Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

tingo's Achievements


Member (2/6)



  1. We're getting, roughly, 45% of mails POP'ed down from other accounts, 45% forwarded from other accounts and 10% directly to the Spamcop account's address. Most of these 10% are messages between my partner and I (exclusively) when we're at different locations, as well as the occasional admin mail, but also and worryingly (where did the suckers get the address from?) some spam in the recent past. Usually things gets looked at in the webmail interface, spams reported, unnecessary mails deleted, etc. then real reading, answering and archiving take place in our mail application Entourage, after fetching what's left in the webmail. If I understand the whole discussion well, we don't need to activate greylisting, especially as we're already losing mails (probably not due to Spamcop) because we correspond in all sorts of languages with people all over the world. Correct, Trevor? But what we very much would appreciate (and I've asked Spamcop a couple of times already) is to make the whitelist (and the blacklist, while you're at it) more manageable. I've got 18 pages at this point, and I've been through hell a couple of times trying to clean the mess up after clicking (sheer distraction) on "Release and Whitelist" instead of "Report as spam" Michel
  2. OK, maybe I should explain myself better, then. It was mostly intended for spams sent to both invalid and valid addresses, which in this way reveal that they are spams. The invalid addresses we know of actually get re-routed to another service (our local IP's) who then sends them to whichever slaughterhouse they chose to. But our remote web hosting services (ValueWeb = Affinity), as I understand it, do not offer any other alternative (and never have) than a catch-all.
  3. Don't know about other browsers, but with Mozilla you can use your mouse's scroll wheel to adjust font size up and down on the fly.
  4. This thread seems to have been going on for several weeks, but it's only today a notice appeared when I was logging in? Anyhow... 1. We don't seem to have a "white on white" issue here. Can't remember the name of the theme used, but it's kind of light pink/purple. Looks like in the old version. 2. Request we'd been thinking of making for a while: an option to extend Whitelist and Blacklist to more than the 10 or so addresses currently showing on screen. Useful if & when having to check a/o edit those lists rather than browsing blindly. 3. Blacklist in Beta version does not open. Whitelist does. 4. Request made a year or two ago: add a To header to the Date/From/Subject/Size headers. That's because we have strict control on the addresses registered under our domain. "Non-existent" addresses such as info[at] / webmaster[at] / whatever[at]) are reserved exclusively for the use of spammers . It would save the time needed to open some of the spams with Subject headers that look like valid mail. 5. Looking forward to the improved speed, as I'll be leaving on a three-week trip on Tuesday, with the possibility of only having slow dial-up connections. Because of the trip, it would be appreciated if any question to the above were also Cc'ed to tingo[at]tanca.com. Not always easy to find the time to browse a forum when traveling. Our browser (Mozilla) allows for this. On the other hand, do you really want the browsers at any Internet café to remember you?
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. OK, folks, sorry for not getting back to the thread earlier, but Don and I have been busy sorting things out off-forum. And then, being 6 to 11 hours ahead of you'all, I've dedicated my time to a night's sleep. Several imponderables have compounded to create this whole series of misunderstandings. First thing, I had been used in the past to receiving a rapid and effective reply from Don and Jeff whenever something needed to be sorted out. Second, for reasons that we think we've figured out, Don's two replies to my mails regarding the sudden absence of reporting disappeared, likely as a part of the original problem. Thirdly, and most important although I didn't mention it in the original posting, during that same period (over at least a couple of weeks) there was a mention on the Spamcop site to the effect that there were outages in the reporting system that were still awaiting a solution. Fourth, I figured that Don and/or Jeff were too busy getting these outages fixed to reply to my mails. 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? 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! Wazoo, if I may make a kind comment to close this subject, what 30 years of business in six languages and an even broader number of cultures have taught me is that if you want to explain something to somebody, you have to try to understand where they're coming from, or their head space, and you have to do so in a language that they can relate to. Don has posted a note about what the issue had been about. I'd like to thank you'all for your efforts in this matter. Michel
  9. Miss Betsy, I certainly didn't experience anything that might be interpreted as rude, or demeaning, or anything similar from your side in particular. On the other hand, our company is kind of busy, generally speaking, and we are not in the IT business or anything close to it. We're quite happy to have the Spamcop services help us before physically going through at least 73,000 spams a year before reporting them, but I'm sure that you'll understand that we are not prepared to put more energies into just that, screening 73,000 spams a year (plus about the double of this quantity through other providers that DO NOT get redirected through Spamcop's filters) Michel
  10. Thank you, Steven. Some time (months? year?) ago, ValueWeb/Affinity offered their hosted customers an in-house spam filter, with the option to have it ON or OFF. In the first case, they assume no responsibility for any mails their filter might erase. They didn't say whether they bounced them or not. We chose OFF, partly because we were already using Spamcop, partly because we didn't wan't to run any risks (don't trust automated solutions, especially as we have business with places in Asia, Africa, Brazil which are more likely to be filtered away) and partly because we never use VW/A's web mail interface. I have looked into our mail settings at VW/A. I couldn't find a clear answer as to which SMTP is used by their automated forwarding function, but it might be smtp.tanca.com (our own domain, that is). Now, just to make things clear for everybody. We are paying end users of Spamcop's filtering services, and as far as spam reporting is concerned, we believed that this was a community effort of sorts against the plague of spam. Reporting has worked fine for us, and it certainly wasn't our intention to cause a hassle either for you folks, or for ourselves (beyond, to no personal advantage, the tiresome task of browsing day in and day out through anything between 200 and 500 spams a day in order to avoid reporting valid mails) Actually, we could very will live the rest of our lives without ever having to report spam. Michel
  11. Let's say that I had no idea what you were talking about with your (in our local vision of the world) rather untraditional use of the word data ("data" = the contents of my harddisk? my mother's maiden name? my medical records? our Whois information?). The only "data" I thought might be relevant, you had chosen to erase. I have not a clue what these three lines mean, and, again, how they can in any way be related to our use of Spamcop, as any mail sent to our domain on the ValueWeb server gets automatically forwarded to the Spamcop account, and as we NEVER use ValueWeb's SMTP servers. But if you think so... The SMTP server of our local IP is "smtp.mail.dk". The SMTP of the IP we use when not in house is "smtp.site1.csi.com", but we seldom if ever report when out of house. Is this satisfactory "data"? While I do understand how some of this might be relevant if we are talking of "bouncing mails", it doesn't explain to me why spam reporting from the Spamcop web mail interface doesn't seem to be working either. I saw this, and we certainly appreciate that you wrote this mail, which is what we thought we had been doing in the first place. Incoming: ValueWeb (Affinity) Outgoing: TDC, SMTP "smtp.mail.dk" Thank you for making yourself understandable. Maybe we'll be less confused by all this at the end of the day. Michel
  12. You have published here the Whois information related to our domain name. While this information is publicly available to anyone looking for it, I cannot see that it should have any relevance whatsoever to the issues I have inquired about. As you seem to have admin permissions on this forum, I strongly suggest that you delete it immediately. You have posted a link, thank you. What I could understand there does not seem to be relevant, as 1. mails (including spam reports) forwarded from our domain hosting services to our Spamcop address are not (should not be) filtered before they get to Spamcop; 2. we do not use our domain hosting services, ValueWeb, as ISP for outgoing mail; and 3. there have been no signs whatsoever that our local ISP has been filtering outgoing mails. The rest of what you have written belongs again, sorry to say, to a realm which my limited understanding of some varieties of the English language is not able to reach. OK, I don't always understand the language used in my tax declaration either, but the trend among tax authorities, at least where I live, has been increasingly to try and make themselves understandable by common citizens. Yet, trying to guess the sense of what you write in the last sentence, I can tell you that two addresses are filtered by Spamcop: tingo[]tanca.com and geo[]tanca.com, whereas the return address belonging to the account used for reporting spam from our e-mail application is info2[]tanca.com Michel
  13. Thank you very much, Jeff, that is clear talk I can relate to (instead of the difference between Georgia and California, or Timbuktu, or Scotland, or Peshawar, which we should have been aware of, but shamefully weren't, when we subscribed to the Spamcop services some years ago). I have looked into the link you provided, and as much as I could understand, I found that points 2 and 3 might be relevant. I went further and found that when logging in to our reporting account (something we have never have had a use for, and thus never have done before), I got at first the message "No userid found". Then, attempting with our Spamcop mail address as a user ID, I got a message to the effect that our account is closed (not the exact wording, I don't seem to be able to access it anymore right now). Figuring that that might be the same as having "authorization revoked", I got here: Why was my authorization revoked? If this was the case (and I'm still not sure that that is why the process you describe as working fine for you stopped working for us some weeks ago), I cannot see how it could have anything to do with a bouncing e-mail (as far as we are aware, nothing was changed there), nor why we should have "broken" any rules, as we have followed the same reporting routines as we have ever since we subscribed to your services. If you need more information, can you let me know? Thank you.
  14. First of all, we are plain, stupid users of the Spamcop e-mail and reporting system, not Advanced Initiated as you seem to be. I'm sure you'll excuse us for not being familiar with issues as you are, for daring to venture on these Forums with our apparently ridiculous questions, and for not understanding half of what you are writing in your reply. Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. It is the first time I am on these Forums, not the zillionth time. Again, pardon my ignorance. I have no idea what difference the geographic locations you cite there can do for us, users in Europe, nor what kind of entities JT or IronPort space are. We only know one entity: Spamcop, to which we pay a yearly fee. I didn't think that this was proper to post on a Forum. But here it is, then: submit.ModeratorDeleted[at]spam.spamcop.net I have previously got replies from Don (what do you mean "that side..."???) and from Jeff when soemthing was not working, and they always replied. I repeat that the reason for coming on this Forum, where my query seems to be interpreted as intrusive, is that I got no answer, even after resending the mails. I have no idea who or what JT is. It might be my understanding of the English language, or of your version of it, but I cannot fathom what you are trying to say. Michel
  15. Hello folks, First of all, we have no problem accessing our mails, either POP or via Webmail. That's the most important, so maybe we shouldn't worry after all...? Since the beginning of November we haven't been receiving any Spamcop reports (when reporting spam in Webmail) nor any of the usual confirmations (when reporting spam by e-mail). Two e-mails to Don, admin, and to Jeff, support, (the last one on the 11th) have gone unanswered. Question: is it because reporting is dead, or because something happened to our account? If the former is the case, we wouldn't mind knowing about it, so we just erase the spams instead of wasting our time reporting them. And of course, if it's the latter, we think it should get fixed. I wanted to post this with the topics related to system instabilities, but it wouldn't let me. Best, Michel
  • Create New...