False Arrest is Irresponsible (original topic)

[Wazoo]

Taking the entire different approach to the whole thing ... take a look at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7329 .... data provided in the first post, and though there was some misdirection u the attempts at replies, the end result was that the user found and fixed the actual problem at her end .... no one called anyone names, no one made challenged, etc. etc. etc.

Your issue 'here' includes the fact that your Topic was moved to the Lounge area .. which you'll note from the description and content, is no where near the 'reserved' area as seen in the 'Help' Forum sections ....

Again, had you provided something to work with in any of your posts, this massive discussion would not be still stuck in the Lounge as rant material ....

[MrT]

Just finished reading this thread. I'm fairly new to using spamcop but I've been around computers for about 27 years now, and the personal computer for around 20 years. I'm not a geek or a nerd but can usually find my way about.

At the risk of also being flamed, I have to say that while I appreciate that a lot of effort has gone into the FAQs and other resources on the site, these are far from user friendly. I have great sympathy for the OP and it would be really nice if people either responded to questions with a link to the information or not at all. It must be extremely frustrating for those whose mail cannot get in/out to come here for answers and only get responses like "read the FAQ" (difficult to follow at best) or "give us the information" (without specifying what information would be good to have).

I know there are tireless contributors here, including admin, mods and others and your efforts are greatly appreciated. Human nature is such that it must get frustrating that not everyone who posts here has the same understanding of spam, spamcop or email itself. Having to repeat the same thing to each new poster is tiresome, but even some links would be helpful (I note that a couple of the later posts did include links.) It's just a pity that responses sometimes come across as scorn or aggression (inadvertently much of the time). (But the loyalty is a good thing.)

Sometimes it's hard to distinguish between those experiencing real problems and those that are against anti-spam efforts. In this case my guess is that the OP has a real problem and is not a spammer. In any case, it never hurts to give the benefit of the doubt initially.

Just my thoughts

[Farelf]

...IMO, this is a slippery slope folks. When a private company puts themselves in a position where they are regulating an industry….and have the power to destroy people’s livelihoods, if that power is misused, that scares the hell out of me. Especially when that entity makes itself “godlike”, and in assessable. ...

And the gap between opinion and knowledge? The poster has made it virtually a badge of honor to avoid informing herself as to the basic function of SC - on top of that, and more than just refusing instruction she resented the attempt. Through blindly accepting "defaults", reliance on outdated (and/or misunderstood) "courses" she blundered into minor error with the configuration of her mail service and, finding no solace from those she pays for service (her ISP staff), came "here" wanting to be pandered. Any pandering was surely in the province of her ISP. She is, no doubt, a worthwhile person and I do hope she has no further problems but the "Ice Queen" attitude (notwithstanding protestations of "preferring to fix problems") make that an "iffy" proposition. IMO.

[Farelf]

...At the risk of also being flamed, I have to say that while I appreciate that a lot of effort has gone into the FAQs and other resources on the site, these are far from user friendly. I have great sympathy for the OP and it would be really nice if people either responded to questions with a link to the information or not at all. It must be extremely frustrating for those whose mail cannot get in/out to come here for answers and only get responses like "read the FAQ" (difficult to follow at best) or "give us the information" (without specifying what information would be good to have)....Just my thoughts

No risk MrT. Admittedly it is sometimes difficult to establish the knowledge levels of those coming in and fresh perspective on what the forums look like to a newcomer is always useful. If time were to be had over, I think I would follow your advice and rely a little more on posting links with "this one".

[Miss Betsy]

1. When I first was contacted by my provider, I was led to believe my domain and email was put on some blacklist, because I had used my auto reply option (which is available on all my email accounts)

The provider was correct probably. Autoreplies have become a problem because the spammers routinely forge the From so that autoreplies to spam go to hundreds of people who never sent you an email. The result is just as bad as spam. If the auto reply is available on all your email accounts, it is because the problem of autoreplies acting as spam is relatively new. Auto replies can still be used, but it requires whitelisting those who will get them (and other technical adjustments).

Also, those who make software are not always to be trusted to do the best thing - look at all the exploits that can happen in Internet Explorer. I am not a server admin, but I understand that a popular server made by Microsoft comes with a default that spammers exploit immediately when it is plugged in. It is ok if you switch that default off.

2. I was told this was done because of actions by SpamCop.

The provider was incorrect. Spamcop does not 'act' to block email.

3. I was given a copy of the email from SpamCop, which I immediately replied to.

Again, your provider was incorrect. The provider is the one who should take care of the situation. You are paying them to provide you with reliable email.

4. I emailed both SpamCop and my provider, asking for clarification on the situation.

5. I got really frustrated, and went to the SpamCop website, and could find not real contact information.

It is understandable that you got really frustrated when your provider was not providing you with the service that you are paying for. And it is understandable that you had a problem finding the contact page on the spamcop website - it is not user-friendly for the non-technically fluent. However, there is a contact form which is the usual way nowadays to contact people from websites.

6. I busted into your party…I felt that since the forum was hosted on a website that was clearly a SpaCop site, that some of their people had to be lurking around.

7. I DID read a bit of the FAQ, specifically looking for contact info.

Perhaps that explains why you missed the information that you needed to see specifically the 'Why Am I Blocked' FAQ - I am not sure, but I think if you read it, it does give you contact info.

8. As I looked, and grew more frustrated, and panicked I began to resent…and I mean RESENT some company like SpamCop, who are not real cops, yet are behaving as such (and while they technically do not 86 your email, they are the party leading the charge).

9. What I am actually resenting is the fact that they are telling me there are specific “hoops” I need to jump through first. That just really bugged me.

Again, it is understandable to get more frustrated and angry. And most of the posters give new posters the benefit of the doubt for 'attitude' - though there are many who manage to post without sounding rude even though they are just as frustrated.

10. I just wanted a simply, quick answer (like the one Graemel gave me, for which I was grateful, and immediately told him so.)

You already had a 'simple, quick answer' from your provider: turn off your autoreplies. Looking back over the thread but not reading it carefully, it seems to me that several people tried to expand on that advice and explain to you why autoreplies are not good. Perhaps you finally understood GraemeL's post when others had been telling you the same things because you finally understood what you would have understood sooner if you had read some of the FAQ carefully instead of looking for a contact address.

The point I am trying to make…is that just because SpamCop has all these “rules”….well, rules are like laws, and I don’t recall a vote giving them any authority over me. (And telling me I HAVE to read the FAQ, etc, is like telling me I must follow their rules.)

Now, had SpamCop never insinuated themselves into my life, by sending my provider that email, and had I barged onto YOUR forum, and ignored the “protocol”, then I would understand why you would all be pissed at me.

Spamcop never insinuated itself into your life. Some other ISP who uses the spamcop blocklist rejected your emails to protect hir customers from all those autoreplies to spam from you. They have just as much right to reject the autoreplies as you do to send them.

IMO, this is a slippery slope folks. When a private company puts themselves in a position where they are regulating an industry….and have the power to destroy people’s livelihoods, if that power is misused, that scares the hell out of me. Especially when that entity makes itself “godlike”, and in assessable.

No one forces anyone to use the spamcop blocklist. If it didn't work well, no one would use it. Again, if you read the information on the website and here in the forum, you would understand this.

What is scarier is you and me running websites! I am technically non-fluent also, but I have learned enough about spam and how spammers work that I wouldn't set up a website without expert advice (and I would not rely on the web host or ISP to provide that since they don't like to tell you anything because too many customers like you won't take the time to understand how things work and get angry when limitations are suggested.) Although semi-trucks work just like cars, I would not attempt to drive one without special training either. In fact, other people wouldn't let me drive one without proving that I knew how. That's what is happening here in a way. If you were driving a semi, you would have gotten a ticket. Fortunately, on the internet, nothing awful happens if one 'drives' recklessly because people can use blocklists. Some responsible netizen sent you a message informing your ISP that one of hir customers was driving recklessly and were being blocked and your ISP informed you. And like many people who get a ticket for speeding, you reacted with anger. However, most people know that excessive speed is not safe when they calm down. So I hope when you calm down, you will realize that if you are going to be part of the internet, you have a lot to learn.

Miss Betsy

[bholmes]

>>Your issue 'here' includes the fact that your Topic was moved to the Lounge area<<

Umm, of all of my *issues*, this was definitely not one of them. Had I not been so impulsive in my first posting, and had been a good girl and done my homework, I would have probably posted at the lounge first.

>>What you still fail to understand is that your email account was NEVER blocked<<

No, I understand that. I always understood that my incoming mail was okay, it was the outgoing mail that I was initially concerned about.

>>the "Ice Queen" attitude<<

Hmmm…..I’ve been called lots of things, yet “Ice Queen” is a first. But ya know, I think I kinda like it.

Oh and MrT…you definitely hit the proverbial nail on the head. Thank you.

>>with "this one"<<

Gee FarElf, I can actually visualize you wrinkle your nose in distain as you type that line!

>>So I hope when you calm down, you will realize that if you are going to be part of the internet, you have a lot to learn<<

Ahhh….now to the real meat of the issue. Less than 10 years ago the internet was the domain of the computer teckie or extreme hobbyist. The average Joe did not have an email account….now everyone does, including grandma and little Billie in pre-school. If you looked at everyone who uses in email, and determined how knowledgeable they were in the actual workings of the internet, I would probably be placed in the top 25 percent. (Scary isn’t it!) That is not to say I am an internet expert, but that when you look at the sheer numbers of users, there are a far more internet clueless folks out there than I am who are using email!

My point being, if you want to seriously tackle the issue of spam, some of you need to check your condescending attitudes at the door. The fact is, the majority of email users really have no clue that some of their online practices may contribute to an increase in spam. And while it is all and good to make the comment that it is their responsibility to learn how to use the tool responsibly, the reality of the situation is that if you want to actually begin to solve the problem, you need to reach these people in a positive manner, and alienating them when they arrive here, is not a way to do that.

I was slammed for taking “outdated” classes, yet folks, in our industry the classes I’ve taken are considered cutting edge. And instead of sitting back and snickering at me for my gullibility, those of you who have made it their mission to curb spam, and proclaim to know the answers, why don’t you contact the Realtor Association and tell them their E-Pro training is outdated, and misleading thousands of realtors nation wide, and then give them the tools to pass on this information to thousands of members? And what about the other business associations, who are running such internet training programs?

For those of you who proclaim to want to help stop spam, yet feel it is not up to you to teach a bunch of professionals who have embraced the internet, then I guess you are kind of a ranter yourself.

>>if you are going to be part of the internet, you have a lot to learn<<

The simple fact is, everyone, has a lot to learn about the internet. IMO, when it comes to the internet and computers in general, the person who claims to be an *expert*, is without a doubt, the clueless one of all.

Have a good day.

[Telarin]

Just thought I'd chime in here with my $0.02...

First off, on the topic of autoresponders. Autoresponders are not in and of themselves a bad thing. They become bad when they autorespond to every piece of email that comes in, spam or otherwise.

I have 30+ users at my company who all use autoresponders when they are out of the office, on vacation, etc to notify clients, and have never had a problem with them.

First, I would say that generic autoresponders that reply to every email with a "We got your email and will answer it eventually" probably can't safely be used, but Out of Office auto responders can.

The first thing you need to do however, is basically eliminate your incoming spam. This has the added bonus of reducing the chance that a message gets lost in 1000+ pieces of spam in a Junk Mail folder somewhere. Personally, I block at the server using the SCBL, the spamhaus xbl-sbl lists, and the SORBS list.

Next messages pass through Microsoft's Intelligent Message Filter. Messages with a high spam rating are rejected with a 500 series message. Those with a moderate spam rating are dropped into users Junk Email folders, which do not get autoresponses.

This combination of filtering has had the effect of reducing my average user from 200+ spams per day that they must sort through to 1 or 2 per day, which almost always go to the junk email folder. If a sender is blocked by one of the BLs I use, they are immediately notified by their server that there is a problem, and the reject message includes alternate means of contact (web form) and means to get whitelisted.

So basically, I have nearly eliminated the chances of an autoresponder sending a blind response to a spam message, and have allowed my users to use them safely without whitelisting. Even if there is the occasional response to spam, one or two is not a huge area for concern, its when you are replying to hundreds of spams that problems develop, and that is when most blocklists will step in and list you, allowing server admins like me to block incoming email from problem server.

[Farelf]

Hmmm…..I’ve been called lots of things, yet “Ice Queen” is a first. But ya know, I think I kinda like it.

It's yours for the keeping.

...>>with "this one"<<

Gee FarElf, I can actually visualize you wrinkle your nose in distain as you type that line!

Not at all, what you read is what there is - no disdain intended, talking about the case, not the person.

... the reality of the situation is that if you want to actually begin to solve the problem, you need to reach these people in a positive manner, and alienating them when they arrive here, is not a way to do that.

We try, establishing the knowledge level is the first step to communication, bringing that, if necessary, to a point where there is mutual understanding puts us "on a hiding to nothing" in some instances. And we're not SC agents (no authority, no pay, purely altruistic/power-crazed - delete either or both and justify - netizens, trying to do more than nothing) which few seem to "get".

The simple fact is, everyone, has a lot to learn about the internet. IMO, when it comes to the internet and computers in general, the person who claims to be an *expert*, is without a doubt, the clueless one of all.

True enough - anyone claiming to be an expert around "here" backs it up or gets laughed out of court. Not many so claim - listen to those ones.

Have a good day.

You too.

[Wazoo]

Main point missed. there was somewhere in the initial rant, a request for some help. Repeatedly pointed out, there was no help available based on that no data was offered. The remainder of the discussion actually is based on that one little but of 'failure to communicate'. .. pretty much the end of the story at this point.

As far as data goes, everything that was asked for already exists in the FAQ here (and most of it in the 'official' FAQ) ... yet, another question never answered was "where are all the 'rules' " that was mentioned in the very first post. There are FAQ answers galore, but 'rules' ...??? In my mind, that was a job that still needs be accomplished, way down on the priority list, as it's seen that not enough people read the stuff already placed in their way in hopes that the information there would be heeded and the first post would include all necessary data such that help could be offered in the first reply ..... rather than babbling on for hours/days with this kind of exchange that has still not turned up the data needed (should have been provided) in that first post.

[Miss Betsy]

those of you who have made it their mission to curb spam, and proclaim to know the answers, why don’t you contact the Realtor Association and tell them their E-Pro training is outdated, and misleading thousands of realtors nation wide, and then give them the tools to pass on this information to thousands of members? And what about the other business associations, who are running such internet training programs?

I agree with you totally. In order to curb spam, the people who are using email need to be educated. Someone (not a techie, but someone who can explain what is happening in layman's terms) needs to do that. Unfortunately the attempt I made at explaining why you were blocked, you didn't read.

The fact is, the majority of email users really have no clue that some of their online practices may contribute to an increase in spam. And while it is all and good to make the comment that it is their responsibility to learn how to use the tool responsibly, the reality of the situation is that if you want to actually begin to solve the problem, you need to reach these people in a positive manner, and alienating them when they arrive here, is not a way to do that.

Some people are not alienated, but grateful. How to avoid alienating the others is a problem that we have discussed many times. I have a solution that I would like to implement, but since this is a forum-by-consensus and I didn't get enough votes, it hasn't happened (some of that is due to difficulties beyond our control, but primarily it is because the information is here, but some people just can't find it even though others do.)

Cars are a good analogy (especially because the internet itself is sometimes referred to as a 'highway'). Most people cannot change a tire or their oil, but they usually know what has to be done. Most people know something about the 'rules of the road', but others are reckless or just plain stupid about their driving. There is no reason why the average user can't know a little bit more about the concepts of how email works. You would still have the reckless and stupid drivers, but most people would be able to drive relatively safely and carefully - if they were taught. And wouldn't get upset if they got a 'ticket' for something because they would realize that, in general, that behavior is detrimental to smooth driving (for instance, a ticket for a burned out tail light - it is frustrating and annoying, but you neither blame the cop nor the law).

If you think that Realtors need more education in internet use, you are in a position to do something about it. They would listen to you faster than they would listen to outsiders telling them how to run their business.

Of course, most people who get upset with the answers they get, usually end swearing that they are going to tell everyone all their misconceptions about spamcop in particular and blocklists in general so unless you do take the time to understand, you would be part of the spam problem rather than the spam solution if you attempted to 'educate' your fellow Realtors.

Miss Betsy

[turetzsr]

<snip>

It must be extremely frustrating for those whose mail cannot get in/out to come here for answers and only get responses like "read the FAQ" (difficult to follow at best) or "give us the information" (without specifying what information would be good to have).

<snip>

...Good post, MrT, thanks! I have only one complaint about it: where is your version of an easy-to-follow FAQ? We'd all love to see it -- believe it or not, we actually want everyone to be able to find their answers easily!

[turetzsr]

<snip>

and I also thought one of those fellas might be lurking somewhere on the board.

<snip>

...Ah, so you missed (or forgot) the little note above the form where you enter each of your posts and replies that reads, "The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. (please remember this at all times!)."

But for me SpamCop is not an “official” agency, as such, but a capitalistic, business for profit endeavor

...And what was it that led you to that conclusion? The free spam reporting service they offer? The free use of their blacklist? The rapacious $30 fee for e-mail and advanced spam reporting capability? <g>

who I believed had insinuated itself into my life <snip>

...And you now understand that this conclusion was incorrect, right? <g>

7. I DID read a bit of the FAQ, specifically looking for contact info.

...And missed the "SpamCop FAQ" (see link of that name near top of page) entry labeled "SpamCop's System & Active Staff User Guide." Have you any suggestions as to how could we (tinw) have made this more evident to you and other visitors in the same situation?

8. As I looked, and grew more frustrated, and panicked I began to resent…and I mean RESENT some company like SpamCop, who are not real cops, yet are behaving as such (and while they technically do not 86 your email, they are the party leading the charge).

...Which, again, you now recognize as being incorrect, right?

9. What I am actually resenting is the fact that they are telling me there are specific “hoops” I need to jump through first. That just really bugged me.

...Er, what hoops? As far as I know, all you are expected to do; all you can do; is correct the action that caused the problem (that is, turn off the auto reply feature, which I presume you have done) or, if the problem is caused by your fellow ISP users, to ensure that your ISP is aware that you are unhappy about their failure to keep their server IP addresses off the SpamCop blacklist by taking action against the offending spew.

<snip>

The point I am trying to make…is that just because SpamCop has all these “rules”….well, rules are like laws, and I don’t recall a vote giving them any authority over me. (And telling me I HAVE to read the FAQ, etc, is like telling me I must follow their rules.)

...SpamCop asks no such thing. It is those of us volunteers here in the forum who want you to do that -- to educate yourself a bit about SpamCop, e-mail and spam and to put it at least a bit of effort in an attempt to find the answers yourself, if you are asking a frequently asked question (it also gets you your answer sooner and without the "nasty attacks").

When a private company puts themselves in a position where they are regulating an industry….and have the power to destroy people’s livelihoods, if that power is misused, that scares the hell out of me. Especially when that entity makes itself “godlike”, and in assessable.

<snip>

...Again, conclusions you made that I hope you have since discovered were incorrect.

[MrT]

...Good post, MrT, thanks! I have only one complaint about it: where is your version of an easy-to-follow FAQ? We'd all love to see it -- believe it or not, we actually want everyone to be able to find their answers easily!

Ha ha - I knew I was putting myself at risk with that little comment. Hoped no-one would think of the obvious response. I'm a bit busy this week, but will have a look at the FAQ and have a go over the next few days or so (maybe if I say in the next couple of weeks it's more realistic).

All the info is there already put together by the good people here - but if I can think of any suggestions for making it easier for newbies to follow I'll send something through to see what you think. The other thing with that is, of course, I will likely not be able to do any better, but I'll have a shot and others can decide if it's worth posting

[Miss Betsy]

...Good post, MrT, thanks! I have only one complaint about it: where is your version of an easy-to-follow FAQ? We'd all love to see it -- believe it or not, we actually want everyone to be able to find their answers easily!

I still think my version of the FAQ would work if somehow it could be visible in the various ways that people arrive in the forum. IMHO, the problem is that those who have a hard time finding the information are overwhelmed by all the pinned items. There only needs to be two pinned items, one for the people who can use FAQ to the existing FAQ (without the introductory piece about its history) and one that is like mine which leads the poster to simple explanations with links to more detailed and technical information.

There is far too much information for the newbie so they give up and post wherever they end up (that accounts for so many posts from the 'How to...' forum on blocking and reporting questions)

I also think that the 'official' FAQ and the 'User Created FAQ' should be separated and identified. If I had already searched the 'official' FAQ and could not find my answer, then I am sure that I would be annoyed to find myself right back where I started by using the combined FAQ here.

My original idea was to use the FAQ as 'template' answers for regular posters - either by using the links or by copying the information - which was one of MrT's suggestions.

Also, most of the posters who have a problem are frustrated and angry and only want a 'simple answer' - many of the regular posters are professionals and correct my 'simple' answers with the exceptions. And many of the complainers are people who really shouldn't be 'driving' without more knowledge. They should either be able to get the information they need from their providers or should be hiring someone who knows (or can teach them). The professionals here are very generous with teaching those who want to learn - for free. And those who want to learn are usually very grateful.

My $.02 USD

Miss Betsy

[MrT]

I still think my version of the FAQ would work if somehow it could be visible in the various ways that people arrive in the forum. IMHO, the problem is that those who have a hard time finding the information are overwhelmed by all the pinned items. There only needs to be two pinned items, one for the people who can use FAQ to the existing FAQ (without the introductory piece about its history) and one that is like mine which leads the poster to simple explanations with links to more detailed and technical information.

Miss Betsy, I like your ideas. I'm probably too new to see your version - is it up anywhere? Would love to see it. Also, I'd be interested in what were the objections to your approach (sounds like a winner to me )

[turetzsr]

Ha ha - I knew I was putting myself at risk with that little comment. Hoped no-one would think of the obvious response. I'm a bit busy this week, but will have a look at the FAQ and have a go over the next few days or so (maybe if I say in the next couple of weeks it's more realistic).

...No hurry. It's taken "us" (tinu) several years to get to the point we are now ... we can certainly wait for you to have some spare time to make additional improvements!

All the info is there already put together by the good people here - but if I can think of any suggestions for making it easier for newbies to follow I'll send something through to see what you think. The other thing with that is, of course, I will likely not be able to do any better, but I'll have a shot and others can decide if it's worth posting

...We can't reasonably expect any more than that. Thanks! <g>

[Miss Betsy]

Miss Betsy, I like your ideas. I'm probably too new to see your version - is it up anywhere? Would love to see it. Also, I'd be interested in what were the objections to your approach (sounds like a winner to me )

It's in the big red announcement "latest and current announcements' under 'How to find what you are looking for without pulling your hair out in the process'

Miss Betsy

[dbiel]

And do not forget the SpamCop Wiki which is yet another attempt to make it easier to find what you are looking for.

[Miss Betsy]

And do not forget the SpamCop Wiki which is yet another attempt to make it easier to find what you are looking for.

Part of the problem with the wiki is that it is 'added' on to the rest so that a newbie is still overwhelmed. Aside from the ones who are too busy or just manage to 'see' explanations differently, the major complaint is that the FAQ are overwhelming, that there is too much information. IMHO, there is nothing to do about the too busy ones or the ones who somehow misunderstand. The former are going to have an attitude no matter how easy it is to find information and the latter generally understand without fuss after a few posts.

Another complaint is that, for instance the Quick Reporting, is not clearly written. That was supposed to be the advantage of the Wiki in that different people could write in different styles. I don't see how that is going to help the ones who are overwhelmed unless the wiki is clearly pointed to as the place to get answers - which means transferring all the FAQ there and 'hiding' the existing FAQ. Or perhaps, one can only get to the existing FAQ on the forum through the wiki. It would add a step for the majority of people (since I contend that it is only a very small minority who can't find what they need in the FAQ), but that probably won't bother them.

Part of the problem, perhaps, is that many entries were written by JeffG and he is very rarely around anymore to change his entries when there is either new information or someone has a clearer explanation so again, information is 'added' which makes it difficult to navigate.

Miss Betsy

[MrT]

Just looking back to see why I had so much trouble figuring things out when I first came here, and part of the problem was that there were too many FAQ-type areas (two FAQs - spamcop and forum, an announcement section which also has some FAQs, a wiki - is that all?). And the info is a bit confusing as to whether it relates to spamcop (the service) or this forum - it gets mixed up sometimes (Edit: The forum FAQ is fine - just went back and looked ). Then there is the spamcop main site, of which this forum is a part (even though this is a peer to peer forum, as it's on the spamcop site it's not obvious at first glance that those who run spamcop don't post here.)

Also, there's a lot of information but it's hard to know what links to follow as there's so much jargon and so many links etc (eg a newbie won't always know what a parsing service is - or perhaps care).

If we could organise the information a bit by, say, user type, and have links through a simple hierarchy it would be good. Along the lines of the material already there, but not repeated in different spots. Perhaps the wiki is the place for it to go, but needs a bit more work. Once there is a single spamcop faq (albeit dynamic) then all the others can be taken down so as not to confuse people.

Users are probably:

1. Newbies wanting to decrease their own spam

2. Newbies who have had their outgoing or incoming email blocked

3. People who want to help reduce spam generally (range of experience in email/spam from novice to experienced)

4. People who have set up their own mail servers and are having problems with spam (not large ISPs).

5. Other categories?

I've not included ISPs here as I expect they are not the main "audience/participants" of this forum - but I might be wrong about that.

BTW this is getting a bit off topic. Is it worth a thread to explore this further?

Also, someone (mod or admin), please let me know if I'm speaking out of turn. As a newbie myself, I don't mean to tread on toes

[Wazoo]

Just looking back to see why I had so much trouble figuring things out when I first came here, and part of the problem was that there were too many FAQ-type areas (two FAQs - spamcop and forum, an announcement section which also has some FAQs, a wiki - is that all

No, actually. I've had several other FAQ tools installed, a couple of them still exist, one didn't make the last Forum application version upgrade .. you didn't mentiom the Dictionary or Glossary ...

And the info is a bit confusing as to whether it relates to spamcop (the service) or this forum - it gets mixed up sometimes.

Specifics needed there, as I have no idea where you'd run across that issue.

Then there is the spamcop main site, of which this forum is a part (even though this is a peer to peer forum, as it's on the spamcop site it's not obvious at first glance that those who run spamcop don't post here.)

Not correct .. it runs under the SpamCop.net domain .... However, the www.spamcop.net web-site is hosted on IronPort owned/maintained hardware, basically in California. This Forum, the newsgroups, e-mail accounts are all hosted on JT's hardware in Georgia. Paid SpamCop staff do in fact post here .. however, that is usually when someone brings an issue up to them directly .. back to three people already handling 800-1800 e-mails a day ....

Also, there's a lot of information but it's hard to know what links to follow as there's so much jargon and so many links etc (eg a newbie won't always know what a parsing service is - or perhaps care).

This begat the Ditionary, Glossary, and recently added Wiki entries.

If we could organise the information a bit by, say, user type, and have links through a simple hierarchy it would be good.

Funny ... as described in the initial block of text that Miss Betsy keeps saying needs to be removed .... the 'original' / ' official' FAQ is in fact laid out via hyperlinks. The single-page-access-expanded version I hacked together was but one attempt at providing a solution to those people cmplaining that it was too hard to navigate, to easy to get lost, to hard to guess at where data was ....

Along the lines of the material already there, but not repeated in different spots. Perhaps the wiki is the place for it to go, but needs a bit more work.

????? As it's only a recently "opened to the Public" tool, yes it needs work. Yet .... we are also stuck in the mode where many conplain, but few get involved with the solution. Requests / challenges were posted into the newsgroups .. no response ... the Forum section on the Wiki tool was opened up to those that have substantially contributed to support within the Forum in the hopes of getting more folks involved in developing/populating the Wiki ... and yet, you noticed right off that it "needs work" ... We finally came to a possible way to allow Registration to the Wiki that would help us control the damnable spam postings ... naught but a couple of requests thus far ...

Once there is a single spamcop faq (albeit dynamic) then all the others can be taken down so as not to confuse people.

I am going to have to state that appearances ar that the initial block of text in the SpamCop FAQ "here" has not actually been read.

I've not included ISPs here as I expect they are not the main "audience/participants" of this forum - but I might be wrong about that.

Plenty of Admins posting in here.

BTW this is getting a bit off topic. Is it worth a thread to explore this further?

Also, someone (mod or admin), please let me know if I'm speaking out of turn. As a newbie myself, I don't mean to tread on toes

Technically, yes .. almost all of thos later stuff should be found within the FAQ Development Forum section.

No stepping on toes noted .. just that the history, background, etc. hasn't been caught up with, made known, whatever ....

I noticed that the Topic starter actually showed up last night, but .... chose not to contribute further .....

[turetzsr]

Part of the problem with the wiki is that it is 'added' on to the rest so that a newbie is still overwhelmed.

<snip>

...Please correct (and forgive) me if I'm wrong, Miss Betsy, but you seem to be viewing the SpamCop Wiki as if it were merely complementary to the other FAQ-like spots. I don't think it is that but, rather, another means of presenting the same information. IOW, it gives inquirers who have difficulty understanding the "SpamCop FAQ" and/ or the "official FAQ" another place to go to try to get answers. It also is an alternative way for those who know answers to add those answers.

[Miss Betsy]

...Please correct (and forgive) me if I'm wrong, Miss Betsy, but you seem to be viewing the SpamCop Wiki as if it were merely complementary to the other FAQ-like spots. I don't think it is that but, rather, another means of presenting the same information. IOW, it gives inquirers who have difficulty understanding the "SpamCop FAQ" and/ or the "official FAQ" another place to go to try to get answers. It also is an alternative way for those who know answers to add those answers.

Most people, I contend, are able to find what they need in the present FAQ and if they need to post, do so in the proper forum and without an attitude.

The people who are frustrated (even if they find what they want) or can't find what they want and end up posting in whatever forum they end up in and, often have an edge to their tone when they do post, are the ones who get even more frustrated with requests to look at the FAQs. For whatever reason, they are overwhelmed by all the information presented and various 'ways' to find answers. My solution to that problem is to pare the 'ways' down to a minimum - one to a simple, step by step, FAQ that leads to more complicated answers or the correct forum to ask a question. Some of them don't have English as a first language. Often they are grateful when they get answers.

The other ones who can't 'find' anything are simply arrogant, selfish (my problem is unique), and rude. There is not much to do about them except give them links or copy the info - or if you are in the mood, try to make them see reason.

IMHO, it isn't going to help anything to keep adding the same information in different places and in different ways. Some of the existing FAQ could be edited to make them clearer to the layman, but they are really ok the way they are since people like you are willing to explain them.

IOW, it doesn't matter whether they are complementary or a different way to access the same information. It doesn't solve the problem of those who can't find what they want.

Miss Betsy

[Wazoo]

Banned due to harrassment of other Forum users via PM and e-mails

Member No: 5090

YuanTi (71.115.24.24)

mose1951[at]verizon.net

Banned (7 Posts)

Joined: 10-January 06

uses moseleyh[at]hotmail.com in the message traffic

[dbiel]

BTW this is getting a bit off topic. Is it worth a thread to explore this further?

I altered the title to indicate the shifted theme of this thread. Some one may eventually take the time necessary to split this topic.

Also, someone (mod or admin), please let me know if I'm speaking out of turn. As a newbie myself, I don't mean to tread on toes

I would like to add my appreciation for your comments and mention that it is a refreshing change to receive such postings from a newbie. - Note: newbies are always welcome to join in with corrective criticism and comments. I hope that you will continue to participate, and as such, I have sent you, via PM, login information for the Wiki. It is a much easier venue to expand on this subject and test out new ideas and mistakes are easily fixed.