SpamCop doesn't like users?

[SpamCop 98]

This thread has drifted pretty far from the original post, which was a comment on the inaccuracy or incompleteness of some of the spamcop.net pages and links. Regardless of who owns what, unless someone here is in a position to say "I can take care of that," or "I can forward your comment to someone who can take of that," further discussion doesn't help much.

Although I'm a longtime SC vet I'm new here, so I may be off-base... but I believe this is why they call it the Lounge.

[Wazoo]

Regardless of who owns what, unless someone here is in a position to say "I can take care of that," or "I can forward your comment to someone who can take of that," further discussion doesn't help much.

Wondering if you might have taken the time to wade through another Topic/Discussion here for an example of attempts at what you're suggesting ... perhaps http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...ost&p=75321 as an example .... just noting that this has been pretty much the status quo for a number of years now. Other examples would include MailHost Configuration Problems FAQ started or even Original SpamCop FAQ & Added Forum Items, Never up to date .. won't even touch the background on the SpamCop.net Wiki

It's not like the folks in charge don't know anything about the issues, it's simply that so much time has gone by with lttle to suggest that these things are actually being worked on. And as noted, some of the 'official' responses (if they come at all) leave a lot to be desired for some folks.

One could offer the excuse that the paid-staff is simply too busy providing support that they simply don't have the time to provide this kind of support, but then again, perhaps it's keeping up with the traffic flood of the recently created twitter and FaceBook pages????

[agsteele]

That's just off-the-chart insanity.

<snip>

CES is basically licensing the SpamCop name. It's up to SC/Ironport to ensure that their service is consistent and responsive.

There's no dispute: SC/Ironport can't just brush the dust off their hands, say "not our job" and walk away without risking lost value of its mark.

Ah, OK... Understand now. You've formed an opinion and no attempt to help you see it from a different perspective is useful.

...Well, not quite (IMHO) -- SpamCop 98 is taking a rather radical, but (IMHO, again) not unreasonable, consumer perspective. She/he pays money for what is designated as a "SpamCop" service; she/he experiences problems with this service; SpamCop's reputation is tarnished. It might not quite be "off-the-chart insanity" for SpamCop staff to feel powerless to affect the experience provided by the e-mail service that bears its name but it is not unreasonable for a customer to feel that SpamCop should be expected to do something about it; if nothing else, disassociate its name from the e-mail product.

[Edit by SteveT: oops, it appears I may have edited agsteele's post (part of which I quote) rather than replying to it -- I am SOOO sorry <blush>!

Note: agsteele's sig, not mine, follows below.]

[MyNameHere]

A little note from the OP...

Much thanks to everyone for reviewing the ownership issues. I really had not paid attention to all that before.

It's not like the folks in charge don't know anything about the issues, it's simply that so much time has gone by with lttle to suggest that these things are actually being worked on. And as noted, some of the 'official' responses (if they come at all) leave a lot to be desired for some folks.

One could offer the excuse that the paid-staff is simply too busy providing support that they simply don't have the time to provide this kind of support, but then again, perhaps it's keeping up with the traffic flood of the recently created twitter and FaceBook pages????

I think Wazoo captured the gist of my frustration. Boils down to three points:

1. Cisco/IronPort just doesn't seem to have any interest in maintaining the SpamCop FAQ on its (www.spamcop.net) web pages. Nor does it seem to have any interest in the pre-existing newsgroups and web forums.
   
2. Also, although I assume the newsgroups (and I know the web forums) are not owned or operated by Cisco, I don't see the business sense in throwing away an existing resource and starting a new one (the Facebook and twitter pages). Why couldn't Cisco work something out with the folks that run these resources? Unless it's the old NIH syndrome.
   
3. Finally, if CES runs these forums, then why not at least put a link somewhere in the CES webmail site so new users might know about them? (When I wrote the OP I did not realize this was a separate issue.)
   

[agsteele]

[Edit by SteveT: oops, it appears I may have edited agsteele's post (part of which I quote) rather than replying to it -- I am SOOO sorry <blush>!

Note: agsteele's sig, not mine, follows below.]

Apologies accepted. I was letting off some steam which isn't worth repeating. Perhaps you've saved me from later embarrassment

Andrew

[BobLLL]

. . . I believe this is why they call it the Lounge.

Point well taken. I forgot which subforum we are in. My apologies. Please resume fire as you feel appropriate.