Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
QuietQuality

Banned But No Link-Back

Recommended Posts

Thank you ~ but I am still uncertain if you are writing about one thing, and I am understanding something different, and so we're going round in circles.

My question is: If the rDNS is set by Kablonet then can I still send email via them and receive via my US based webhost and thus preserve the business name, rather than have to use an email address such as xyz[at]kablonet.com.tr

In other words set outgoing mail server as eposta.kablonet.com.tr and incoming server as mail.quietquality.com

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It also means that non-spamming *senders* are the ones responsible for choosing a reliable email service that does not allow spamming.

Well, we have already established in this thread that BT Internet, and AOL do get listed as carriers of spam, but the threshold is different for them. We also have established in the thread that the host advertised by spam-COP on its main page has been listed, and quite a few times.

So it seems that no carrier comes our looking that good

You seem to be writing as if you think that my posts are designed to vent feelings about my mail not working. If this was ever the case, it certainly is not the case now.

But I would have liked to find a more accommodating page, and process, when first directed to spam-COP some months ago.

I regret that a Turkish carrier, apparently delivered porn to your computer. Most Turkish people are in my experience helpful, peaceful and religious people who would not approve of porn at all.

Highlighting them without reference to the American and other carriers of such material was I think unfortunate.

Stephen

PS Isn't a Betsy a slang expression for a large automatic hand-gun? Are you aware of this connection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It also means that non-spamming *senders* are the ones responsible for choosing a reliable email service that does not allow spamming.

Well, we have already established in this thread that BT Internet, and AOL do get listed as carriers of spam, but the threshold is different for them. We also have established in the thread that the host advertised by spam-COP on its main page has been listed, and quite a few times.

So it seems that no carrier comes our looking that good

You seem to be writing as if you think that my posts are designed to vent feelings about my mail not working. If this was ever the case, it certainly is not the case now.

But I would have liked to find a more accommodating page, and process, when first directed to spam-COP some months ago.

I regret that a Turkish carrier, apparently delivered porn to your computer. Most Turkish people are in my experience helpful, peaceful and religious people who would not approve of porn at all.

Highlighting them without reference to the American and other carriers of such material was I think unfortunate.

Stephen

PS Isn't a Betsy a slang expression for a large automatic hand-gun? Are you aware of this connection?

You seem to be writing as if you think that my posts are designed to vent feelings about my mail not working. If this was ever the case, it certainly is not the case now.

I thought that I had acknowledged that. But you asked about alternate solutions and about dealing with bulk email which is the problem. I really think that my idea is a really good one, but unfortunately no one anticipated that spam would be such a big problem and we are stuck with the present blocklists (spamcop is only one such blocklist and the easiest to get off).

But I would have liked to find a more accommodating page, and process, when first directed to spam-COP some months ago.

Well, that's why the web forum was established so that it would be more accommodating.

Highlighting them without reference to the American and other carriers of such material was I think unfortunate.

Actually it wasn't porn spam that I received if you read my post again and I realize that they would be upset which is why I reported them. I don't take the attitude that someone is deliberately out to inconvenience me, but assume that if they are told, they will immediately correct the problem or will tell me what the problems are. Which seems to also be your attitude, only that the first time you encountered spamcop, it wasn't a "mannerly" exchange.

The reason that I mentioned the Turkish network was that that was the one we are discussing. And I tell everyone that I know that uses Comcast that their provider is irresponsible. Actually, from my experience the Turkish network is much more responsive. Like backhoe outages, large carriers may occasionally have spammers slip through and be on a blocklist for a short time. Like driving on the freeway, occasionally there are times when an alternate route is needed.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's why the web forum was established so that it would be more accommodating.

Indeed, the forum is excellent, supportive and broadens one's perspective. It reminds me of something called 'The Reflecting Team' which is an up-to-date tool used by Family Therapists.

Do constructive ideas expressed here in terms of product development get taken up? Does anyone know what changes have occurred that may be directly attributed to the forums?

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's why the web forum was established so that it would be more accommodating.

Indeed, the forum is excellent, supportive and broadens one's perspective. It reminds me of something called 'The Reflecting Team' which is an up-to-date tool used by Family Therapists.

Do constructive ideas expressed here in terms of product development get taken up?

They probably will be, but the Forums are still too new to tell.

Does anyone know what changes have occurred that may be directly attributed to the forums?
Not yet - the Forums are still too new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question is: If the rDNS is set by Kablonet then can I still send email via them and receive via my US based webhost and thus preserve the business name, rather than have to use an email address such as xyz[at]kablonet.com.tr

As nobody else has answered this, the answer is YES. rDNS is a seperate issue: you can do it whether or not they fix rDNS. rDNS has nothing to do with the 'from' field matching the 'reply to' field.

I do hope I've understood the question properly!

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do hope I've understood the question properly

I hope so also ... I thought I had several times, but was obviously not finding the right words ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do constructive ideas expressed here in terms of product development get taken up?

They probably will be, but the Forums are still too new to tell.

Does anyone know what changes have occurred that may be directly attributed to the forums?

Not yet - the Forums are still too new.

This is more likely to occur if there is a management committment that posts should be reviewed and suggestions acted upon, if reasonable.

Is such a policy in place?

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do hope I've understood the question properly

I hope so also ...  I thought I had several times, but was obviously not finding the right words ...

Thanks to both of you ~ I now understand fully and will speak with Kablonet later today.

Stephen

PS Since writing this I have now spoken to engineers at Kablonet, and I understand that they are already in contact with spam-COP about the spam blacklist, and also the rDNS issue.

Edited by QuietQuality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, 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!"  

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.

...spam (not spam, which is a meat product owned by Hormel, who ask on their web site that we not use it in the e-mail context :) ) is about consent, not content. Seems to me that the feature you suggest would allow spammers to "unblock" themselves as well as allowing you to do so! :)

Come on you may be a happy spam-COP user, but how about some creativity, rather than no-can-do here!

...Coming up with creative ways of stopping spam but allowing non-spammers who use the same outgoing IP addresses is not a role I am willing to accept, sorry! :) On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't want to discourage you from continuing to propose the kind of creative ideas you have tried to do so far, my lack of enthusiasm for your first one notwithstanding! :D

Edited by turetzsr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I regret that a Turkish carrier, apparently delivered porn to your computer. Most Turkish people are in my experience helpful, peaceful and religious people who would not approve of porn at all.

...Gee, I hope no one (at least, no one here) thinks that just because e-mail came from (or through) a Turkish server that it must therefore have been written by a Turk!

Edited by turetzsr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's why the web forum was established so that it would be more accommodating.

Indeed, the forum is excellent, supportive and broadens one's perspective. It reminds me of something called 'The Reflecting Team' which is an up-to-date tool used by Family Therapists.

Do constructive ideas expressed here in terms of product development get taken up?

They probably will be, but the Forums are still too new to tell.

Does anyone know what changes have occurred that may be directly attributed to the forums?
Not yet - the Forums are still too new.

...Also, we don't always get direct notice from TPTB in these forums, although JT (SpamCop e-mail service and support of these forums) seems to do quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you come up with a better system for stopping spam, consider the economics.

A large mail server operator pays a metered rate for their traffic, and it is levels.

If they exceed a certain amount of traffic, they may have to either pay for another large chunk, and they may have to pay a higher rate for the overage.

Electricity in some areas is sold the same way.

Right now for one of my postmasters, it costs them over $2,300/month for the real e-mail. If they accepted all e-mail to sort the spam out, it would double, if not triple their monthly bill.

When the mail server gets an e-mail, the only thing that it knows is the I.P. address of the mail server that is attempting to deliver it, and what name that mail server claims to have.

To get access to the rest of the information, the mail server must aggree to accept the message, and the mail server does not know much it will be charged for the mail, or spam.

So your better system of spam filtering needs to identify the difference between spam and real e-mail when all the receiver knows is the I.P. address.

SMTP E-mail is not guaranteed delivery and does not have a guarantee of non-delivery, so anyone that is using it has to accept that there will be mails lost.

With DNSbls, the sender gets notified a problem by the rejection method.

With end user spam filtering, if a message gets misclassified and deleted, neither the sender or the receiver will realize this.

And a large amount of content filters both global and user specific work that way, they just silently delete suspected spam.

Now most real mail servers never send enough spam to end up in the spamcop.net dnsbl.

In almost all cases that people show up here about being blocked, there is a serious security hole in their mail server, and it is being used to relay spam.

The next likely thing that happens is that the mail server is sending virus detected notices to spamtraps and causing an automatic listing. A spamcop.net spamtrap listing lasts a maximum of 48 hours from the last hit.

A small number of cases is where a "clever" user feeds the output of their content filter into spamcop.net and confirms all the reports with out looking at them, and they end up reporting their own mail server.

A small number of cases are from parser errors that are not caught by reporters.

See:

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=140&st=5

But a better solution to spam prevention needs to not increase my postmaster's costs by making them accept more spam. It needs to reduce postmaster's costs.

Unfortunately too many mail server operators will not act on abuse reports until their own paying customers compain that their mail is being rejected.

-John

Personal Opinion Only

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  

×