[Resolved] Spam reporting is dead?

[turetzsr]

<snip>

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").

36916[/snapback]

...Quite true -- and I have no problem in principle with Don's using one of Miss Betsy's comments as an example or that he used it out of context (since we can fairly easily go back and check the context for ourselves which, admittedly, I did not do), only with using that particular example (indeed, using Miss Betsy herself, who deserves it far less than Wazoo [sorry, Wazoo] or I <g>).

<snip>

BTW, how do you create those nested quotations?

36916[/snapback]

...Well, in one of two ways:

• copy the inner quotation into the Windows buffer and paste it into Notepad, then start the Reply in the Forum, then copy the inner quotation from Notepad into the reply (have to edit it a bit to put the proper BBCode [square brackets, etc] in)
  
• "depress" the "Quote" buttons of each post I want to quote, then click the "Add Reply" button to start my reply.
  

[mshalperin]

The FAQ contains addresses, web forms, etc..

36905[/snapback]

There are web forms but I don't see any addresses listed on the Spamcop website

"Out of the blue?" .... Don responded to an e-mail I sent on this user's behalf.

It was "out of the blue" in the sense that his first entry was to apologize "for the rude reception you've gotten on your first foray into our user support forums" and for losing direct email contact after July. Did you alert Don to this "rude reception" in your email to him?

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.

This user also said he had long prior contact with "Jeff" (J.T.) who I believe is involved with the email side.

[SpamCopAdmin]

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 was keeping it generic without naming names until Miss Betsy brought it on herself when she said, "(my second post is not so polite, but I was a little annoyed at being ignored)" in post # 21. She was referring to her attack on Tingo in post # 20 where she accused him of being ignorant about email and blocking, and not being committed to spam reporting. You can review Tingo's comments that precipitated her attack in post #15.

Since she bought up her own comments, I decided to make an example of them.

Neither of her accusations are true, and her entire comment is totally irrelevant to the issue. Tingo is filtering spam for his company and he has reported 131,506 spams. I don't see any reason to think he is either ignorant or not committed. If he feels a little overwhelmed by it all, he should be free to express that without being attacked for it.

I don't think he would have appeared in this thread at all if he had no prior contact with this OP.

I posted because Wazoo wrote to me about the problem, and because it was the only way I could contact the user.

- Don -

[turetzsr]

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

...There already are some guidelines: What are the rules for posting to the forum?

<snip>

36832[/snapback]

...In advance, I apologize for ignoring netiquette and replying to my own post but I thought it better than editing a post after which so much has been added.

...A better reference to posting rules than the one I gave above is: SpamCop FAQ: What are some general tips for responding to questions in the forum?. Like most rules, IMHO, they should not be applied dogmatically.

[turetzsr]

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 was keeping it generic without naming names until Miss Betsy brought it on herself when she said, "(my second post is not so polite, but I was a little annoyed at being ignored)" in post # 21. She was referring to her attack on Tingo in post # 20 where she accused him of being ignorant about email and blocking, and not being committed to spam reporting. You can review Tingo's comments that precipitated her attack in post #15.

Since she bought up her own comments, I decided to make an example of them.

Neither of her accusations are true, and her entire comment is totally irrelevant to the issue. Tingo is filtering spam for his company and he has reported 131,506 spams. I don't see any reason to think he is either ignorant or not committed. If he feels a little overwhelmed by it all, he should be free to express that without being attacked for it.

36922[/snapback]

...Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. In post 9, Miss Betsy offered some serious and helpful responses and questions to which Tingo did not reply. By post 20, for whatever reason (sorry, I'm too lazy to go through each of Tingo's posts to try to determine exactly what (s)he did or did not say that might have prompted it) Miss Betsy (may have - I'm not even certain that she was making the point about Tingo her/him self, just about end users in general) reached the conclusion that Tingo avoided opportunities to learn enough about email and blocking to find the answer. The quote from Tingo she included may shed some light on this and certainly justifies the view that Tingo is not all that committed to find the solution to the problem keeping her/him from being able to report spam. The whole point being that if you come for help and someone asks you for more information to be able to help find an answer, ignoring that person is not an appropriate means to reach the goal. There are some people for whom beyond a certain point the kid gloves are self-defeating and they need a mild slap across the face to get them to seriously participate in the discussion that will (hopefully) lead to a solution. Whether or not that is true in this case may be debatable but that debate is more appropriate in a place beyond the view of the casual participants.

...Further, you could look intensively for the next several hundred hours at all of Miss Betsy's posts in these Fora without finding anything harsh about someone who comes here with a problem. As I've mentioned elsewhere, if you're going to pick on one of us volunteers for being rude, you have many more examples from among my posts to choose from! <g>

[Miss Betsy]

I was keeping it generic without naming names until Miss Betsy brought it on herself when she said, "(my second post is not so polite, but I was a little annoyed at being ignored)" in post # 21.  She was referring to her attack on Tingo in  post # 20 where she accused him of being ignorant about email and blocking, and not being committed to spam reporting.  You can review Tingo's comments that precipitated her attack in post #15.

Since she bought up her own comments, I decided to make an example of them.

Neither of her accusations are true, and her entire comment is totally irrelevant to the issue. Tingo is filtering spam for his company and he has reported 131,506 spams. I don't see any reason to think he is either ignorant or not committed. If he feels a little overwhelmed by it all, he should be free to express that without being attacked for it.

This is my last post about this subject. I have re read the thread and IMHO, there is nothing different in Wazoo's posts than in Don's as far as 'rudeness' goes. If a person had come here complaining about not being able to reach spamcop and got a response from Don saying "it is in the wild" he would have probably replied in the same tone to Don as tingo did to Wazoo. I see nothing disrespectful in eithers' posts.

My post was more in the newsgroup style - short, to the point, but I humbly suggest, absolutely on target. tingo admits in later posts that he 'doesn't have time' to read and understand how spamcop works. Like Don's 'generic' accusation of rudeness (which everybody assumed was toward Wazoo, but may only have been against me or perhaps not against anyone - just acknowledging that the customer is always correct), I was generic about the general lack of understanding that IMHO allows spam to exist. That it exists among end users like myself is regrettable. That it exists among businesses is inexcusable. I responded in a more thoughtful, tactful style later, I believe.

I was responding to his comment that he would no longer report spam. Although I don't think that not reporting spam makes one part of the problem, I do think that not understanding how the system works does make one part of the problem. Blindly reporting spam without understanding about the glitches that can occur, the IB's, etc. is not good and I can understand why some in nanae object strongly to spamcop.

I would like to point out to Don that tingo was referred twice to the Why is my Authorization Revoked Page and actually visited it without ever finding the contact form.

I can understand why Don apologized to tingo. It is the first rule of customer service, that the customer is always right. Since tingo had given several addresses in previous posts, there was a way that Don could have contacted tingo privately. There are also PM's. To publically criticize the volunteers for rudeness is not a good idea - especially when there would be no support if it weren't for us. If it weren't for Wazoo forwarding the question to Don, tingo never would have gotten an answer.

I am glad that tingo got his problem taken care of and that he harbors no ill feelings toward me for my lack of patience. Although Steve says that I am rarely rude, I have been known to be rude (or in some cases, as Wazoo, perceived to be rude by talking over people's heads). However, generally I work it out with the poster (as often Wazoo does). In fact, the only people whom I feel I have never gotten to a mutually respected position with are SpamCop employees.

Miss Betsy

[tingo]

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...

36890[/snapback]

No, sir. Nothing mysterious there, except that they run a business and we run a business, and their response is as professional as one might expect. When we pay for a service, especially one with a presence on the net, the first thing we do when something isn't working is write an e-mail. If no answer, resend the e-mail. Still no answer? Take the phone, but that's not convenient if it involves a transatlantic call. So, instead, I went on their site to see what was up. That's how I got on to the Forums. This whole issue about corporate vs. volunteers is nothing I had a clue about before, and certainly nothing I want to have an opinion about at this stage.

A few more things: 1. It's not like we've had the intense business relationship you seem to... suspect (?), at the most it's been a couple of times earlier. But when you get hold of a good, professional, effective and especially well-formulated contact, you keep their name and address, that's all. 2. Don has spent much more time off the forum resolving the current issue with us, in his usual professional manner, than he has on it. And 3. Spamcop is just one (albeit a vital one) of several hundred business contacts our company is involved with, but we're still not prepared to hire a full-time staff member just to read FAQ's.

Michel

[tingo]

I would like to point out to Don that tingo was referred twice to the Why is my Authorization Revoked Page and actually visited it without ever finding the contact form. 

36945[/snapback]

Just for the record: I am very grateful for this, as it was the first concrete and useable information I was getting. I was certainly going to act on it, but by the time you had written this, my partner (who, incidentally, having been a US citizen until the age of 50, is much more fluent in American English than I am) and I were still trying to translate Wazoo's posts into a language we could understand. And, most important, Don had contacted us directly off-forum in order to resolve the issue.

Michel

[Jeff G.]

Michel, thanks for the above. A simple statement like "Thanks for your help, we are discussing this issue with Don off-forum and will let you know the results" would have been very helpful.

[turetzsr]

Michel, thanks for the above.  A simple statement like "Thanks for your help, we are discussing this issue with Don off-forum and will let you know the results" would have been very helpful.

36979[/snapback]

...It may not have been quite that simple (or perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying) but I think it "was," not "would have been:"

OK, folks, sorry for not getting back to the thread earlier, but Don and I have been busy sorting things out off-forum.

<snip>

36754[/snapback]

and

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

<snip>

- Don -

36763[/snapback]

<g>

[dbiel]

...It may not have been quite that simple (or perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying) but I think it "was," not "would have been:"and:) <g>

36993[/snapback]

The point is that the simple suggested message would have been much more helpful if it have been input much earlier in the topic, the point at which the off-forum discussions with Don first began. We are grateful for getting the most recent reply, but it would have avoided a lot of the issues raised if the suggested simple message were presented much earlier.

[SpamCopAdmin]

The point is that the simple suggested message would have been much more helpful if it have been input much earlier in the topic, the point at which the off-forum discussions with Don first began. We are grateful for getting the most recent reply, but it would have avoided a lot of the issues raised if the suggested simple message were presented much earlier.

36996[/snapback]

The support issue was over the instant I posted in the forum.

*He* didn't need to post *anything* after that, and *you* shouldn't be criticizing him for what you perceive as some sort of failure on his part.

- Don -

[SpamCopAdmin]

Michel, thanks for the above.  A simple statement like "Thanks for your help, we are discussing this issue with Don off-forum and will let you know the results" would have been very helpful.

36979[/snapback]

It looks like we just can't keep from chiding the users about their failures.

That makes me sad.

- Don -

[dbiel]

The support issue was over the instant I posted in the forum.

*He* didn't need to post *anything* after that, and *you* shouldn't be criticizing him for what you perceive as some sort of failure on his part.

- Don -

37006[/snapback]

Don, my reply was to a question posted by turetzsr (Steve T) That is way the quote was included.

It also serves as an explanation to others.

It also serves to explain why the topic got off base

Any time a topic goes "off forum" without any indication that is happening it creates problems within the forum.

I suggest that you also look at the admin topic

Link provided for your benefit http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...indpost&p=36758

[Wazoo]

Let's start with the Topic Title: spam reporting is dead?, No reporting taking place for 3 weeks .. which then included the query: Question: is it because reporting is dead, or because something happened to our account?

1st reply: Post moved out of the How to Use (System parts & Functions not fully explained under an existing Help menu / option) Forum section to the Reporting Help Forum section. Title objected to with a pointer to the graphic at the top of the page that (or following that link) shows that reports are flowing along for everyone else. Apparently ignore because "Wazoo doesn't speak English" .... The fact that the Reporting and Filtered E-Mail accounts are separate functions wasn't understood because "Wazoo doesn't speak English" .... the lack of data offered was pointed out, but later explained because the user has no time to read anything previously posted, came into the Forum in some unconventional way and thus sidestepped all the instructional items placed in the way so as to suggest how to post a question and get a quick answer ... and pointing this out wasn't clear enough because "Wazoo doesn't speak English" ....

Tingo responds with some snide remarks about being only a user ... not understanding things like "at the top of the page" .. graphic .. link .. status .. reports going out .. e-mail address associated with the Reporting Account (replies by posting the "secret" reporting account, but never once mentioning the e-mail account associated with the Reporting account)

In an attempt to limit possible damage I edited out Tingo's reporting account code from that post. The follow-up to that is that I screwed up. The words now are that I should have grabbed that address and included that in the (future) e-mail to Don. Words coming in my direction are that "the user provided me exactly what I asked, so that my following remarks on posting of the reporting account code data were seen as abusive. And considered even more abusive were my queries on why the links hadn't been followed, why none of the FAQs or even the [How to] post a question items were looked at. (One would note that nothing has been brought up about the handling of the exposure of Tingo's reporting account codes..?) The link to the listing I generated on SpamCop staff was offered in this same reply .... dozens of posts later, it is noted that this link has still not been followed/looked at.

Jeff G. replies with "it works for me" (again, noting that the graphic & link show that it's been working for a lot of people) ... but Tingo thinks that Jeff G.'s answer is "wonderful and understandable" ..???? However, Tingo then states that a link was followed, but didn't apply (noting later on that yes it did, being the root of the issue, as it turns out)

Based on the still missing data, I start digging to try to make some of it show up. Tingo responds to that informational post with a request to make it all disappear ... yet still offers up none of the required/requested data. I'd offered up a possibility based on the data that came up in the WHOIS .. Tingo responds that there is no connection, but again, offers little data to explicitly clear things up. Says yet another FAQ is looked at, but doesn't apply, then continues the "Wazoo doesn't speak English" theme. Three e-mail addresses are offered up, those I use to contact Don ... but it turns out none of these e-mail addresses are actually "of value" .. once again, none of them being the "account associated with the Reporting Account" ....

A number of other postings occur, my notification to Don, other attempts at explaining things .. Tingo comes back with once again, not understanding "Wazoo's English" ... doesn't understand technical things like MX records ... states that there is some confusion, somehow thinking that "making a post in a Forum" is somehow considered the same as "sending an e-mail" ...????

Tingo then responds to a later post suggesting that "no longer reporting spam" was an option ... leading into the post by Miss Betsy that was later turned into an example ...

My next response led me to yet another (ISP) site that offered no helpful data on possible SMTP servers and such ... even asked if Tingo would go the effort of sending me an e-mail, such that his outgoing server could finally be identified. That post was never received a response.

Only now does Don arrive and offers the now famous apology. Then identifies the "e-mail account associated with the Reporting Account" asked for in the beginning. Then brings up the missing e-mail replies. The additional identification of the Forum as a "backdoor route for support" can only be seen in couple of different shades of a not-so-nice color.

The words then commenced to flying.

So we have Tingo running with that "Wazoo doesn't speak English" ... doesn't feel the need to have to read anything before posting ... gets excited over having additional data requested because he doesn't think it's applicable ... does read some other things, but doesn't see them as applicable either ... ignores other data and action requests .. but gets overjoyed when someone that does have access to the data requested here by folks that can't come up with the missing data ... on and on ...

Don reads my requests for data, pointers to existing links, the references to FAQ entries, and my "mishandling of provided data" as being rude .. but then picking a Miss Betsy post to use an example ... mis-steps all around, I'd say. The suggestion to "close the Topic" left other issues unresolved.

So let's bring this to a close. I'm the one tagged as being rude. Tingo is still playing the "Wazoo doesn't speak English" game. Something has either been done or is in the process to clear up the "Tingo reporting spam doesn't work" problem. The fact that only after some of the "missing data" was provided was when I had something to take upstream and did exactly that cannot be overlooked or ignored. Had the data been made available in the first post, absolutely none of this follow-on controversy would / could have happened. Note the many other Topics that started down this path that have simply been moved to the Lounge as being more of a rant than a request for help.

[Miss Betsy]

The support issue was over the instant I posted in the forum.

*He* didn't need to post *anything* after that, and *you* shouldn't be criticizing him for what you perceive as some sort of failure on his part.

- Don -

37006[/snapback]

The deus ex machina has spoken: email service [at] spamcop.net for support.

Miss Betsy

[mshalperin]

It looks like we just can't keep from chiding the users about their failures.

That makes me sad.

37007[/snapback]

This type of "chiding" (and a lot stronger is some cases) has been the culture of this forum for a long time without any prior comment from you or other SpamCop Admin. What about this discussion was so different that you felt compelled to criticize the volunteer staff? Was the difference that it involved a high volume customer with whom you had significant support contact previously and only came to this forum because he had lost contact with you? Do you now see this forum as the equivalent of SpamCop (IronPort) technical support?

[SpamCopAdmin]

This type of "chiding" (and a lot stronger is some cases) has been the culture of this forum for a long time without any prior comment from you or other SpamCop Admin.

That doesn't make it right.

What about this discussion was so different that you felt compelled to criticize the volunteer staff?

Nothing special. As I said in post #47 of this thread, I've kept my mouth shut as long as I can. Ellen, Richard, and I have often discussed the "user abuse" issue, but nobody wanted to say anything for fear of rocking the boat.

That reluctance has passed. I decided to address the issue and let the chips fall where they may.

It's truly unfortunate that a few people succumb to the temptation to chide, chastise, criticize, and castigate the hapless user who makes a misstep. Maybe now they'll find it in their hearts to resist the temptation and put the devil of rebuke behind them.

The people who come here for help don't know what sort of information we need, or what's important to us. Many of them have no idea how to explain their problem. We need to ask them straight out, in plain, simple English, to provide the specific information we need to resolve their problem, and stop being mean to them when they don't understand.

My father told me one time that the responsibility for successful communication rests on the shoulders of the writer, not the reader. If we don't get the answers we want, it's our job to ask again and again, and explain it differently each time, until we get the information we need. We need patience and perseverance, not putdowns and pugnacity.

Was the difference that it involved a high volume customer with whom you had significant support contact previously

I don't know him. A search of my outgoing traffic reveals several exchanges with him going back to February of 2004, so I know we've successfully corresponded in the past.

and only came to this forum because he had lost contact with you?

That's exactly what happened.

Do you now see this forum as the equivalent of SpamCop (IronPort) technical support?

Nothing has changed. This forum is a user support forum. LOTS of people get the help they need here.

- Don -

[Miss Betsy]

Nothing has changed. This forum is a user support forum. LOTS of people get the help they need here.

However, they get the help from other users. The primary problem of misunderstandings is that users come here expecting to get 'customer service' type replies. That expectation colors their view of responses (just as it seems to be coloring your view).

As I explain to people who feel that Wazoo's responses are put downs, that's his style. You can take or leave it. The ones who take it, learn something. I remember one time that in one thread, someone was spending all of his time responding to alleged insults by Wazoo and ignoring anything useful posted by Wazoo or anyone else. At the same time in another thread, someone was thanking Wazoo for his help after several 'clarifying' posts. Neither poster had a clue and didn't understand what Wazoo wanted in the beginning.

Increasingly, people who get as far as posting a question are the 'difficult' ones - either because their problem is difficult or because they can't understand the FAQ, because they refuse to read the FAQ because their time is so valuable, because they are angry and frustrated, because they are basically rude people, or because they feel their problem is unique and should be 'fixed' immediately.

The Moderation of this forum has been 'self-moderated' just as the newsgroups. Regulars were beginning to discuss the problem that more and more people who post are getting annoyed with the 'ordinary' peer to peer answers. If the SpamCop administrators who had also noticed it, had joined in that discussion, it might have been resolved without volunteers 'finding other things more important than continuing to volunteer.'

My solution was to use the FAQ as 'template' answers. The fun of the newsgroups were the blunt and frank opinions people expressed. It is less so on the forum, but still, with the different styles, it is clear that you are not communicating with a robot.

In order to have a forum that is interesting enough for volunteers to offer user support, it has to be interesting. People who offered real help to some posters used to have lots of fun trading insults with 'cartooneys' in the ngs. They are not active in the forum.

Miss Betsy

[turetzsr]

What about this discussion was so different that you felt compelled to criticize the volunteer staff?

That reluctance has passed. I decided to address the issue and let the chips fall where they may.

<snip>

We need patience and perseverance, not putdowns and pugnacity.

37047[/snapback]

...Although I seem to be in the minority among the "senior" Forum volunteers, I appreciate what you are trying to do here, in general.

...Your use of the word "we" is potentially a bit misleading, however. SpamCop staff and the volunteers are not "we" if for no other reason than, as one of my fellow volunteers has pointed out, SpamCop users are *your* customers, not ours. Still, that does not mean that we volunteers should not try to treat other users with respect and cut them some slack (until such time as they have made it unambiguously clear that their only reason to participate in the forum is negative). OTOH, I do not think it unfair for us volunteers to point out situations where others are being unreasonable, such as the "my time is too valuable to read and try to understand the FAQ and I demand that you address my problem without my providing enough helpful information" attitude that is too often displayed. If we can do that in a manner that isn't "mean," all the better, but I'm not willing to go so far as to insist that other volunteers have an obligation to never be "mean." <g>

However, they get the help from other users.  The primary problem of misunderstandings is that users come here expecting to get 'customer service' type replies.  That expectation colors their view of responses (just as it seems to be coloring your [Don's] view).  

<snip>

37053[/snapback]

...IMHO, your entire post is very well said, Miss Betsy (as usual)! <g>

Edit: to indicate who "your" is refering to (too easy to take out of context)

[mshalperin]

Nothing has changed.  This forum is a user support forum.  LOTS of people get the help they need here.

I agree, lots have been helped by and enjoy the forum. However, if you read another thread in the Lounge section: Forum as a Support venue, you'll see that the staff is unclear about the "mission statement" of this forum and their role. I've never encountered another paid service or product whose only "official" technical support was through a volunteer, peer to peer forum.

I don't know him.  A search of my outgoing traffic reveals several exchanges with him going back to February of 2004, so I know we've successfully corresponded in the past

This begs the question as how he came to receive support from you (and Jeff T) for over a year whithout having any prior contact with this forum. How did he get "direct" access to SpamCop Admistation. I have had contact with Ellen, but only after I was advised to report a problem to her by the staff here.

[Miss Betsy]

I've never encountered another paid service or product whose only "official" technical support was through a volunteer, peer to peer forum.

The reason for this was Julian, the founder of spamcop, considered that having several viewpoints presented was more helpful than one on one contact because what one person didn't know, another might, or what one person had difficulty communicating, another person might. And, it does work that way. In the beginning, it was more of a 'user group' than 'technical support' and Julian often contributed to discussions.

I don't know anything about the email service. At one time JT was very active there.

The newsgroup is more of a user group still - but mostly server admins, with a few brave souls who are not intimindated by techies.

Nowadays, if you want to get 'free' technical support, generally an online forum or 'live chat' with what I am convinced are robots are the ways you get help - plus extensive FAQ and documentation - all written by techies for techies, IMHO. I don't think they have any 'employees' answering questions in the forums, but don't quote me. It does seem that there are only a few people who answer questions and very little discussion about issues. I assumed that they were professionals who either like being helpful or hope that if you are too confused, will remember their names when you go to look for professional help.

The whole concept of 'user groups' is from the old internet when you could trust others. People helped each other out just like people leave unlocked cabins stocked with food in the mountains. What Don doesn't realize is that many of the people accessing the forum think of themselves as 'customers' not users. That was one of the reasons the forum was created. IMHO, most questions are answered by the FAQ and the customer never gets to posting the question so that increasingly the ones who post are 'angry' customers who, for whatever reason, cannot find the answer they want NOW in the FAQ.

This begs the question as how he came to receive support from you (and Jeff T) for over a year whithout having any prior contact with this forum. How did he get "direct" access to SpamCop Admistation. I have had contact with Ellen, but only after I was advised to report a problem to her by the staff here.

Jeff T's contact information is provided when one signs up for the email service according to someone's post recently.

Possibly, since he did receive a warning for an improper report, he knew Don's post from previous encounters. Or, possibly, businesses who use spamcop for filtering, also get a contact email upon signing up.

Miss Betsy

[SpamCopAdmin]

This begs the question as how he came to receive support from you (and Jeff T) for over a year whithout having any prior contact with this forum.  How did he get "direct" access to SpamCop Admistation.

See my post #47 in this thread.

Tingo is a cqmail.net user, and he told us that he is reporting spam for his company, which tells me he has a corporate account with JeffT, and which means he had to correspond with Jeff in order to create the account.

Jeff's users routinely contact him about spam reporting problems, and he redirects those messages to me for action. When I respond, they have my email address.

Or maybe it was because I sent him a notice about a reporting error in December of 2003 and he came back asking for help in preventing the error from happening again. He had my email address at that point.

As I pointed out in #47, my address is in the wild. I've sent over 15,000 notices of one kind or another to users over the years. A LOT of people have my address.

- Don -

[Miss Betsy]

A LOT of people have my address.

But, NOT any of the people who have not made a reporting error, but want to contact you about a particular reporting problem. IMHO, that is the point. Not everyone knows where the 'wild' is and unless something has gone wrong previously, has no idea how to contact the 'official' support.

And some people do not want to have responders 'guess' as I did, how one would have access to that address - even if it was a pretty good guess.

What they want is the address. They don't want anyone saying that this needs to be known before they can be helped, etc. They want someone in authority to say that it will be fixed. They do not want to hear that they can do this or that in order to fix it. Not everyone, of course, but there are enough who are annoyed that it is not the first thing they see after hitting the 'help' button, that another 'user' who tries to help is attacked. And they are especially not interested in helping to make the FAQ more visible so that they wouldn't need an address.

All of this should no longer be in this topic because it has nothing to do with the original poster and his problem.

Miss Betsy

[Jeff G.]

I have now posted Don's email address service[at]admin.spamcop.net (or a slightly-longer spaced-out version) for all the world to see in these Forums a total of 29 times.

Edit (dbiel) color coded address for easier reading