turetzsr Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Your spam blocking service is fu**ing annoying. Please do not mass block entire email servers, as it wastes my time by not submitting emails to my friends....It would have been nice if you had at least read the other messages in this thread. If you had, you would see that SpamCop blocks nothing. Your friends' E-mail admins are. But it's their server, so it's their rules. They are under no obligation to accept e-mail from you or me.My email provider, gmail.com is a good service with many legitimate users <snip> ...Which insists on identifying its own outgoing e-mail servers as the source of the spam that goes out through those servers and through which sufficient amount of spam is sent (we're talking quite a bit, not just one or two per day) to get them listed in the SpamCop BL.Please change your policies...You are asking me to change my practice of reporting spam from GMail to SpamCop? No way! If they send spam to me, I'm going to continue to report it. I didn't ask for it and they have no business sending it to me!, otherwise, I hope your service fails and you lose money. <snip> ...It's not my service and I make no money from SpamCop. SpamCop's services are free -- all payments it does receive are either for enhanced services (e-mail) or voluntary donations.Oh and by the way... I DONT RECEIVE ANY spam. Because I do not post my email address in retarted places, if you follow non-idiot practices, YOU wont receive spam either, therefor this service is a useless piece of crap....My, aren't you the lucky (and very, very naive), one! <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Oh and by the way... I DONT RECEIVE ANY spam. Because I do not post my email address in retarted places, if you follow non-idiot practices, YOU wont receive spam either, therefor this service is a useless piece of crap.More likely you don't see it because your wonderful provider is sweeping it under the carpet for you - it is still consuming bandwidth and afflicting those who choose not to trust a provider who filters their mail unasked and on undisclosed (and certainly imperfect) criteria. Open your eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morbidsm Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 More likely you don't see it because your wonderful provider is sweeping it under the carpet for you - it is still consuming bandwidth and afflicting those who choose not to trust a provider who filters their mail unasked and on undisclosed (and certainly imperfect) criteria. Open your eyes. ...My, aren't you the lucky (and very, very naive), one! Apparently some of you fail to understand, spam is a problem created by those who willingly flaunt their email addresses about wherever they choose without regard for personal security. I have never had a problem with spam where I chose not to receive it, and I have created mass spam chaos where I chose to receive it. Yes, I am sure some of it is being swept under the carpet for me, but at least they are not sweeping people I know and trust under the carpet without regard for my personal preferences. And honestly, I would prefer to get pounded by spam if it meant I had to, in order to receive legitimate emails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Apparently some of you fail to understand, spam is a problem created by those who willingly flaunt their email addresses about wherever they choose without regard for personal security. I have never had a problem with spam where I chose not to receive it, and I have created mass spam chaos where I chose to receive it....Apparently you don't understand that your experience isn't true for everyone. There are plenty of ways for a spammer to get e-mail addresses and not all of them are caused by the victims' "flaunt[ing] their email addresses ... without regard for personal security."<snip> And honestly, I would prefer to get pounded by spam if it meant I had to, in order to receive legitimate emails. ...That's your choice and as long as you are paying for the entire cost of the spam, including all the servers throughout the internet that handle the packets, that's fine. But I don't want to "get pounded by spam" and I don't want to pay, even indirectly, for you to get pounded by spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Apparently some of you fail to understand, spam is a problem created by those who willingly flaunt their email addresses about wherever they choose without regard for personal security. Actually, taking a step back, taking a deep breath, letting the initial 200 responses slip into the air, bypassing the keyboard ... one is forced to actually read your words ... and of course, then have to wonder just what world you may have actually just arrived from. "spam is a problem" .. yes, I think almost everyone would agree to that string of words. "created by those ..." ... hmmm, I have a real problem in trying to agree with or even defend that remark. I believe that you'll find that most folks are of the opinion that the "spam problem" is caused/created by spammers .... The use of BLs (and if you haven't done your research [which does seem to be the case] there are hundreds and hundreds of them out there) us but one tool available for an ISP / Admin to use to try to control the flow of unsolicited incoming spew .... and if (yet again) you do some more reading up on the total background of the issue, you'll find many ISPs/Admins/Domain owners talking about receiving spew to "e-mail addresses that do not exist" ..... kind of hard to relate that scenario with your "obvious root of the problem" ...... but again, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, no matter how far from the truth it may be .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Apparently some of you fail to understand, spam is a problem created by those who willingly flaunt their email addresses about wherever they choose without regard for personal security. I have never had a problem with spam where I chose not to receive it, and I have created mass spam chaos where I chose to receive it. Yes, I am sure some of it is being swept under the carpet for me, but at least they are not sweeping people I know and trust under the carpet without regard for my personal preferences. And honestly, I would prefer to get pounded by spam if it meant I had to, in order to receive legitimate emails. spam is a problem because ISPs do not use blocklists and 'require' the *sending* end to make their customers responsible for their internet use. You could receive legitimate emails from anyone you chose to (including unsolicited email from individuals) if the *senders* were using an ISP who controlled spam output. You agree to many inconveniences for the criminal and thoughtless offline (like photo ids to cash checks). There is no reason why you should expect to be able to send email to people and insist that they also receive spam as well. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Please change your policies, otherwise, I hope your service fails and you lose money. This service is FREE (if you wish) and has been in business far longer than gmail has. I have been using a paid email account from spamcop for close to 5 years now, have never lost an email, and rarely get spam in my inbox. This was even with an address I had for over 10 years (abandoned about a year ago now) which received close to 100-300 spam messages per day. I now have not had a spam in my inbox in several weeks. The rest of the replies here are also accurate to my viewpint, so will not repeat them. Simple: Get gmail to reveal the IP address an RFC compliant way they have received the spam messages they are forwarding from, and they will no longer be listed on the spamcop blacklist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Not to repeat myself, but taking time to answer to such a munchkintroll ignoramus is a wate of our time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetssuperbowl Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Hello all I am a new GMail user whose mail has been bounced by servers whose administrators accepted the SpamCop blacklist entries for GMail. I understand that this is because GMail chooses to hide the IP of the originating source and put only the IP of their own server. Hence the server gets shut down for many users when a few mis-use the service. My question is whether GMail could give the option to its users to make the true origin IP of the mail available in the message header and what effect this would have. If they did this which of the following would be the result: a-Users who select this option are immune to BL of the google servers. b-Users are still affected by the BL of the google server since it also appears in the mail. c-Depends upon settings made by administrators of the sites that use the SpamCop BL. Thanks for your time in answering my query. jetssuperbowl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 My question is whether GMail could give the option to its users to make the true origin IP of the mail available in the message header and what effect this would have. If they did this which of the following would be the result: a-Users who select this option are immune to BL of the google servers. b-Users are still affected by the BL of the google server since it also appears in the mail. c-Depends upon settings made by administrators of the sites that use the SpamCop BL. Officially, it would be c because it is always denpendant upon the person implementing, but since the usual way to implement a bl is to check the connecting IP (the server) if that is listed, then the connection is rejected. Including the sending IP will cause less reports against the server, therefore keeping the server off the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Pretty depressing in that there is so ,uch content already existing within this Topic/Discussion, yet ..... so much misinformation, doubt, puzzlement, and absolutrly wrong data still gets brought up .... Here is a "corrected" copy of your inital query ..... I am a new GMail user Your call, your decision whose mail has been bounced by servers whose administrators accepted the SpamCop blacklist entries for GMail .... e-mail has been bounced by an ISP/Admin that chose to use the SpamCopDNSBL in a blocking fashion as a tool to manage their incoming spam spew .... I understand that this is because GMail chooses to hide the IP of the originating source and put only the IP of their own server ... GMail refuses to follow RFC standards and include the origination of the e-mail in the headers .... Hence the server gets shut down for many users when a few mis-use the service. ... the IP address gets listed by the SpamCopDNSBL, which is a list available for use by others ..... gettig itself un-listed when the math involved in the listing/de-listing process works out .... My question is whether GMail could give the option to its users to make the true origin IP of the mail available in the message header and what effect this would have. This discussion already contains dialog with GMail techs/engineers ... why ask here? If they did this which of the following would be the result: a-Users who select this option are immune to BL of the google servers. b-Users are still affected by the BL of the google server since it also appears in the mail. c-Depends upon settings made by administrators of the sites that use the SpamCop BL. This is already answered by the SpamCop FAQ (links at the top of this very page) ... conversational dialog within this existing (and huge) Topic/Dicussion .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadaso Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I contacted my email adminstrator...... they are clueless ... I now HAVE TO CHANGE MY EMAIL SERVICE!!!! Correct! Now go do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetssuperbowl Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Pretty depressing in that there is so ,uch content already existing within this Topic/Discussion, yet ..... so much misinformation, doubt, puzzlement, and absolutrly wrong data still gets brought up .... Here is a "corrected" copy of your inital query ..... Your call, your decision .... e-mail has been bounced by an ISP/Admin that chose to use the SpamCopDNSBL in a blocking fashion as a tool to manage their incoming spam spew .... ... GMail refuses to follow RFC standards and include the origination of the e-mail in the headers .... ... the IP address gets listed by the SpamCopDNSBL, which is a list available for use by others ..... gettig itself un-listed when the math involved in the listing/de-listing process works out .... This discussion already contains dialog with GMail techs/engineers ... why ask here? This is already answered by the SpamCop FAQ (links at the top of this very page) ... conversational dialog within this existing (and huge) Topic/Dicussion .... Gee, I thought I was being polite to everyone. Thanks for "correcting me". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Gee, I thought I was being polite to everyone. Thanks for "correcting me". You were being polite. Wazoo doesn't like to repeat himself and thinks that if he repeats it enough times that people will find what they are looking for in the FAQ or in posts. That's his preferred method: to find things in the FAQ. If you want to discuss this, feel free to post. However, I didn't answer your first post because this topic does contain several posts of mine and while I don't mind repeating myself, I just didn't have time. I thought, too, that Steven Underwood had given you a 'polite' answer. I think, too, that gmail could give users the option. (and I haven't read their replies so I don't know what the arguments are against it). Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 You were being polite. Wazoo doesn't like to repeat himself and thinks that if he repeats it enough times that people will find what they are looking for in the FAQ or in posts. That's his preferred method: to find things in the FAQ. However, in this case, reading at least some of the previously existing 230+ postings in the same discussion would have revealed the 'answers' to the 'repeated' questions. Yes, there is no point in 'repeating' answers if the poster doesn't want to take the time to actually get involved enough to actually read what already exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 However, in this case, reading at least some of the previously existing 230+ postings in the same discussion would have revealed the 'answers' to the 'repeated' questions. Yes, there is no point in 'repeating' answers if the poster doesn't want to take the time to actually get involved enough to actually read what already exists....But some of our visitors may actually have a life, as opposed to you and me, Wazoo. <big g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 ...But some of our visitors may actually have a life, as opposed to you and me, Wazoo. <big g> When visitors are frustrated by having email blocked and are trying to find the reason, they may not want to search for it. OTOH, those who have opinions about a topic might be expected to read the information already presented. Sometimes, ISTM, they just want confirmation that they do understand what they have read. Or don't understand and so sound as though they haven't read anything. Since Wazoo knows the most about almost everything, his method is probably the better one. But, usually people are comfortable with 'their' method and don't like hearing that there might be a better way. There are different learning styles also. I don't remember enough about them to be able to correlate them with posters, but I suspect that has something to do with the ones who don't seem to do well with FAQ and searches. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattportlandnetworks Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 I have a client who's email is occasionally being returned to the sender (from and outside domain) reporting that they are listed in the spamcop database. The test email we sent was from gmail to user[at]kempgoldberg.com (24.97.238.10) The user gets a message back from gmail stating: Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: it[at]kempgoldberg.com Technical Details of permanent failure: PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (State 9): 550 5.7.0 Your server IP address is in the SpamCop database, bye I have looked up the client IP and they are not in the list and I would only assume gmail is not either. I looked up the first two gmail mail servers and they are not listed. Any help would be appreciated. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 The test email we sent was from gmail to user[at]kempgoldberg.com (24.97.238.10) Based on the "from GMail" description, this post is going to be merged into the existing monster "GMail servers blocked" Topic/Description. PM sent to advise of the move/merge. The user gets a message back from gmail stating: Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: it[at]kempgoldberg.com Technical Details of permanent failure: PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (State 9): 550 5.7.0 Your server IP address is in the SpamCop database, bye Terrible "error message" .... This message "should" contain the IP address of the rejected system, preferably with a link to that data .... I have looked up the client IP and they are not in the list and I would only assume gmail is not either. I looked up the first two gmail mail servers and they are not listed. Any help would be appreciated. If the e-mail was sent "ftom" a GMail account, then not sure why you'd look up the client's IP address .. but no matter, your other assumption was wrong, as the Discussion this is going to place into will demonstrate. Why is "your client" taking up your time with a GMail e-mail delivery problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.