Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DavidT

SpamCop FAQ (Forum version) development

78 posts in this topic

This is a Forum to help users with the SpamCop Reporting System. Questions about SpamCop Email should be directed to that forum (via this link which opens a new window), not this Forum.  If your mail is being blocked, please provide the complete text of the error or bounce message, including the IP Address of the system being blocked.

34[/snapback]

May I suggest a slight change in this pinned post as follows:

This is a Forum to help users with the SpamCop Reporting System. Questions about SpamCop Email should be directed to that forum (via this link which opens a new window), not this Forum. If your mail is being blocked, please read the the pinned item Why Am I Blocked? FAQ, before posting anything. You will also need to provide the complete text of the error or bounce message, including the IP Address of the system being blocked

Wazoo, you have done a great job reducing the number of pinned items.

Edit 8-16-04: Thanks Wazoo for updating the pinned post

Edited by dbiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the newsgroups, a bit of concern over some reference terms in use .... specific FAQ reference is;

I've got a specific FAQ on this "problem" sitting at (dang, is this where the confusion started?)

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1848

which is found from a link at

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2238

"DN" <address removed> wrote in message

news:cgo5ec$lnq$1[at]news.spamcop.net...

>

> My problem, like many people asking for help, is that I do

> not know all the details of how spamcop works. Therefore,

> I cannot know what information is relevant when I ask for

> help. I was not deliberately withholding information.

Though there is nothing there to debate, the question always

seems to be why folks seem to then err to the side of not

providing enough data. Where it really hurts is when the

newbiw wants to appear more knowledgeable, so the tech

terms come out, them thinking that they will explain all to

the "experts" ... not realizing that their use of mis-applied

terminology only serves to confuse the hell out of the query.

> Now WazoO's FAQ mentioned in one of the posts, is a bit

> clearer than spamcop's own site, and made some of the

> things clearer.

First of all, it isn't "my" FAQ. Due to the Forum reconfiguration

request never having been acted upon, all I've done was to

convert the www.spamcop.net series of Help pages into a

linear web-page access point, then expanded that to include

items that only exist within the Forums at this point. There's been

a lot of work by many folks to make that content appear.

> But I wouldn't dare show that to our

> B.Sc. Management students, as it rushes through the

> steps too quickly for those unfamiliar with the

> internal workings of e-mail.

Though definitely not meant to be an e-mail primer, your

remarks raise some issues. Checking the contributor's list

on that referenced FAQ item, there are some folks that

make the claim that they know nothing about the technical

details of e-mail, SpamCop, the Internet, etc. .... yet,

pointing out errors, suggesting re-wording, etc. was performed.

There is a number on screen showing the "number of times

viewed" .. but this is the first "complaint" I've seen about this

particular FAQ item.

> Personally, I'm all in favour of making machines think

> like human beings, rather than forcing humans to think

> like machines. We should not have to learn about

> different types of bounces or any of the inner workings

> of e-mail, any more than we have to learn about the

> organisation of the Royal Mail.

Not sure about needing to know about the organization,

but it certainly appears that the Royal Mail has its rules

and regulations that one would want to follow and adhere

to if one gets involved in their process (and that's only

after looking at a handful of Google responses) <g>

Just off hand, there are numerous human beings I can

think of that placing their thought processes into a machine

would simply scare the hell out of me. Some of these

folks are too dangerous while still cocooned within that

frail human body <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wazoo, I got lost reading your post.

Not sure what the intent of the post is.

Is it to garner a change in how we are developing the FAQ?

It appeared to me that the OP was complaining about how the FAQ was set up, yet at the same time saying that Wazoo had made things a bit clearer than the SpamCop original FAQ

Just to restate my point of view.

I believe that the newly developed forum based FAQ structured by Wazoo utilizing contributions from many sources is a vast improvement over the official SpamCop FAQ and that the work begun should be continued despite the lack of any official sanction.

Is is a perfectly formated and structured FAQ - of course not. It is not meant to be one. It is the notebook for pulling related information together in a useable format that might one day be formalize, but in the mean time is very usable and helpful in meeting the needs of SpamCop users.

Lets keep up the good work, with special thanks to Wazoo and all who have contributed.

Edited by dbiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase "Wazoo's FAQ" hit me hard enough this time that I had to comment specifically on that "title" .. What was in my mind when carting this over 'here' was to make sure that I'm not about to suck up credit for all the work done by others. Even the specific FAQ item in question was started by JeffG, worked over by several folks .... I think my "contribution" was adding in some additional stuff (yours, I believe <g>) Sorry for the confusion, it was a bit of a snap decision in the middle of other things going on <g>

On the other hand, I'm behind in checking to see what other changes may have sown up in the Ironport staff work .. adding more sections is in the air, darn thing is monstrous as it is <g>

Bottom line ... thanks to all that have helped ... wish I could keep up, knowing there've been a number of posts recently that need to be added pointers from that FAQ .. all the recent step-by-step e-mail stuff to be specific

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should not have to learn about

> different types of bounces or any of the inner workings

> of e-mail, any more than we have to learn about the

> organisation of the Royal Mail.

If you have a problem with the Royal Mail, you had better know the right terminology and why you think it is a problem to you!

I don't have to deal with the Royal Mail, but if it is anything like the US Mail, there are things you do have to know if you are working with it - which many spamcop users are - either as online merchants or as server admins.

For the average end user, it is more like an automobile. There are some people so clueless that they throw away a tire when it goes flat rather than getting it repaired. There are others who can actually do minor repair or maintenance jobs (like change the oil or replace a battery). And there are some people who remember how a piston engine works from science class even if they couldn't identify the actual parts in a car.

The problem, FMVP, is that people who know nothing about email ask questions about it that are the equivalent of asking why doesn't my automobile fly like a plane. And worse than that, argue over the answers.

OTOH, often the techies tell way more than you want to know (I am not a techie), but there is no mystique about it. It is like having the mechanic explain to you what is wrong with your car. Sometimes it is good to know a little bit more than "it is ready for you now."

The trick on FAQ is to have levels of information - basic and advanced so that some users don't get overwhelmed and others who want to know 'how it works' can find out.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miss Betsy, the original poster will never (?) see this ... I had copied that post over from a thread in spamcop.help .. Subject Line = E-mail reporting now broken for 4 days ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ok if the OP doesn't see it. It is a general comment.

Too many people think that email is 'too complicated' - yet people manage to be consumer savvy about many other products that they use daily that are just as, or more, complicated.

If they don't have the time, inclination, or ability to manage their cars, bank accounts, etc., then they hire mechanics, accountants, and other people who have the expertise.

However, they don't pick those people blindly - they rely on recommendations and other criteria. One has to know /something/ about how it works to know whether you are getting good advice or not.

It used to be that people treated medical doctors as 'God' - some, I suppose, still do. But consumer savvy people know a little bit more about health issues nowadays and can make decisions on their own to get second opinions. There is no reason why ISPs and techies should be regarded as the only ones who can understand the concepts of email and whether a particular course of action is best.

My point for months (years?) is that if consumers got involved in spam fighting, it would 'tip the balance' so that spam would be a thing of the past. ISPs don't seem interested in enlisting their customers in the spam fight (any more than doctors liked being knocked off their pedestals). One of the ways to get consumers enlisted is to banish the bogeyman of "I don't understand the jargon" Probably no one considers fuel injectors and carburaters to be 'jargon' Why should they consider the difference between 'bounces' to be jargon?

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The trick on FAQ is to have levels of information - basic and advanced so that some users don't get overwhelmed and others who want to know 'how it works' can find out.

Miss Betsy

Excellent thought. Just remember that it makes the FAQ that much harder to create, but will probably be worth the effort in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever it is that has been tasked to update the www.spamcop.net FAQ pages has been busy. Things have moved around a bit, some stuff re-titled, some stuff added ... for instance, there is now a FAQ on configuring MailHosts (although it turns out that this FAQ entry actually feeds one directly into the configuration process ..)

Have added some stuff to this version of the FAQ to better match with that version ... also made another request to somehow make contact with whoever this person turns out to be ... One item being re-named "How to submit spam" but that item doesn't actually hold that information (maybe I'm jumping the gun, but ....) another one that specifies "forward as attachment" for e-mail submittals, but doesn't take into account that some e-mail apps don't have this function ..

Pointed out that I've no knowledge if this person monitors either the newsgroups or here, so not sure where to actually post anything to get that person's attention .. the FAQ entry on updating the FAQ has a link to a spamcop.net page that lists both Forum and newsgroup links (and again, the Forum link brings one directly into the Help Forum, rather than at the Top level that would allow one to see that there were other major divisions of subject areas)

Anyway, after all these years, there is some action on the FAQ. Hooray!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brought here from a discussion started in the Help Forum.

I (and others) have been trying to figure out why people are not seeing the expanded FAQ from this forum. 

[*]The path you too to post your question, did it ever show you the actual Help forum with the pinned items at the top?

Thank you for you nice reply, and honest inquiry.

Yes, actually I did see the pinned FAQs but my reasoning (perhaps wrong) was:

1) I was using Spamcop reporting resources

2) I looked at the Spamcop reporting FAQs on the page that I had questions on

3) When I hit the forums, I thought that those FAQs were probably forum FAQs not Spamcop reporting FAQs...since I thought I had just done that.

You have me there .. I thought this would have been addressed in the Title I used "Original SpamCop FAQ & Added Forum Items" ... any idea on how else to word it to indicate that it's an amalgamation of both the "original" FAQ and the additional items I've added from here, there, and other places?

[*]Did you figure you had already seen the FAQ (from the reporting page) and were not going to find anything differently in the one on this forum?
Aye, that's it exactly.

[*]Is there a way to make to forum FAQ here more visible to someone with a question about the service?
I'd say dump the legacy FAQs on the Spamcop reporting page if they aren't being updated/aren't support's communication preferred medium, and instead when the user hits the FAQs on Spamcop reporting page have the link dump them directly to the forums, then the the user will "know" they are to look there for the answers. Or provide instruction on the Spamcop reporting page "Hey all answers/support for SC Reporting is done on the forums; so get right over there and start reading; here's the link."

I find this a bit confusing actually, but trying to remember that you didn't look at the FAQ here either. First of all, you hit at an interesting time, as there has been an IronPort staff person tasked with updating the FAQ data you mention. (As a matter of fact, that person just made contact with me yesterday afternoon) The "pointing to the Forums" I see in several places. I can't talk to the e-mail pages, but logging into a www.spamcop.net page and hitting "Help" there send me to a page that includes;

SpamCop forum

New web-based forums have many extra features, including built-in search capability. Please observe the posting rules.

And clicking on the "posting rules" link (I know, silly assumption that most folks would at least peek at this link) .. I see a page that includes;

Web-based forums

New web-based forums are now the primary method for getting help.

(Now that's interesting ... this page has been "touched" just this afternoon/evening ... earlier today, I had complained that it pointed directly into the Help Forum, asking that it be changed to drop users into the "top" level of the Forums .. now unfortunately, it's a circular link, pointing back to the page with the "posting rules" link on it .. dang it ....)

So to try to make sense out of what's going on ... there's a paid IronPort employee tasked with updating the www.spamcop.net FAQ pages .. part of the (as described in the press as) "Ironport buying SpamCop" deal. Once upon a time, I was advised that Julian and JT "shared" the servers these FAQs were residing on (and RW was doing the FAQ care-taking). The actual status today is unknown to me at present. On the other side of the house, JeffT has his business going and some of the things he provides is the hosting of the newsgroups, Forums, and the paid SpamCop e-mail accounts. I'm just volunteering my time here. The FAQ found here is something I threw together, intially as a temporary thing, waiting and hoping that JT would blow the structure and content of the web-Forum out a bit and include a section to hold the FAQ (see http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1672 ) As such, the Forum-FAQ includes (again, pointing to the Title I used) the contents of the spamcop.net FAQ pages but also including pointers to items within these Forums (and elsewhere) ...

As I type this, I've no idea whether this is something the IronPort employee can do, as I don't believe that Ironport bought JT's side of the house (bought into is something I also don't know anything about) .... so there's the strange issue (perhaps) of corporate structuring that may be in play here.

Anyway, here's some history, some background, but as you can also see, I'm not following some of your statements. Again, I can't talk to following Help from one of the e-mail screens, and even from the path I defined, if you jump immediately into the FAQ links, I agree that the Forum FAQ doesn't show up .. yet, I'm also back to the way I titled the FAQ "here" which I thought made it obvious that there was "more" .... How else could it be stated (recalling that there is a limit to the number of characters involved <g>)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if you changed the sequence.

FAQ about Spamcop Reporting & Email Service (including links to web page FAQ)

That keeps it honest, but shows people it is different.

And if you are talking with Ironport, see if you can't get them to change that 'primary' method of help for the reporting side to 'Help on Reporting is available in a Forum and Newsgroup format' The Forum contains an expanded FAQ - especially for those who have received notification that their IP address is on the Spamcop Blocklist.

Miss Betsy

Edited by Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... for instance, there is now a FAQ on configuring MailHosts (although it turns out that this FAQ entry actually feeds one directly into the configuration process ..)

...and here's something interesting....when I clicked on that link ("Add first hosts"), it took me to the "Add mailhost" form, but with an Ironport employee's address filled in the box! That happened because the link was hard-coded with her "authcode." I clicked on the buttons to send her some test probes just for fun and then I also sent her an email message detailing the problem...she has now removed the link.

Have added some stuff to this version of the FAQ to better match with that version ... also made another request to somehow make contact with whoever this person turns out to be ...

I know who she is...I'll PM it to you. :-)

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...and here's something interesting....when I clicked on that link ("Add first hosts"), it took me to the "Add mailhost" form, but with an Ironport employee's address filled in the box!

I saw that also, wanted to believe it was a fictional address. Was a bit shocked when her e-mail arrived here and it was the same address. Another death in the family offered up some distraction, but finally got an e-mail composed and sent to her which included this bit of data <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you are talking with Ironport

In the midst of defining that actually. Have asked if updating the FAQ is her primary mission or if it's just an "additional duty as assigned" thing. Also asked if she has the time and / or authorizatin to delve into / use any data found "here" ... Am awaiting a response to a query as to just how much "input" she wanted, offering samples of a typo to the 'submitting by e-mail' item that only specifies "forward as attachment" without mentioning that some e-mail apps don't have this capability ... added in the circular loop pointers mentioned in a previous post here with a suggested/requested change in some of those links ...

Anyway, got a note from RW and he's also still involved with the web-page FAQs, so there is actually a lot going on (in the background <g>)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi! I am the mysterious Ironport employee mentioned above.

I welcome your feedback on the FAQ. Feel free to PM me your suggestions. I'll handle them as I can, I can't promise all changes will be made.

I am NOT overhauling the FAQ, that is way outside of the scope of my current effort. I am, however, trying to hit the entry pages and most frequently visited pages to make improvements. So again, feel free to forward suggestions.

- Courtney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One definite PLUS about this FAQ-PLUS is that it is, not up-to-date, but constantly being updated by someone with some knowledge of what it's all about. (The old and still extant FAQ was good, as far as it went, but IMHO it wasn't updated often enough). Thanks Wazoo (and the others).

Now I got a problem with one sub-sub-chapter of this FAQ (actually in the old FAQ but listed in the new one too), in "How do I get... the full, unmodified email?", under "Netscape Webmail", http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/59.html : (1) with the current format of the Netscape Webmail, the indicated procedure shows the full headers but with spurious blanks and linebreaks; and (2) HTML bodies are not shown properly.

I'm asking because my POP3 client is on sick leave and (AFAICT) Netscape Webmail refuses to "forward" (as attachment) emails which are not in plaintext to begin with... (My Netscape.net account is full of spam and I wouldn't be using it if my usual one was working.) Also, Netscape Mail is supposed to be able to access the Netscape Webmail accounts using some kind of proprietary variant of IMAP but I can't get it it right. Oh, well... maybe it's just AOL hand-in-hand with the spammers again <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the kind words on the FAQ here.

Looking at the FAQ contents, the only thing I would try to guess at is asking if there might be some option settings on controlling the view brought up by the click on the yellow triangle ... I'm comparing this to option found under HotMail and Yahoo accounts for what "can" be displayed.

That said, fired up a Google search ... made it to a Registration page that stated that if I had an AIM acount, I could "login" using that data. No idea if it's due to using IE, mt security settings, whatever ... but that didn't work. So it does appear that I'd have to download and actually install Netscape to go there.

So then ended up on the "Netscape Unofficial FAQ" page. No one has yet asked anything like this (most dealing with why they can't access Netscape Webmail with something other than Netscape) ... but, Jay Garcia posted a note about a "direct" contact person. (In the back of my mind, I'm thinking that Jay used to be an "AOL inside contact" person that Julian talked to .. but it may just be another guy with the same name?) But, maybe there's some help via that support Forum or even this contact point ..???

http://www.ufaq.org/modules.php?name=Forum...1ed77d4f071a019

Here's hoping that this helps.

BTW: this search led me to the PA Attorney General's page that has a few more "how to see header" instructions ... (though the instructions for Netscape Webmail are a match for what's already been suggested)

http://spam.attorneygeneral.gov/header.cfm

and yet another possibility: Free E-Mail Providers Guide http://www.fepg.net/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No official notice that I've found anywhere ... discovered while researching the status of an ISP/user query as to status of a specific IP address ...

Start with doing the lookup for an IP's BL status by plugging in the IP at http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml

If listed, there is now appearing some data, instructions, and an address selction box for an admin to request an automatic de-listing of the specific IP address. Heavy emphasis that this is a one-time courtesy based on the "promise" that no further spam will be spewed and no more complaints are expected. So one should make sure that the issues have actually been addressed before attempting this action.

Further data may be made available sometime .. or this may only be a beta and may disappear if it gets abused.

Text seen this morning looked like;

Automatic delisting

If you are the administrator of alicia.netpivotal.com and you are sure it will not be receiving any more reports of spam, you may cause the system to be delisted without waiting for us to review the issue.

You may only do this once per IP! So please be sure that the problem is really and truly resolved. If you delist your system and we get more spam reports about it, you will not be allowed to delist it again without a full manual review.

You must be able to receive mail at one of the addresses below. Until you have received and confirmed your request, it will not take effect.

Looking for potential administrative email addresses for 192.168.0.199

192.168.0.199 is an mx ( 10 ) for www.example.com

192.168.0.199 is an mx ( 10 ) for example.com

Send Delist Confirmation to --> abuse[at]www.example.com

.............................................. abuse[at]example.com

.............................................. postmaster[at]example.com

(more addresses listed as probably found during lookups on the IP)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In light of the most recent change in reporting limits I would like to suggest the following change in our FAQ

Current FAQ layout (edited section) items of interest in red

SpamCop Parsing and Reporting Service

<snip>

What do I need to know to get started reporting spam?

Parsing & Reporting spam - decisions, problems

<snip>

Why was my authorization revoked?

Is there a limit on reporting spam?

Why did my spam load increase after I started Reporting?

The 48 hour reporting limit is buried in the Parsing & Reporting spam - decisions, problems link.

The Is there a limit on reporting spam? references only the quantity limit.

The change I would like to suggest is to alter the Is there a limit on reporting spam? link (click on the link for the example of my suggestion)

What do the rest of you think about this idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the way you presented it, but .... List added too much blank space/lines, so dropped that, went with the "arrows" .. again, fighting with the way this thing handles white space. So precedant set .... <g>

When I started this, it was only supposed to be a temporary thing, only waiting for JT to set the "new" Forum section just for FAQs and such data. That's why I only pulled over the "top" level www.spamcop.net FAQ entries, thinking that all the sub-topics would flush out the categories in the FAQ Forum Topics (or at least along that line) .. I'm still not sure of all the impacts of the changes over there that Coutney did, though haven't found any massive differences, added a couple of entries here that I caught. I'd kicked a note to all concerned yesterday about a few FAQ items ... RW changed the 72 to 48 hours entry, explained his way of thinking on another, admitted that he'd seen some discussion on another but didn't know what the results were or why that one hadn't been changed .... Courtney has been assigned to other duties (the latest web page layout was her prime task)

Think what I'm trying to get to is that I suppose I could bring over all the sub-levels also, but ... there have already been the many comnplaints that it's too big the way it is. One of those things where it's too bad it wasn't done from the start, but for the same reasons, I hate to think of going through all of that work and only then would JT find the time to add in some of the other Forum sections. On the other hand, I never did get a response back on how to format a request to make it easier for him to "build" a new layout. Going through the documentaion on this thing, trying to keep what's present really mucks up the works (back to comments made when he upgraded the software .. that would have been the best time to reconfigure stuff, although for trouble-shooting purposes, also the worst time <g>)

Anyway, are you agreeable to the way I slipped the data in there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a limit on reporting spam?

-----> 3,000 per day

-----> not older than 48 hours

Using your method I would delete the hyperlink in the "Is there a limit on reporting spam?" as it is redundant to the link "3,000 per day"

My thought was not to expand the base list at all but when you clicked on the link "Is there a limit on reporting spam?" that would take you to a new sublist.

Personally, either way works for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(this one points both there and within "here") so maybe even this effort has been wasted .. but hey, it's a start.

Last Revised : 24 Nov 2004

Iam not quite sure HOW or WHY you would think it wasted time...this site isnt even configured for a 'casual" browse thru" to find one single answer to any simple answer.

Try putting the information in a 'glossary" index...i.e..."Copy/Pasting the Reporting of spam email address"

hey, what the heck, just a thought.

getsteppin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "waste of time" dealt with the (then) upcoming re-writing of the original FAQ pages on the www.spamcop.net pages .. and the anticipation that JT would blow out the structure to include more sections ... the first happened but the version "here" still contains additional data ... the second hasn't gone anywhere.

Your statement "to find one single answer to any simple answer" is a bit amusing. You started three new Topics in the "E-mail Set-up" Forum, which is self-described as "how to set up a SpamCop E-mail account" .... but the question I'm thinking you asked (logic provided in the answer t"there") dealt with that you have somehow lost any reference to an e-mail reporting address that would have been provided in the first e-mail from the SpamCop system at the time you registered for a "Free-Reporting" type of account. This same data would be seen on the screen seen at the time of logging into a www.spamcop.net web-page. (To save future search time, I'd pointed this user back to the sign-up page to get another accouint started.)

Try putting the information in a 'glossary" index...i.e..."Copy/Pasting the Reporting of spam email address"

That one has me confused. On one hand, I did start a Glossary, which does include a word followed by a definition. Folks already complain that the single-access point structure I used for the FAQ is already much too large ... adding in the actual data contents to that one screen seems pointless.

If I actually understood your question (posed in those other new Topics you started) ... I have been accused a number of times for apparently calling people stupid ... I'm not sure how to actually write something up to tell them that they should keep a copy of the 'welcome' e-mail, make notes somewhere containing the account data included in that e-mail without sounding like that going on ... Where and how do you store the information needed to log into your ISP account, your HotMail account, your Yahoo account, etc. ...???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wazoo,

Would you please look into why there are three sections to "SpamCop Mail Service", and consider changing its name to "SpamCop Email System" for consistency with JT's original naming of Forum #4?

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you please look into why there are three sections to "SpamCop Mail Service",

At the time, I was thinking that there were multiple 'parts' of the e-mail system, such that there would be some sense to breaking things out a bit. Looking at it now, I'll admit that this seems to have been lost sight of ... (then again, on pain pills, antibiotics, haven't eaten real food for a number of days now ... taking a 3/4" drive torque wrench to the face has me a bit on the incoherent side of things for a bit <g>)

Anyway, noting other oddities, items titled the same, but one points to a www.spamcop.net entry, the other pointing to a Forum discussion (guess which one has more data <g>) ... I edited a bit, added more entries here and there, then started in with the not able to focus my eyes again .... I'm thinking that that the e-mail section needs a good bit of work, looking at re-sorting to get back to that original thought of sectionalizing it a bit ..... even now recalling the bit of debate over me sliding e-mail spam submittals into the E-Mail Forum ... which now that the E-Mail section has been renamed to E-Mail System & Accounts would now be wrong .... as compared to my original viewpoint that there were either problems with the actual parsing and reporting or it was an issue with the e-mail submittal process .. this is why I moved most of those Topics to the e-mal section ... now I wouldn't, as that situation no longer fits the current Forum description. But, should I go back through and move all those old posts between sections again? (not tonight, for sure <g>)

and consider changing its name to "SpamCop Email System" for consistency with JT's original naming of Forum #4?

It's been so long, I've forgotten what the original name was actually. I went ahead and changed to what I renamed that section to a while back ... but, I will point out that this particular section started with the original www.spamcop.net FAQ, and if one was to look at http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/289.html ...?????

I hope I made sense in here somewhere <g>

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  
Followers 0