Jump to content

DavoDavo

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

DavoDavo's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/6)

0

Reputation

  1. Hi agsteele, I don't really disagree with anything you say. Well, just one thing, which is that I shouldn't be unhappy with spamcop its the recipient ISPs. This is correct to an extent, but what I am actually unhappy with is the entire anti-spam movement. Your reply is really a good example. You have clearly outlined why aggressive spam filtering works for your case. Thats great, you have made an informed decision about spam filtering. However, 99.99% (probably more) of users of email do not understand the issues and have not made an even slightly informed decision. Re-read the conversation in my previous post: US: "unfortunately our emails to you are not getting through" Recipient: "No, my email is working fine I got some email a minute ago" US: "Yes, but there must be a spam filter blocking some mail because ours bounced" Recipient: "Could you fix this please" US: "Unfortunately its your spam filter which is the problem, could you white list us please, would you like instructions?" Recipient: "I don't have a spam filter" US: "Sorry, you're right - your ISP is blocking the email" Recipient: "My ISP hasn't got a spam filter, I never asked for it" This is actually a simplified version, in reality most people are far more confused and inclined to assume that I can "fix it". It is these people who are being hurt by over-aggressive spam filtering applied on their behalf and without their informed consent. Yes, the ISPs save on bandwidth but the general public loses their email. If the overall false positive rate is just one percent (I believe it would be much higher) then hundreds of millions of legitimate emails are being junked EVERY DAY. This has got to be costing economies billions - possibly more than the cost of the spam in the first place (which I agree is a terrible cost).
  2. As I sort of expected, inhabitants of this forum either don't get the point or fundamentally disagree with me, I can't be entirely sure which. First, since you ask so nicely, the IP was 203.31.48.33 and my search showed only reported on a spamtrap. I have every reason to believe the ISP is taking all reasonable action to prevent subscribers sending spam, but I'm happy to be proven otherwise. Also, one other misunderstanding - I had bounces from 6 ISPs, but many more individual delivery failures. To be fair to spamcop. The majority of our problems are caused by individuals and ISPs with poorly configured spam filters. The problem is the default settings are far too agressive and there is no real understanding of the cost of "false positives". I just have to comment on whitelists, which many seem to think solve the problem of over-aggressive spam filters. For example, StevenUnderwood said "The difference is that I have a whitelist to keep my expected email flowing". Sadly, whitelists are of very little help for people who want to do things like hear from customers they've never met before. I'm in the travel business. Every day I and the businesses I support receive hundreds of emails from people we've never met before - these emails are requesting travel services. I'm not going to go through our communication process in great detail, but it does involve our own dedicated email server and websites. Trust me when I tell you that all your simplistic ideas on whitelisting will only make a small impact - I know because I've tried them all. In our business, everyone has an anti-spam system which puts junk into their local email account. They MUST check this twice per day. At present we have a false-positive rate less than 1% but this is not good enough. The effort to do this - maximum 5-10 mins per day is DWARFED by the time we spend dealing with email blocked by overagressive spam filters. To give you some idea, here is a typical phone call following up a delivery failure. After introductions: US: "unfortunately our emails to you are not getting through" Recipient: "No, my email is working fine I got some email a minute ago" US: "Yes, but there must be a spam filter blocking some mail because ours bounced" Recipient: "Could you fix this please" US: "Unfortunately its your spam filter which is the problem, could you white list us please, would you like instructions?" Recipient: "I don't have a spam filter" US: "Sorry, you're right - your ISP is blocking the email" Recipient: "My ISP hasn't got a spam filter, I never asked for it" US: "Well they have, from the headers it appears to be [insert overagressive spam filtering system], could we fax the headers to your ISP on your behalf, please?" etc. Don't even get me started about dealing with other ISPs (starts with, "what is your account name, please" and gets worse). I was asked recently if I would pay a third-party service $1 for every bounced email they got through to the recipient. You bet I would. To anyone who reads to the bottom of this post - thanks for putting up with my rant
  3. I DID read the FAQ, and I DO understand how these things work. I understand spamcop doesn't block my email. The recipient ISPs using spamcop's systems block my email. I don't have the time to contact every ISP who blocks my email in this way (six so far this morning). So instead I complain to the providers of the system they're using. Not only to blow off some steam but also to raise the issue that innocent parties like me are suffering because of overagressive spam filtering that spamcop facilitates, even encourages. I don't post the IP because I assume my ISP will be working to get off your stupid blacklist and I don't want to add any potential for confusion. The communications I am referring to ARE critical so I use alternative means such as a phone call if they don't get through. This is the "penalty" that I referred to - the extra cost to my business of additional communications. If you think this is trivial, to cover the bounces this morning I needed an extra staff member at $15 per hour. We're a small business and this is not a trivial expense. Final point. My customers are not web savvy - it is amazingly difficult and time consuming to explain to them even an apparently simple thing like how to whitelist us. In many cases they are not even aware their ISP is running very aggressive spam filtering that is losing them business by blocking legitimate email from people who want to purchase their services.
  4. The spammers have spoiled things - agreed. Stupid overagressive spam filtering has made things worse.
  5. My ISP has thousands of users. One of them sends some mail to a spamtrap. Now my mail doesn't get through. Why is it ME who pays the penalty? I have IMPORTANT email to send - I am running a business and this is CRITICAL. Now don't give me that crap that I should put pressure on the ISP. I know them quite well and I know they will do everything reasonable to get de-listed and to prevent any of their users sending spam through their mailserver. If I moved to another ISP the same thing would happen again (I have had exactly the same problem with a previous ISP) Spamcop and other blacklisting systems are making the internet worse not better! Yes, I hate spam too, and I wish it would go away. But overzealous anti-spam crusaders, and people cashing in on anti-spam sentiment, make the problem worse as I suffer both from spam and from blocked email. Please note: it does include "rants" in the forum description so don't blast me for an OTT post.
×
×
  • Create New...