on bad day. Posters who have answered numerous posts sometimes get pessimistic about the questioners' motives. Could happen to a deputy.

But that's one of the drawbacks of making the spamcop bl a business, IMHO. Visionaries and good businesspersons don't do well together. Many of the larger charities and not-for-profits do make it work, though, giving quality, professional service yet retaining the altruistic goal.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't suggesting an "official" agency.  My vision is more of a grassroots, not-for-profit organization.  That's the best.  The next best is a service by an ISP organization for its members that would also be educational for the non-technically fluent end user.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you're aware of it, but just in case;

62.248.102.66 not listed in bl.spamcop.net

but the rDNS is still showing bad <g>

Edited by Wazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Stephen!

<snip>

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,

...ISP and e-mail providers who use the SpamCop blocklist do seem notorious for this, without any explanation as to what or why, don't they? <_<

(which of course I wasn't led to directly this time), I don't feel immediately among understanding friends.

...Sorry you feel that way. I assure you that I understand the feeling (although I don't share it). I doubt it will help much, but please bear in mind that those who lurk here and try to offer help are, generally speaking, those who have been "mugged" by spammers. SpamCop is our very, very good friend in the fight against those spammers, so we're a wee bit defensive about it, sometimes. :)

<snip>

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.

Stephen

...Unfortunately, spammers would love such a feature! "Bad news, spammer: you're on a blocklist. Good news: we're going to let you send your spam on its way, anyway!" :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, spammers would love such a feature!  "Bad news, spammer: you're on a blocklist.  Good news: we're going to let you send your spam on its way, anyway!"

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure you're aware of it, but just in case;

62.248.102.66 not listed in bl.spamcop.net

but the rDNS is still showing bad <g>

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stephen.

Reverse DNS (rDNS) is a method of resolving an IP address into a domain name, just as the domain name system (DNS) resolves domain names into associated IP addresses. One of the applications of reverse DNS is as a spam filter.

Here's how it works: Typically, a spammer uses an invalid IP address, one that doesn't match the domain name. A reverse DNS lookup program inputs IP addresses of incoming messages to a DNS database. If no valid name is found to match the IP address, the server blocks that message.

Although reverse DNS is fairly effective for filtering spam, it also sometimes blocks valid e-mail, at least in the current technological environment. A number of problems, including improperly configured networks or servers, can prevent legitimate messages from getting through the filter.

Hope that helps explain things. Good luck!

Scott (Spamcop user since 2000)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one of the most concise and clear explanations of rDNS I've read yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To Blacklist them would seem similar to blacklisting BT Internet, or AOL.

And this has happened many times ... just remarking that it takes a lot for the AOL servers to get listed as they handle so much traffic (and there are so many of them), so the tilting point is a lot higher (based on a percentage), but yes, it does happen.

Edited by Wazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's how it works: Typically, a spammer uses an invalid IP address, one that doesn't match the domain name. A reverse DNS lookup program inputs IP addresses of incoming messages to a DNS database. If no valid name is found to match the IP address, the server blocks that message.

Hope that helps explain things.

Although reverse DNS is fairly effective for filtering spam, it also sometimes blocks valid e-mail, at least in the current technological environment. A number of problems, including improperly configured networks or servers, can prevent legitimate messages from getting through the filter.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I still do this if the rDNS is set?

I didn't mean to send you into a mad frenzy over the issue ... I just pointed it out as there are "some" ISPs that use this as a blocking criteria. The reason that most don't and some that tried it had to back off is because there are so many systems out there incorrectly configured, so too much "good" mail was getting bounced. So it's back to the luck-of-the-draw if you should try to contact someone with an ISP that had the lack of rDNS in its rule set .... it'd just be one less thing to have to worry about if someone got around to fixing it ....

Edited by Wazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll try again .. the only time the lack of rDNS comes into play is if and when you send e-mail to someone that has an ISP that's configured their e-mail serv er to check for it and deny your e-mail ... what I tried to suggest is that you may e-mail thousands of people all over the world and not have a problem ... but one day, and it's going to be the guy with the million dollar deal no doubt, is going to be sitting at one of these ISP's ..... and your bid is going to bounce

maybe I shouldn't say "only", but for the purposes of this quick response <g>

Edited by Wazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

I understand that you are annoyed that your email is not working as it should, but you really need to be looking at the larger picture. I came to spamcop because I received one porn email too many and was determined to *do* something about spam. I have participated in many discussions about alternate methods of controlling spam. IMHO, the way that the internet works, based on netiquette, from the assigning of IP addresses down, the "Miss Manners cut direct" is the way that works. Along with that, the only way to control spam is to stop the spammer at the sending end. And that means that the *sender* is responsible. It also means that non-spamming *senders* are the ones responsible for choosing a reliable email service that does not allow spamming. If you chose an offline carrier to deliver your package and that carrier also insisted on bringing several dirty, greasy, packages crawling with bugs along with your package, you would be horrified when your correspondent notified you. You wouldn't be upset with the housekeeper who refused to accept the packages; you would be upset with your carrier. And you are going to talk to your ISP, I gather from other posts and are gathering information so that you can make an intelligent complaint.

Blocklists have worked so well, in fact, in getting the *senders* to control spam, that spammers are using compromised machines to send their spam. Now you have another problem for the ISP - how to educate their customers to secure their computers so they don't get the trojans that will send spam. Some people have suggested some form of licensing - just as now anyone who drives must have some form of drivers' education and pass a test. But even though we have drivers' licenses, there are still drivers who do really dumb things and we are stuck in mile long traffic jams while the accidents are cleared. Once we were in hurry to reach the airport and got in such a traffic jam. From then on, my husband found alternate ways to get to the airport. There are email services that are web based that can be used when email is blocked to prevent thousands of people from receiving spam. (In fact, one suggestion for spam control that I heard was that people would start using web based email that would control spam)

It *is* the bulk email that is causing the problem. People do send unsolicited, even commercial email, as individual emails, but there are not enough that an individual cannot deal with it individually and usually more effectively than reporting through spamcop. I once suggested that there be a blocklist based on including a header line that denotes bulk email (something that many legitimate bulk emailers already use). If an email was reported as bulk and did not have that header line, then the sending ISP would be placed on a blocklist. Any bulk email that contained that line would be accepted, but individuals could whitelist the bulk emailings that they wanted (again whitelists are common) so that they never received unsolicited bulk email. Everybody would be happy. The bulk emailers could send as many as they wanted and anyone who wanted to receive the Viagra, how to get rich on eBay, and porn emails could get them. People who don't want them could reject them. and all individual emails would be accepted. The idea was shot down because it requires a major change in how people email. Until ISP's were educated and educated their customers, there would be thousands of ISP's blocked and thousands of people saying "why can't I send a simple email?." And the present blocklists are working pretty well for those who use them.

And, as a matter of interest, I received spam through the Turkish network. I reported them (not thru spamcop). Now it is a little more personal. Who should be inconvenienced? You - who has to change to your alternate email address to communicate with your collegue and make a call to your provider? or me - who has to *do* something with unwanted email? Not just once, but every day.

And who has a real chance of making a difference? Your provider is much more likely to listen to a customer.

Miss Betsy

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  

×