Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tingo

[Resolved] Spam reporting is dead?

Recommended Posts

I don't think you know what we (tinw) are going through.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I assure you that my experience in this area is considerable, going back fifteen years when I started moderating echo-mail discussion groups and participating in Eudora user support forums, and continuing constantly the entire time.

A few admins who were angry in the beginning may trade a few insults, but from my observation that is not considered rude in the 'admin' world.

I don't think anybody cares how the volunteers treat each other. I definitely don't.

Each poster has hir style.  If one has done any prior reading (or lurked), one recognizes that style.  If one hasn't and - this is where the problem lies - expects a customer oriented answer, then that person thinks the answers are rude instead of just advice from another user.

I think most people can easily tell the difference between personal attacks and other types of speech, such as concise, curt, blunt, or what is often called "plain speech."

Personal attacks have no place in this forum.

(my second post is not so polite, but I was a little annoyed at being ignored).

OK, lets use it as a case in point.

You said, "... because end users like you do not take the time to understand the concepts of email and blocking."

That comment has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's neither helpful nor useful. It's just a gratuitous personal attack on the user. Even if it were true, which it's not, it should not have been posted.

If the primary means of support is to be peer to peer, then the official stance needs to be supportive of that effort.

We do support the effort, but we're not going to condone personal attacks on the users. If the folks in this forum can't provide the necessary information without chiding, criticizing, or chastising the user, they shouldn't be participating.

Castigating users for their ignorance, or for failure to follow procedure, or for failing to read the FAQs before posting, or for failing to provide the details needed for research, or for any other reason, is simply unacceptable behavior.

When you're angry, annoyed, or aggravated, take a breath, step back, and think before posting. Maybe just paste in links to the relevant FAQs and move on.

In other words, ask the questions, get the answers, provide the information, and keep your comments to yourself.

- Don -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but there was a link to some place that did let me start a topic. Which, seventh, I did, not thinking that, as a plain Spamcop user, I should read through pages and pages of intricate technical issues before asking, What is going on?

That's when the drama started, beyond my modest expectations. I felt as if I'd gone to a doctor and been asked, How does it feel? Me: How does what feel? Dr: Well, you tell me, that's what you came here for, didn't you. Anyway, what's your osmeotic pressure? Me: Uhh, pressure, what pressure? Dr: You shouldn't be coming here for treatment if you don't know what pressure I'm talking about!

Michel

36754[/snapback]

Thank you for taking the time to explain how you missed the beginning links and why. I can completely understand because I, too, only read the manual when all else fails. However, a lot of effort has been taken to make the explanations for people who do not have technical fluency.

And I completely understand your little 'drama' since I still feel that way - except for the last example. I understood Wazoo's remarks to me (when I was a newcomer) as being that this information was something I should know - just as I know how to change a tire (though I have never done it). I know that there are people who do not know how to change a tire and actually throw away a tire with a simple puncture. Also people who do not check their oil and then wonder why the automobile has problems.

People who use the internet as extensively as you do, need to either learn some basics about IT work or hire an IT person, IMHO. To use that as an excuse is just not realistic. If you depended on a fleet of trucks to do your work, then you would either be a mechanic or hire one.

I am glad that it all worked out well for you and hope that it continues to do so.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fifth, after three weeks or so, as nothing else was happening, I came on these Forums and found a topic called "Outages", or something like that, and thought I'd ask the simple question: What's going on? Sixth, that particular topic/thread wouldn't let me post, for whatever reasons, but there was a link to some place that did let me start a topic.

36754[/snapback]

That was probably my System outages/instability Announcement Topic. I'm sorry, but I closed that Topic in keeping with our policy of closing Announcement Topics to keep those Topics strictly On Topic and under Moderator+ control. I am glad that you were able to find your way and post here.

In order to bring this Topic to a close, it would be helpful to know the following:

Are you able to successfully use SpamCop to submit your spam via email, get the Response email messages, and go on to use the links in those messages to complete your Reports? If so, great. If not, is your Reporting Account unsuspended? If so, great. If not, please address that with Don or your ISP or whatever entity is blocking messages to you from the SpamCop Parsing and Reporting System and/or Don.

Also, if any entity (ISP, MSP, PHB, etc.) is still blocking most of its customers' email messages that contain email messages that contain spam, viruses, or worms, either Submittal to SpamCop or Response from SpamCop, it's helpful to identify that entity in the hall of shame that we call E-Mail spam submittals blocked by your ISP.

Thanks for your cooperation in these matters.

Edited by Jeff G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In order to bring this Topic to a close, it would be helpful to know the following:

You can close the issue. His only problem was that I suspended his reporting account. I'm working with him to resolve the issue.

There is nothing anyone else can do to help him.

Thanks!

- Don -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Don!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few admins who were angry in the beginning may trade a few insults, but from my observation that is not considered rude in the 'admin' world.
I don't think anybody cares how the volunteers treat each other. I definitely don't.

36756[/snapback]

...This statement is not consistent, IMHO, with what follows.
Each poster has hir style.  If one has done any prior reading (or lurked), one recognizes that style.  If one hasn't and - this is where the problem lies - expects a customer oriented answer, then that person thinks the answers are rude instead of just advice from another user.
I think most people can easily tell the difference between personal attacks and other types of speech, such as concise, curt, blunt, or what is often called "plain speech."

Personal attacks have no place in this forum.

36756[/snapback]

...IMHO, many participants in these fora seem to come here (understandably) bewildered and/or upset about something and do not, for whatever reason, carefully read some of the hints Wazoo has placed in their way to help them request help in a manner that allows us to help them without further information. Then they object, in varying degrees of vehemence, to Wazoo's pointing this out and requesting further information. They believe they have been personally attacked but they are incorrect. IOW (and IMHO), many people can not easily tell "the difference between personal attacks and concise, curt blunt, or what is often called 'plain speech.'"
(my second post is not so polite, but I was a little annoyed at being ignored).
OK, lets use it as a case in point.

You said, "... because end users like you do not take the time to understand the concepts of email and blocking."

That comment has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's neither helpful nor useful. It's just a gratuitous personal attack on the user. Even if it were true, which it's not, it should not have been posted.

36756[/snapback]

...IMHO, you're way off base -- Miss Betsy's remark was both true and useful (in that it correctly suggests that the OP and others should take the time to understand more about e-mail and blocking). It takes quite a bit to get Miss Betsy to the point of being "not so polite" so you can be quite certain that if she reached that point, her reaction was appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<snipped>
You said, "... because end users like you do not take the time to understand the concepts of email and blocking."

That comment has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's neither helpful nor useful. It's just a gratuitous personal attack on the user. Even if it were true, which it's not, it should not have been posted.

36756[/snapback]

...IMHO, you're way off base -- Miss Betsy's remark was both true and useful (in that it correctly suggests that the OP and others should take the time to understand more about e-mail and blocking). It takes quite a bit to get Miss Betsy to the point of being "not so polite" so you can be quite certain that if she reached that point, her reaction was appropriate.

36771[/snapback]

Thank you for understanding the point of my remark - though I admit that it wasn't as politely phrased as it could have been. It was precipitated by what I perceived as a threat to stop reporting.

IMHO, this whole discussion should not be held in this thread at all.

Miss Betsy

Edit: Jeff G. fixed the attribution (due to a missing quote tag) and vertical spacing.

Edited by Jeff G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can close the issue.  His only problem was that I suspended his reporting account.  I'm working with him to resolve the issue.

36763[/snapback]

Still up in the air is the matter of your "missing responses" ... I figure my lack of Deputy e-mail replies is for an entirely different situation, so having only the possibility of ISP filtering impacting your replies to this user.

You can define my words as rude if you want. I'm still amazed that it took 8 posts to get anything like an e-mail address posted, and as it turns out, none of those offered were the one actually tagged as "the e-mail address associated with your reporting account" ...

The suggested mode of "identifying where the user is coming from" seems a bit hard to do .. yes, I tried to factor in language issues, but it is clearly seen that the English language is grasped by this user ... but things like "I thought I was posting e-mail .. by posting into a Forum" ... well, sorry, but that is simply too much of a reach in trying to come up with a one-line answer to solve all the problems (again, noting the lack of any usable information provided after multiple and repeated requests for that data)

Hell, let's go back to the beginning of things like this and bring up the "FAQ" yet again ... but then again, why? I'm tired of trying to work that situation out, and as the last item of "discussion" on that seems to have been the stopping point of Deputy replies, maybe you're right .. time for me to move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you're angry, annoyed, or aggravated, take a breath, step back, and think before posting.  Maybe just paste in links to the relevant FAQs and move on.

In other words, ask the questions, get the answers, provide the information, and keep your comments to yourself.

36756[/snapback]

I don't want to belabor this but I would like to give my perspective as an end (paid) user. I agree with you that rudeness is inappropriate and counter-productive. Having perceived myself to be a "victim" of this in the past, I can now see this from the perspective of the volunteer staff of this forum. The problem is that there is a gulf in the expectations among the administration, forum volunteers and end users. This stems from the paid user's expectation of corporate technical/customer support. It would seem that Ironport would have the resources to provide this. Instead you use a link to an all volunteer, peer to peer forum, giving it an appearance as the "official" (and only) source of support. Even with the clear description of the nature of the support when logging on, this still drags with it the idea that it is corporate sponsored. Thus comes the culture of "customer support" - i.e. the customer is always right, there is no such thing as a stupid question and "I paid for it - you fix it". Expecting the volunteers here to deal with these attitudes as if they were paid employees is exploitative.

If you don't feel that it is in your interest to provide the support, I would suggest the following:

1. Provide a clear disclaimer that you don't provide any support when signing up a customer for paid services.

2. Get rid of the link from your sites to this forum (those finding it from a search are less likely to misperceive it as corporate sponsored) OR show another disclaimer that the forum is a unofficial peer to pees site with little input from Spamcop administration.

3. Provide explicit guidelines to the volunteer staff so that they can decide whether they want to participate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hell, let's go back to the beginning of things like this and bring up the "FAQ" yet again ... but then again, why?  I'm tired of trying to work that situation out, and as the last item of "discussion" on that seems to have been the stopping point of Deputy replies, maybe you're right .. time for me to move on.

36818[/snapback]

A point of view I can fully understand, but what a huge loss to this forum if it should happen. Lack of support fuels frustration, and I sure can feel Wazoo's frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to belabor this but I would like to give my perspective as an end (paid) user.  I agree with you that rudeness is inappropriate and counter-productive. Having perceived myself to be a "victim" of this in the past, I can now see this from the perspective of the volunteer staff of this forum.  The problem is that there is a gulf in the expectations among the administration, forum volunteers and end users.  This stems from the paid user's expectation of corporate technical/customer support. It would seem that Ironport would have the resources to provide this.  Instead you use a link to an all volunteer, peer to peer forum, giving it an appearance as the "official" (and only) source of support.  Even with the clear description of the nature of the support when logging on, this still drags with it the idea that it is corporate sponsored.  Thus comes the culture of "customer support" - i.e. the customer is always right,  there is no such thing as a stupid question and "I paid for it - you fix it".  Expecting the volunteers here to deal with these attitudes as if they were paid employees is exploitative.

If you don't feel that it is in your interest to provide the support, I would suggest the following:

1. Provide a clear disclaimer that you don't provide any support when signing up a customer for paid services.

2. Get rid of the link from your sites to this forum (those finding it from a search are less likely to misperceive it as corporate sponsored) OR show another disclaimer that the forum is a unofficial peer to pees site with little input from Spamcop administration.

3. Provide explicit guidelines to the volunteer staff so that they can decide whether they want to participate

36825[/snapback]

This all makes very much sense (I also thought that I was on my-supplier-Spamcop's forums), except for one thing: I always got the support I needed from Don and Jeff, whom I assume to be the owners of Spamcop. So they certainly do feel that it is in their interest etc.

Michel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you're angry, annoyed, or aggravated, take a breath, step back, and think before posting.  Maybe just paste in links to the relevant FAQs and move on.

In other words, ask the questions, get the answers, provide the information, and keep your comments to yourself.

I don't want to belabor this but I would like to give my perspective as an end (paid) user. I agree with you that rudeness is inappropriate and counter-productive. Having perceived myself to be a "victim" of this in the past, I can now see this from the perspective of the volunteer staff of this forum.

<snip>

36825[/snapback]

...Thanks for the defense! I, too, agree with Don on this point, I just believe that in this case he was incorrect in his labeling of the specific response as "nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's neither helpful nor useful. It's just a gratuitous personal attack on the user." Furthermore, he directed it at one of the three least offensive of the people who try to help the most (I could have understood it more if he had directed it at Wazoo [who I would have still defended] or at me).
<snip> Even with the clear description of the nature of the support when logging on, this still drags with it the idea that it is corporate sponsored.

36825[/snapback]

...And this is one of the most baffling persistent misconceptions. Any suggestions on how we can make it clearer from our (the Forum) side of the house?
If you don't feel that it is in your interest to provide the support, I would suggest the following:

1. Provide a clear disclaimer that you don't provide any support when signing up a customer for paid services.

36825[/snapback]

...This seems a good idea to me! It may be problematic due to the nature of the split services -- parsing vs e-mail. But I'd be interested in hearing from Don (or other SpamCop employee or Deputy).
2. Get rid of the link from your sites to this forum (those finding it from a search are less likely to misperceive it as corporate sponsored) OR show another disclaimer that the forum is a unofficial peer to pees site with little input from Spamcop administration.

36825[/snapback]

...Point taken but I think the first of these two suggestions would have the very unfortunate consequence of making it harder for people who need help from finding the Forum. I'd rather take the abuse .... :) <g>
3. Provide explicit guidelines to the volunteer staff so that they can decide whether they want to participate

36825[/snapback]

...There already are some guidelines: What are the rules for posting to the forum? Perhaps more explicit rules would be appropriate, especially for forum admins and moderators. Still, to me, it seems to boil down to individual style and sensitivity to/ perception as to what is rude or personal attack. Further, there are rarely consequences for people who attack (or, in their, view, retaliate against) those who appear to be criticizing them for failing to carefully review the FAQ and other "read this first" articles [FWIW, I think those consequences should be that they are not helped by those of us more "senior" participants until they subordinate their ire, as you quickly did -- thanks! -- and focus on providing the information in the quality and quantity we need to help them].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This all makes very much sense (I also thought that I was on my-supplier-Spamcop's forums), except for one thing: I always got the support I needed from Don and Jeff,

36830[/snapback]

How did you get direct support from Don and Jeff? The rest of us don't seem to have that access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How did you get direct support from Don and Jeff?  The rest of us don't seem to have that access.

36833[/snapback]

"direct" is a relative term. In this case, it is presumed to be via email, service[at]admin.spamcop.net and support[at]spamcop.net respectively. Also, please keep in mind that the "Jeff" referred to in previous Posts in this Topic is not me, but Jeff T., who posts here as jefft, posts in the newsgroups as JT, and is described in SpamCop's System & Active Staff User Guide as J.T. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This all makes very much sense (I also thought that I was on my-supplier-Spamcop's forums), except for one thing: I always got the support I needed from Don and Jeff, whom I assume to be the owners of Spamcop. So they certainly do feel that it is in their interest etc.

36830[/snapback]

Once again, I've previously provided links to a FAQ entry I generated to identify people, which also includes "owners" .... I see now that Jeff G. also provided a repeated link to that data. As stated above (and in so many other places in both "support" venues) .. there is the "Official" FAQ that has been complained about for years, there's the single-page access version that I built up, there's the KnowledgeBase view that I (was) trying to populate, there are two other FAQ tools that have not been made public .. links to the majority of these FAQ items are at the top of this screen, pointers on the Forum entry page "here" ... yet another item I created was a Portal page (seen at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?act=home ) .... and yet, there is still this "I looked everywhere but I can't find an answer" routine going on ....????

That the Forum is found / listed / identified on the "Official" SpamCop.net web pages yet considered an "unofficial" resource is something I've still not come to terms with myself. That trying to build "better" tools has run me smack into that "Official / NOT Official" scenario has me totally twisted. That this Topic got started by what now appears to be the results of a (Google?) search doesn't really resolve much of the frustration involved here. The links to several FAQs are at the very top of the page, and it's obvious that some of the items identified in previous responses have not been looked at. And not meaning to skip over the Announcement item that shows at each Forum section entry spot titled [How to] post a question .... .... I just find it hard to understand why some folks react so violently to a request for some of that identified data in their request for help. (and the "I'm too busy" response is totally absurd)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<snip> and yet, there is still this "I looked everywhere but I can't find an answer" routine going on ....????

36838[/snapback]

...FWIW, it may not be that the FAQ (and related web pages) is hard to find, it's that a specific answer to a specific question may be hard to find. Anyone who has ever done a web search has experienced that! :) <g>
That the Forum is found / listed / identified on the "Official" SpamCop.net web pages yet considered an "unofficial" resource is something I've still not come to terms with myself. ... <snip>

36838[/snapback]

... This seems the kind of "internal dirty laundry" that is best hidden away from our casual users. It does no one any service for the SpamCop volunteers to be attacking the SpamCop staff or vice-versa. Frustration on both sides is understood and noted by us "insiders." :) <g>
That this Topic got started by what now appears to be the results of a (Google?) search doesn't really resolve much of the frustration involved here.

36838[/snapback]

...Hmm, I seemed to have missed whatever clued you into that. What was the clue?
I just find it hard to understand why some folks react so violently to a request for some of that identified data in their request for help.

36838[/snapback]

...Perhaps because they come here frustrated, scared and/or fed up and (one of) the first thing (s) they see is your frustration that they haven't bothered with the many helpful pointers you've tried to place in their way to posting their question / complaint. Again, we "insiders" feel your frustration but for a first-time participant, this point is easily missed. See, for example, mshalperin's history -- he started out as a self-described "victim" of your prodding for more info and in one of his latest posts is now defending us volunteers! :) <g>
(and the "I'm too busy" response is totally absurd)

36838[/snapback]

...We know that (and, hopefully, the OPs come to know that), but it isn't necessarily obvious for first-time participants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...FWIW, it may not be that the FAQ (and related web pages) is hard to find, it's that a specific answer to a specific question may be hard to find. Anyone who has ever done a web search has experienced that! :) <g>

No argument, but noting that the FAQ under Development is still an open forum for this part of the issue ....

... This seems the kind of "internal dirty laundry" that is best hidden away from our casual users. It does no one any service for the SpamCop volunteers to be attacking the SpamCop staff or vice-versa. Frustration on both sides is understood and noted by us "insiders." :) <g>...

I don't recall making any attacks. The Official/not-official has come up in several places already ... I'm still working on getting over the "why isn't stuff I found in the Forum also found in the (Official) FAQ?" query .....

Hmm, I seemed to have missed whatever clued you into that. What was the clue?...

I'm going with the following ... I read that as a whole bunch of mouse-clicks or key-presses were involved .. first in the "coming to the Forum" (vice ending up in the newsgroups) and then the following description of activities in the search for a way to post a question about a subject that was allegedly just read through ...???

Fifth, after three weeks or so, as nothing else was happening, I came on these Forums and found a topic called "Outages", or something like that, and thought I'd ask the simple question: What's going on? Sixth, that particular topic/thread wouldn't let me post, for whatever reasons, but there was a link to some place that did let me start a topic. Which, seventh, I did, not thinking that, as a plain Spamcop user, I should read through pages and pages of intricate technical issues before asking, What is going on?

36754[/snapback]

Tossing in a search result was just an attempt at filling in yet more blanks .... only way I could come up with the "Official" FAQ not being waded through ....

Perhaps because they come here frustrated, scared and/or fed up and (one of) the first thing (s) they see is your frustration that they haven't bothered with the many helpful pointers you've tried to place in their way to posting their question / complaint. Again, we "insiders" feel your frustration but for a first-time participant, this point is easily missed. See, for example, mshalperin's history -- he started out as a self-described "victim" of your prodding for more info and in one of his latest posts is now defending us volunteers! :) <g>...We know that (and, hopefully, the OPs come to know that), but it isn't necessarily obvious for first-time participants.

36842[/snapback]

http://www.dscripting.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14579 for a bit of frustration on a "support" forum that has gone totally the opposite way on "providing" support for the offered tools ... and note that there has yet to be any follow-up (by the "Official" and owner of the site <g>) Frustration in finding answers is hardly new to me, thus the effort on trying to provide those answers here (in different formats, link placement, etc.) When I do spend the time in researching a problem, web-page after web-page, screen after screen, then come back here and run across things like "surely not expected to read stuff" .... trust me, the actual thoughts don't make it to the screen ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, Don is wrong that the ngs when he was answering questions is the same climate as the ngs today. And the forum has no resemblance to the ngs as far as participants.

One of the lures of the ng and now the forum are the personalties. A lot of people have fun here. However, JT set up a Social Lounge because of the thread drift where just conversations developed in the ngs. It doesn't happen here very much. People are much more on topic. The only topics moved to the Lounge are rants and raves and there is none of the flirting or political arguments as exist in the spamcop.social. How many times do you see 'troll alert' here? (though I wonder at some of the more difficult ones who never come around to understanding - and usually, if they are real people, they do - i.e. two people who are still talking to us in this thread right here.)

This forum is much more like the old ngs and the old internet in 'attitude' and, probably is a surprise to newcomers (as it was to me), but like finding the restaurant where the locals eat when you travel, it is a good surprise, at least to me.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"direct" is a relative term.  In this case, it is presumed to be via email, service[at]admin.spamcop.net and support[at]spamcop.net respectively. 

36835[/snapback]

Thanks Jeff. I realize that the "direct" support was via email. I found it unusual that he was getting support from "Don and Jeff" for "months" prior to coming to this forum - and only came here because he no longer was receiving email responses from them. The SpamCop reporting and email sites don't mention any "direct" email support addresses from admin. I have had some dealings with them (Ellen) but only after I was advised to report something to a deputy from here. In this case, he didn't even know of this forum until he couldn't get what he needed "directly". Also, out of the blue, Don shows up here to his rescue with not only the solution to his problem but with criticism of his handling here by forum moderators. (Have you ever seen this before?) It seems as if he has an unusually up close and personal relationship with both email and reporting sides of SpamCop Admin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the defense! I, too, agree with Don on this point, I just believe that in this case he was incorrect in his labeling of the specific response as "nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's neither helpful nor useful. It's just a gratuitous personal attack on the user." Furthermore, he directed it at one of the three least offensive of the people who try to help the most (I could have understood it more if he had directed it at Wazoo [who I would have still defended] or at me)....

It's not the particular people he was criticizing. He appeared to be defending a specific individual with whom he's had an unusual prior ongoing support relationship. There have been a lot more flagrant "gratuitous personal attacks" on other participants here which didn't generate any (public) comments from him. He seems to want to have it both ways - have free (to SpamCop) technical support provided by volunteers, while maintaining the appearance that it is an "official" corporate site with administrative oversight.

still drags with it the idea that it is corporate sponsored.[

And this is one of the most baffling persistent misconceptions. Any suggestions on how we can make it clearer from our (the Forum) side of the house?...

As I said above, part of the problem is that this forum has the superficial appearance of an official SpamCop site - i.e. a free-standing site (not part of a larger group of support forums) named "SpamCop.net"; the direct link from SpamCop. Making it look less "company sponsored" with a different name, graphics and a disclaimer attatched to the link that this is an independent, peer to peer, volunteer staffed support forum might help (somewhat).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the defense! I, too, agree with Don on this point, I just believe that in this case he was incorrect in his labeling of the specific response as "nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's neither helpful nor useful. It's just a gratuitous personal attack on the user." Furthermore, he directed it at one of the three least offensive of the people who try to help the most (I could have understood it more if he had directed it at Wazoo [who I would have still defended] or at me)....
It's not the particular people he was criticizing. He appeared to be defending a specific individual with whom he's had an unusual prior ongoing support relationship.

<snip>

36894[/snapback]

...Respectfully begging to differ (that all he was doing was defending the OP), but Don not only criticized (an) specific individual(s) in his first post
Please accept my apologies for the rude reception you've gotten on your first foray into our user support forums.  I assure you it wasn't intentional.

36722[/snapback]

but went on in a later post to raise a specific instance with one specific individual
(my second post is not so polite, but I was a little annoyed at being ignored).
OK, lets use it as a case in point.

You said, "... because end users like you do not take the time to understand the concepts of email and blocking."

That comment has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's neither helpful nor useful. It's just a gratuitous personal attack on the user. Even if it were true, which it's not, it should not have been posted.

It was particularly this latter to which I objected.

still drags with it the idea that it is corporate sponsored.
And this is one of the most baffling persistent misconceptions. Any suggestions on how we can make it clearer from our (the Forum) side of the house?...
As I said above, part of the problem is that this forum has the superficial appearance of an official SpamCop site - i.e. a free-standing site (not part of a larger group of support forums) named "SpamCop.net"; the direct link from SpamCop. Making it look less "company sponsored" with a different name, graphics and a disclaimer attatched to the link that this is an independent, peer to peer, volunteer staffed support forum might help (somewhat).

36894[/snapback]

...Alas, most of this is not something we can do from this side of the house (the Forum). We (in some cases, only through Wazoo and there are things even he can not address) only have control over what is in the Forum and not at all what is on the SpamCop web pages. Perhaps changing the official-looking "SpamCop.net" logo on the Forum pages would help a bit but my guess is that that isn't the one of the top few problems. I'm more inclined to go with additional (and perhaps even more "in your face") disclaimers that this Forum is not "direct" support from SpamCop staff (although they might occasionally pop in).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Jeff.  I realize that the "direct" support was via email.  I found it unusual that he was getting support from "Don and Jeff" for "months" prior to coming to this forum - and only came here because he no longer was receiving email responses from them.    The SpamCop reporting and email sites don't mention any "direct" email support addresses from admin.

The receipt that Email Filtering Service users get when they sign up contains Jeff's email address. Many people make note of that in case they need to use it later.

My email address is in the wild everywhere. A lot of our system mail, such as a password reset is sent with my email address. I've sent a zillion warnings to people about reporting errors. Anybody who has gotten a response from me when they used one of our contact forms has it. The same applies to people who have used a contact form that goes to Jeff. When he responds, they have his email address.

In this case, he didn't even know of this forum until he couldn't get what he needed "directly".

Sounds to me like the sensible thing to do. He had been able to correspond with Jeff and I in the past, and now he suddenly wasn't getting any responses.

Also, out of the blue, Don shows up here to his rescue

In post #11 of this thread, Nov 27 2005, 08:54 AM, (which might be private and not visible to everybody) Wazoo announced that he had sent me email about the issue. From the information he provided, I was able to identify the user. I explained the problem in post #17, Nov 27 2005, 01:24 PM, 4½ hours later.

with not only the solution to his problem but with criticism of his handling here by forum moderators. (Have you ever seen this before?)

I've kept my mouth shut as long as I can. When I came in to review the thread, I called it as I saw it.

It seems as if he has an unusually up close and personal relationship with both email and reporting sides of SpamCop Admin...

Everybody who writes to me directly gets the same treatment. The same applies to Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
with not only the solution to his problem but with criticism of his handling here by forum moderators. (Have you ever seen this before?)
I've kept my mouth shut as long as I can. When I came in to review the thread, I called it as I saw it.

36902[/snapback]

...Fair enough. I hope on your part, Don, you'll recognize that some Forum culture (and individual "senior" personality) has grown during that (very, very long) period during which you "kept [your] mouth shut" and so has taken on a life of its own. Specifically, what contributors like this OP view as rude replies by Wazoo are (at least IMHO) more the result of their (often understandable) personal issues/frustration and not an intent by Wazoo to be rude and the frustration of us "senior" contributors to what we view (sometimes, perhaps, too quickly) as the "newbies" going right past our requests for additional information or suggestion to read the FAQ and continuing to complain or repeat their question or switching from an attempt to find the resolution to their problem to manifesting offense at someone else's reply. Some of what you have written does suggest you recognize this but other things (such as your criticism of Miss Betsy) IMHO suggest not.

...By the way, before the Forums, I spent a good deal of time perusing the SpamCop Help newsgroup and the level of what I found to be irrelevant, rude replies there make the Forums look like family playtime. :) <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The SpamCop reporting and email sites don't mention any "direct" email support addresses from admin.

The FAQ contains addresses, web forms, etc.

Also, out of the blue, Don shows up here to his rescue with not only the solution to his problem but with criticism of his handling here by forum moderators. (Have you ever seen this before?)  It seems as if he has an unusually up close and personal relationship with both email and reporting sides of SpamCop Admin...

36890[/snapback]

"Out of the blue?" .... Don responded to an e-mail I sent on this user's behalf. Don is identified as "Administrative support" in the list of folks I created .. yes, he was one of the first "paid" employess hired by Julian way back when. Yes he has access to the Reporting side of the house. No, he does not have direct access to the (SpamCop Filtered E-Mail Account) e-mail side of the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Respectfully begging to differ (that all he was doing was defending the OP), but Don not only criticized (an) specific individual(s) in his first postbut went on in a later post to raise a specific instance with one specific It was particularly this latter to which I objected

I see your point - he did single one individual out (an odd choice of someone to portray as "rude") citing an out of context remark. I still think this happened because she got his line of fire (and ensuing "discussion"). I don't think he would have appeared in this thread at all if he had no prior contact with this OP.

...Alas, most of this is not something we can do from this side of the house (the Forum). We (in some cases, only through Wazoo and there are things even he can not address) only have control over what is in the Forum and not at all what is on the SpamCop web pages. Perhaps changing the official-looking "SpamCop.net" logo on the Forum pages would help a bit but my guess is that that isn't the one of the top few problems. I'm more inclined to go with additional (and perhaps even more "in your face") disclaimers that this Forum is not "direct" support from SpamCop staff (although they might occasionally pop in).

There's only so much that can be done to create "the look of unofficial" without the risk of reverting back to an obscure newsgroup. The other approach is for IronPort to make it "official tech support". You would have to put up with a lot more crap, but at least get paid for it...

BTW, how do you create those nested quotations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×