SpamCop is ruining my business!

[StevenUnderwood]

My issue is with accountability. SpamCop can point the finger at someone else but when it gets right down to it: they were the ones who blocked my emails

Once again no... Read the error message again:

Connected to 64.217.170.11 but sender was rejected.

Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 Rejected: 209.132.4.31 listed at bl.spamcop.net

Your server 209.132.4.31 connected to 64.217.170.11 (remote host) which said: I reject this message because it is listed on bl.spamcop.net. The remote server did the rejecting. The admin of that server has chosen to block (against spamcop's recomendation, I might add. SpamCop suggests using this list as part of a scoring system) messages coming from servers on this list.

and there is no easy way to get off the list.

Again wrong... fix the mail system you are using so that it does not bounce messages to innocent third parties and the IP will automatically fall off the list... how much easier is it than that?

You can also use a different IP address and as long as that IP address stays clean, you will have no problems. If however, you have the same people managing that server, likely they are using the same configuration and the problem will eventually happen again.

then they do become a huge part if not the underlying source of the problem.

Nobody here has forced, prodded, or even asked the server administrator of 64.217.170.11 to use the spamcop list. Nobody here has forced, prodded, or even asked the server administrator of 64.217.170.11 to block servers on this list.

[seanman]

Your server 209.132.4.31 connected to 64.217.170.11 (remote host) which said: I reject this message because it is listed on bl.spamcop.net. The remote server did the rejecting. The admin of that server has chosen to block (against spamcop's recomendation, I might add. SpamCop suggests using this list as part of a scoring system) messages coming from servers on this list.

Again wrong... fix the mail system you are using so that it does not bounce messages to innocent third parties and the IP will automatically fall off the list... how much easier is it than that?

You can also use a different IP address and as long as that IP address stays clean, you will have no problems. If however, you have the same people managing that server, likely they are using the same configuration and the problem will eventually happen again.

Nobody here has forced, prodded, or even asked the server administrator of 64.217.170.11 to use the spamcop list. Nobody here has forced, prodded, or even asked the server administrator of 64.217.170.11 to block servers on this list.

I forwarded the information (that I finally got from SpamCop) to Simplenet and they have resolved the issue. I hate spam as much as anyone but we need to go after the culprits; SpamCop has "bad" information that affects a lot of people, good and bad. The scales of justice have certainly swung the wrong way. If I could have easily gotten the information from SpamCop I would not have wasted my day "talking" with so many people; some of which obviously have the overall IQ of a mop. There needs to be an easy, open way for anyone to track why their IP adresses have been tagged; it souldn't be so hard for innocent people to find the answer. I would be a little more sympathetic toward SpamCop if I didn't know they were making a BUNDLE to put together lists. A lot of people have told me what I should do or what somebody else should do; it's funny to think the only ones getting paid for their efforts or comments today all work for SpamCop! The pied-piper of email justice (or injustice)!! Guilty until proven innocent and so many pople believe this is right! Amazing..... Even though I have had so much fun today, it's time to go do something productive

[StevenUnderwood]

There needs to be an easy, open way for anyone to track why their IP adresses have been tagged; it souldn't be so hard for innocent people to find the answer.

SpamCop requests that the link: http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml?{client_addr} be used in rejection messages. That would have pointed you to the correct location and you would have seen the mid-directed bounces problem.

You could also have gone to http://www.spamcop.net and clicked on the Blocking List tab and gotten to the same page.

Or you could have gone to http://www.spamcop.net and followed the REPORTED FOR SPAMMING? Learn more link. At the top of that page is: Has your email been blocked? Please see: SpamCop blocking list

Once there, you enter the IP address from the rejection message and you would have gotten the same information I posted after you provided me your IP address, early this morning.

The problem was caused by your mailhost (whoever runs 209.132.4.31) bouncing messages to the spamtrap. Any messages sent to a spamtrap are, by definition, unsolicited messages and carry a higher weight in the calculation of a listing.

The IP address of the server connecting to your mail server is the ONLY information that can not be forged because it is needed for the 2 way communication. Thus, it is the only thing that can be used to effectively block messages. It does cause problems for people with shared servers, but it is up to the management of those systems to run them properly.

The SpamCop blocklist is the only one I am aware of that automatically expires listings when the spam stops. On a properly run system, you should not be blocked more than 24 hours, as most. The problem gets fixed, the spam stops, and the IP falls off the list. In your case, step one was never done.

[DavidT]

I would be a little more sympathetic toward SpamCop if I didn't know they were making a BUNDLE to put together lists.

Where are you getting that impression, pray tell?

it's funny to think the only ones getting paid for their efforts or comments today all work for SpamCop!

Who do you think is getting paid around here? The only one is the SpamCop Admin, IIUC.

The server you were using *was* guilty...Don has granted it a temporary reprieve, but if SimpleNet goofs up again, your messages will likely get blocked somewhere "out there" (IOW, not by SpamCop).

DT

[Wazoo]

Just noting: a ton load of editing done within this Discussion, removing wasted/empty vertical whitespace, removing much unneeded quoted material .. stuff documented in the Forum FAQ .. link at the top of this and every page.

I forwarded the information (that I finally got from SpamCop) to Simplenet and they have resolved the issue.

And to think that this could have been accomplished quite a while ago .. had you provided the necessary data in your starting post .. had this ISP/Host not decided to NOT receive SpamCop.net reports ... based on the apparent actual 'problem', had this ISP/Host kept up with the current status of e-mail, spammer activity and abuse, configurations, it might not have happened at all ....

If I could have easily gotten the information from SpamCop

???? Data is available for the most part. Note Steven's previous post, note all the FAQ/Wiki entries available to exlain things. Again, had data been provided in the starting post, the discussion probably would have taken a whole different twist.

http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblo...ip=209.132.4.31 (still showing as 'not listed')

http://www.senderbase.org/senderbase_queri...ng=209.132.4.31

Volume Statistics for this IP

Magnitude Vol Change vs. Last Month

Last day ...... 3.8 .. 27%

Last month .. 3.7

Not the typical spammer controlled numbers seen here, suggesting the misdirected-bounces scenario. On the other hand, might it also be assumed that "you" are also not responsible for all of the 10,000+ e-mails-a-day seen from that IP Address?

There needs to be an easy, open way for anyone to track why their IP adresses have been tagged; it souldn't be so hard for innocent people to find the answer.

Countless hours have been spent developing FAQ/Wiki entries to provide answers (before they are asked) ... SpamCop.net offers numerous web-pages that offer specific details. Do you have a real answer for how to make it more "open" ...?????

I would be a little more sympathetic toward SpamCop if I didn't know they were making a BUNDLE to put together lists.

Please explain. The majority of SpamCop.net tools and data are free, which doesn't easily translate into "a BUNDLE"

A lot of people have told me what I should do or what somebody else should do; it's funny to think the only ones getting paid for their efforts or comments today all work for SpamCop!

Only one person posting into this Discussion receives a paycheck from SpamCop.net. Everyone else is a SamCop.net user, volunteering their time, knowledge, and energy offering assistance to other users, to include those impacted by configurations of their ISP/Host and/or e-mail recipient ISPs/Hosts.

Guilty until proven innocent and so many pople believe this is right!

And yet, the end result does appear to be an issue of spew from your ISP/Host e-mail provider and the configurations of those receiving ISPs/Hosts involved. So yes, there was/is an issue of "guilt" involved. However, it has to pointed out again apparently ... the ISP/Host involved with your outgoing had issues, the ISPs/Hosts involved in receiving your e-mail made decisions and configuration settings that placed your outgoing e-mail into a problematic situation. I definitely recommend a visit to What is SpamCop.net?

It was me and I sent the information along to Simplenet. They are going to migrate my websites to another system which should (may) help with this problem.

I have no idea what moving the web-sites to another server is supposed to accomplish. The issue was with a shared e-mail server. One can only assume that the 'migration' is supposed to also move you to another e-mail server that isn't currently listed in a BL ..???? (Noting that there are literally thousands of other BLs out there, all with their own listing/de-listing rules, very few as forgiving as the SpamCopDNSBL.)

[Miss Betsy]

<snip>SpamCop has "bad" information that affects a lot of people, good and bad.

Spamcop does not have 'bad' information. If the IP address is listed, it means that unsolicited and annoying/dangerous email is coming from that IP address. Those who choose to ignore the report will eventually have that IP address listed on other spam lists - none of which is as easy as spamcop to get off of.

If I could have easily gotten the information from SpamCop I would not have wasted my day "talking" with so many people; some of which obviously have the overall IQ of a mop. There needs to be an easy, open way for anyone to track why their IP adresses have been tagged; it souldn't be so hard for innocent people to find the answer.

I am in sympathy with 'so many people with ...IQ of a mop' The first people to answer a complaint often seem not to know anything or not to be able to do anything. However, to be fair, one does have to know how to ask the question. There are really no 'innocent' people on the internet. Anyone who uses the internet should know something about how it works. My analogy is that most people know when to take a car to a mechanic or to do simple maintenance because they understand how an automobile works. There are some ignorant people who drive cars (and who have accidents when there is rain or cause accidents because they don't maintain their cars), but they are not 'innocent.'

Guilty until proven innocent and so many pople believe this is right! Amazing.....

You have it all backwards. The internet is run on netiquette. The polite thing to do when someone is rude (whether he called your phone number on purpose or accidentally) is to inform him politely that he is intruding (you have a wrong number) and if he persists in calling, it is ok to ignore calls from that number. You were informed that your IP address is sending unsolicited email. And then your emails were ignored. No one said you were guilty of sending unsolicited email, only that email from the same server was spam.

Miss Betsy

[seanman]

I have joined a class action lawsuit against SpamCop. It appears there are thousands of people who are tired of having their rights trampled. Here's a great site to visit. http://niba4u.com/

http://www.shopmystate.com/logon/Library/Swami-090301.html thiswill lead you to an excellent letter written by another company who is sick and tired of SpamCop's arrogance.

Here is a copy of the email I sent to the group filing the lawsuit.

My emails to my clients were rejected because of someone else on the server who had an auto responder on their website. I posted on SpamCop's boards to get help. I was belittled, badgered, and called names by other people visiting the boards. I looked at other people's posts and this seems to be the way innocent parties are treated. I was told it was my server's fault and they needed to fix their system. I was ridiculed for not knowing the inner workings of email and SpamCop. I have saved all the postings and emails for evidence of how I was treated.

These people are pompous, arrogant, self-appointed "crusaders" who presume people guilty until proven innocent; even then it does not matter if YOU are innocent, if you share the same IP address with an offender you will be thrown out of your right to send email. What hey do is no different than everyone who lived on the same block being arrested because one of their neighbors has committed a crime. Once everyone is thrown in jail you have to plead your case to SpamCop's judge and jury. In the end it doesn't really matter if you are innocent, if someone else on your block commits a crime in the future, you will be put through the whole nightmare again.

They also point their finger at everyone else (the IP provider, the recipient of your emails, your system, etc... and claim they have nothing to do with your problem, that they only provided a list that people chose to use. The huge flaw in this is they have provided an inaccurate list of the true "spammer".

I would be proud to help the fight against this corporation and would be thrilled to join your class action suit. If you need any more information I would be happy to help.

Here's a funny final note; my email to the group was rejected because of SpamCop's list!! I am oicking up the phone right now.

Here's another tidbit...

The Spamhaus Project now has a judgment against them for

$11,715,000, PLUS almost another 2 million in litigation fees. Why? For blocking legitimate email!

Spamhaus plans to ignore the judgment - read the judgment . The link to the judgement can be found at http://niba4u.com/ .... and yet you still think SpamCop is the answer..... how ridiculous!

I HATE spam asmuch as anyone but when my right to send emails, spreadshhets, and invoices to my LEGITIMATE clients is denied, then I have a RIGHT to fight back! I send approximately 40 emails per month but was blocked because of someone else's auto responder. THIS IS WRONG!!!!

I strongly reccommend that I never see a bounceback from SpamCop again. If this company does not have the capability to "whitelist" me then they have no right to block me!

Don't even point the finger at anyone else; this is SpamCop's aggressive program that has infringed on my RIGHT to send email! I am most certainly not alone in my thinking so I would hope everyone has the intelligence to understand that SpamCop really doesn't know how to block spammers withou hurting innocent people along the way. They don't care that they do it and they want to blame everyone ele for their system's "glitches".

[StevenUnderwood]

I have joined a class action lawsuit against SpamCop.

Good... Now the phrase "cartoony" fully fits.

Good luck with that lawsuit.

[SpamCopAdmin]

If you scrutinize the rejection notice you got, I think you'll find that it was sent to you by your own service provider when it tried and failed to deliver your message to a network that wouldn't accept it.

SpamCop is not blocking your email. It's not physically possible because your email doesn't go through our system. Only the receiving system can block email, which is their absolute right to do, on any basis they choose, at their whim. It's their equipment, and their choice.

I understand your frustration over this, but unfortunately, there is no way an ISP can tell the good guys from the bad guys just by looking at the email when it arrives. The "From" address on spam is *always* forged. It is impossible to identify the true sender without forcing his host to reveal his identity (lawyers, court orders, money).

Some of these spammers are sending hundreds of millions of spam messages every day. That's not all spammers counted together, either. *Each* major spammer is sending mail at that level. Add the literally thousands of small-time spammers to that and you have a problem of epidemic proportions.

Service providers are sick and tired of having to accept all that traffic, and then bounce a third of it because it came to nonexistent addresses, and then handle complaints from their users, and add more computers and staff to handle the traffic and complaints, and spend more money..... etc, ad nauseam.

They're tired of it and they're not going to put up with it anymore. They are going to refuse *ALL* mail from known spam sources until the source gets rid of its spammers. They no longer have any sympathy for the innocent bystanders, such as yourself, who are using a mail server which has found its way onto one of the several major blocking lists.

- Don -

SpamCop's aggressive program that has infringed on my RIGHT to send email!

Let's not forget that you are free to SEND all the email you want. The challenge is getting the destination network to accept it.

Service providers get to manage their network any way they want. They have the absolute right to reject mail from 209.132.4.31 for any reason they want, or for no reason at all. They are not obligated to accept any mail from anybody at all.

No one is forcing you to send your mail from 209.132.4.31. That is your decision. You have the right to change to a service provider who doesn't allow their users to send unsolicited and unwanted email.

Your service provider could have quickly and easily changed the IP of their outgoing mail server and completely avoided the blocking problem, but they didn't. You should be talking to them about why they allowed the blocking to continue when they could have, and should have, fixed the problem as soon as they found out about it.

If you don't like the fact that some networks are refusing your emails, take it up with them.

You might want to ask your lawyer to check this out:

On June 25, 2004, The Honorable SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, United States District Judge For the Northern District of California, ruled that "Pursuant to § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, SpamCop is immune from liability for publishing or distributing the reports of registered users."

- Don -

[dra007]

cartoonie or munchkin trolls are the same in my book. This guy has made up his mind before understanding the facts. I don't even think he cares to take the effort to understand why this is happening to him. On the other hand I am glad there is a SpamCop to stand up to such threatening thugs. We are all tired of wading through hundreds of unwanted e-mail just to find one that you were waiting for all day. I will continue to report every piece of junk I get. Thank you SpamCop for a job well done.

[Miss Betsy]

<snip>Don't even point the finger at anyone else; this is SpamCop's aggressive program that has infringed on my RIGHT to send email! I am most certainly not alone in my thinking so I would hope everyone has the intelligence to understand that SpamCop really doesn't know how to block spammers withou hurting innocent people along the way. They don't care that they do it and they want to blame everyone ele for their system's "glitches".

You may not be alone in your thinking, but there are even more people who think that it is their RIGHT to refuse email based on the source IP address to avoid paying for unwanted, unsolicited email.

I repeat, there are no 'innocent' people on the internet; there are only people who ignorant of the rules of internet traffic.

There were no glitches in spamcop's blocklist. The only glitch was your choice of an email service. If you want to pay for unreliable service, then you are welcome to do so. If all your emails do not arrive at their destination, then that's your problem with your email service provider. Competent, responsible email service providers rarely have 'glitches' with either outgoing or incoming email.

Miss Betsy

[Wazoo]

I have joined a class action lawsuit against SpamCop.

You came here and in a twisted sort of way, you asked for help. A number of folks made an attempt to explain, point to data, answer your general query. Some responses you have appeared to have actually scanned, as you appear to have gotten a bit excited over omse content. Yet, I can't seem to force myself to use the description of "you read" those same comments, as the whole situation, who's responsible for what, how things actually work still seem to be totally unknown to you. This last posted detail makes this whole Topic a basic rant, therfore it's going to be moved to the Lounge area. Again, you asked for help, you received help, yet you only want to rant. This is not SpamCop Blocklist Help material at this point.

What hey do is no different than everyone who lived on the same block being arrested because one of their neighbors has committed a crime. Once everyone is thrown in jail you have to plead your case to SpamCop's judge and jury. In the end it doesn't really matter if you are innocent, if someone else on your block commits a crime in the future, you will be put through the whole nightmare again.

What a silly analogy.

They also point their finger at everyone else (the IP provider, the recipient of your emails, your system, etc... and claim they have nothing to do with your problem, that they only provided a list that people chose to use. The huge flaw in this is they have provided an inaccurate list of the true "spammer".

Sorry, but you still don't have a clue, do you?

Here's a funny final note; my email to the group was rejected because of SpamCop's list!! I am oicking up the phone right now.

As noted in numerous places, stated within this Discussion repeatedly, it's up to the Receiving ISP/Host as to what rules, constraints, filters, etc. are placed against incoming connections. That you seem to be suggesting that an outfit wishing to open a class-action lawsuit against SpamCop.net would be using an e-mail server that uses the SpamCopDNSBL is absolutely bizarre. Perhaps there is a clue there <g>

I strongly reccommend that I never see a bounceback from SpamCop again. If this company does not have the capability to "whitelist" me then they have no right to block me!

Wondering just what company is being talked about here. SpamCop.net does not handle your e-mail sent to someone else, so there would be no whitelisting process there at all. Any argument about incoming filtering/rejection configurations would have to be taken up with the recipient ISP/Host, whomever that might be.

Don't even point the finger at anyone else; this is SpamCop's aggressive program that has infringed on my RIGHT to send email!

You can send all the e-mail you like. It's the choice of the recipient and the flow of ISPs/Hosts between your outgoing e-mail client and intended target as to whether or not your e-mail is acceptable that seems to be the decision process that has you up in arms.

The major point: you have your anger mis-directed at the wrong target. Please do some more actual resarch.

[dbiel]

If your "clients" want to receive mail from you, then THEY are the ones that need to white list your address.

PS Thank to Don for his posts to this topic. They are very informative and well written.

[Miss Betsy]

What hey do is no different than everyone who lived on the same block being arrested because one of their neighbors has committed a crime. Once everyone is thrown in jail you have to plead your case to SpamCop's judge and jury. In the end it doesn't really matter if you are innocent, if someone else on your block commits a crime in the future, you will be put through the whole nightmare again.

Wazoo says this is a silly analogy and it is because not all the neighbors in the same block as a criminal are arrested. However, you can't get a cab or get a pizza delivered in certain areas because of the reputation of criminal activity - even if you are completely innocent of any crime and also hate criminals.

Miss Betsy

[Farelf]

Well and truly listed again - http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblo...ip=209.132.4.31 - looks like about the only significant period it hasn't been listed in the last week-8 days is the interval of respite granted by Don. No other blocklists triggered. No member reports recorded, spamtrap(s) solely, apparently misdirected bounces, despite which clues level3/simplenet have been unable to take effective action.

Senderbase is seeing considerable volumes of outwards traffic (not bad for a 'blocked' IP) - but not at all consistent with spam runs. That server (mail1.hs.sntoo.net) is showing reduced activity - but no more so than its unlisted stablemate, mail2.hs.sntoo.net - http://www.senderbase.org/senderbase_queri...ng=209.132.4.31

[/tcol]	Magnitude	Vol Change
		vs. Last Month
Last day	3.4	-57%
Last month	3.7	-

[tcol]

address	hostname	Fwd/Rev	Daily	Monthly	RBL listings
	DNS Match	Magnitude	Magnitude
209.132.4.31	mail1.hs.sntoo.net	Y	3.4	3.7	1
209.132.4.32	mail2.hs.sntoo.net	Y	3.4	3.8	0

The timing (of re-listings) and the possible consistency of listing may be instructive if the machine(s) triggering it is unknown.

I second the note of appreciation for his posts to Don, noting that others 'here' tried also (unsucessfully but eloquently) to correct the O/P's 'mythconceptions' - but gratitude to the O/P for highlighting the opportunistic little industry that has sprung up to prey on others of a like mind.

[DavidT]

This last posted detail makes this whole Topic a basic rant, therfore it's going to be moved to the Lounge area.

An appropriate, but very overdue action, to be sure.

Please do some more actual resarch.

That's about as likely as snow in July....in Phoenix.

To quote a famous cartoon character, "what a maroon!"

(And I could swear I just saw him in this topic, trying to post a message...and then "poof!' -- he disappeared and there's no post. I just checked his user info...he was here...didn't he say he had better things to do?)

DT

[Farelf]

...(And I could swear I just saw him in this topic, trying to post a message...and then "poof!' -- he disappeared and there's no post. I just checked his user info...he was here...didn't he say he had better things to do?)

Just gathering 'evidence' David - he said he was doing that (and you don't see any copyright notice on the board content do you?) Evidence for the big "class action lawsuit" brought on behalf of the reputed thousands who want a piece of SC for their (undoubtedly) various reasons. I thought you were paying attention?

[seanman]

Well, I contacted my clients who had modified their system which cleared out their whitelists. They have corrected my address (and will be very busy adding all their other wanted mail) in their system. You have blamed Simplenet for my troubles so any suggestion on the "best" provider would be appreciated.

In response to a lot of backtalk about my concern over the difficulty of getting information; it would have been nice if I would have gotten a response from SpamCop when I disputed the listing instead of being ignored. No one would have ever heard a word from me if I had just gotten a word from them.

I do not disagree that something has to be done about spam; I am just not sold that this is the answer. I am just one of millions of people who have done nothing wrong but have been listed with SpamCop. I don't know what a better solution is, but hopefully something will change.

I own 2 businesses, care for my son who has autism and my father who has advanced Parkinsons. My years of retail and customer service experience have given me an opportunity to make a living and still have time to care for my special needs family. I employ 26 people who make an average salary of 52K per year. I am a responsible citizen and a good person. I am intelligent, hardworking, and understanding.

I recently purchased the second business which will hopefully be an opportunity in the future for my son to make a living and not rely on the already stressed social security funds. Every day I try to teach him how to be a good citizen. I do not normally have time to worry about "glitches" or SpamCop or blacklists or whitelists, etc... as I am sure most of you don't either.

You have all had some pretty interesting comments because of my frustration on having to deal with the fact that a program dumped me into a pool af potential scammers and I was being told it was "my own fault" for not knowing enough. Hopefully someone will invent a better system than SpamCop or perhaps SpamCop will begin replying to listing disputes.

I know I have ruffled a lot of feathers and have been told that I need to "educate" myself. Unfortunately no one can "know it all" and I will probably never have the time to learn the complete functions of the internet and the obscure workings of email. These are tools for me, not my passion.

Any advice about an alterntive to Simplenet would be appreciated (although I have been with them for years and I have a great working relationship with them. They are very frustrated with SpamCop and disagree with the way they do business.) They have always responded to my requests for help or modifications and I have never had any issues with the 2 domains I have with them. Both sites are used to upload and download massive amounts of data as my one company submits extensive photographs of retail locations for surveys and market analysis reports. Another provider would have to be capable of handling large amounts of information and have SSL capabilities. To have to change my sites would be a huge task for me so if anyone knows how I can possibly register with SpamCop to be omitted from the lists, that would be wonderful.

Thanks

[Farelf]

...To have to change my sites would be a huge task for me so if anyone knows how I can possibly register with SpamCop to be omitted from the lists, that would be wonderful. ...

It doesn't work that way - you need to be whitelisted with any (of your business) clients whose providers use the SCbl, assuming they can do that (if they're business they should have a fair chance). Most would not even be aware but you know of some of them. And that's assuming your network doesn't use the SCbl to block their outwards mail (stranger things have happened but there's no sign of it in the rejection notes you provided). Whitelisting is the concept you're reaching for but it can only be applied at the receiver's end, by the receiver.

Others may be able to address your other points. Yes, there is some sympathy for your situation. You are not one of the 'enemy', that is evident.

[On edit - Oh yes, and I retract my previous post - I obviously misinterpreted your prior brief visit].

[dbiel]

You still do not seem to understand what is going on. There is no need to make any massive changes. The only change that is needed is the email server used to send your mail.

(And I could swear I just saw him in this topic, trying to post a message...and then "poof!' -- he disappeared and there's no post.

It should be noted that there can be a significate delay between the time a user appears to be posting and the time that the post shows up. I have seen that frequently with Wazoo's posts. The underline disappears from the name but it can be many minutes until the post shows up in the list of new posts.

[seanman]

You still do not seem to understand what is going on. There is no need to make any massive changes. The only change that is needed is the email server used to send your mail.

It should be noted that there can be a significate delay between the time a user appears to be posting and the time that the post shows up. I have seen that frequently with Wazoo's posts. The underline disappears from the name but it can be many minutes until the post shows up in the list of new posts.

My email is run through my domain which is run by Simplenet. I guess I on't understand how I can just change my email server when that is the same outfit that does my web sites (one of which is where my emails pass through).

[dbiel]

Both sites are used to upload and download massive amounts of data as my one company submits extensive photographs of retail locations for surveys and market analysis reports.

Are you sure you are talking about e-mail? E-mail is not recommended as a method to send massive amounts of information. Then I am not sure what you consider to be massive. A 10meg file is massive for e-mail and many users, including corporate users, are unable to receive such large email messages. I once tried to send an Excel spreadsheet mailing list to a mailing house via email, only to find out that the 8meg spreadsheet exceeded their file size limits. Also the terms "sites", "upload" and "download" are more commonly used for other methods of file transfer, not email. Email more commonly uses the terms send and receive.

My email is run through my domain which is run by Simplenet. I guess I on't understand how I can just change my email server when that is the same outfit that does my web sites (one of which is where my emails pass through).

Only the email that is being delivered TO you goes through your domain. Outbound mail goes through what ever SMTP server has been selected for the purpose.

[DavidT]

It should be noted that there can be a significate delay between the time a user appears to be posting and the time that the post shows up.

Yes a minute or two....but not over half an hour, which was the case tonight. Not a significant issue, in any case. It's interesting that the OP is still posting, minus the cartooney threats, but still not understanding at all how all this works or bothering to listen to all the good advice he's been given. The server in question is still apparently hitting the spam traps and the provider is still refusing to receive SpamCop reports...but then spam trap hits don't generate reports anyway. I'd never buy hosting from a company that buries its head in the sand and refuses to receive abuse reports.

DT

[Wazoo]

Any advice about an alterntive to Simplenet would be appreciated (although I have been with them for years and I have a great working relationship with them. They are very frustrated with SpamCop and disagree with the way they do business.)

It appears you have calmed down a bit. Thanks. I'm going to guess that you might now be able to appreciate the humor in the following reply.

First of all, go back and take a look at Telarin's Linear Post #22 in this Topic. Although e-mail may be part of your web-hosting package, there is no requirement that you use it. There are literally thousands, if not millions, of places out there that will handle your e-mail, lease you your own server, etc.

Now for the humorous part ... I could even recommend you contacting JT (see Section 8 - SpamCop's System & Active Staff User Guide ) about hosting your e-mail. However, if you would also then take a look at one of the Announcements here, you'll see that even SpamCop.net e-mail account holders have run into problems due to hackers and spammers. Are you laughing yet?

The basic point is that it takes a pro-active ISP/Host to handle, if not prevent these situations from coming up, minimzing their effects. It takes a knowledgable user to point out and/or recognize when the folks in charge of the server aren't actually on the ball. Trust me, there's a world of difference between managing a web-server and an e-mail server.

Yes a minute or two....but not over half an hour, which was the case tonight.

As usual, I'm not fully aware of things at present. But I have to note that I have been working the server pretty hard since sometime a bit after lunch yesterday. Some code changes made, a bunch of database cleanup, rebuilding of some data. The timeframe involved may also have been while I was slamming the keyboard ...????

[seanman]

It's interesting that the OP is still posting, minus the cartooney threats, but still not understanding at all how all this works or bothering to listen to all the good advice he's been given. The server in question is still apparently hitting the spam traps and the provider is still refusing to receive SpamCop reports...but then spam trap hits don't generate reports anyway. I'd never buy hosting from a company that buries its head in the sand and refuses to receive abuse reports.

David,

You are quite wrong as I have read through these posts and researched several sites to look for answers. Your posts have consistently contained nasty comments directed at me personally where my frustration is with the situation. You have seized every opportunity (numerous times in error) to badger me personally. I am looking for an answer to problem that has arisen because of SpamCop putting me into a spam list. I am looking for a company that either 1) provides only email support at either a small or no charge that is on top of every list that is put out or, if an inexpensive email option isn't available then the name of a company that can provide me with BOTH email and web hosting. THAT company would have to handle large amounts of data to my websites, not my email. Looking at Wazoo's "humorous" post, it seems that everyone, including SpamCop users, have had problems with SpamCop. Your insults toward me are inaccurate and personally offensive. I posted out of frustration and after much bantering I am looking for what folks here say is my only option; dump Simplenet and get a "better" email server. I am only looking for cost effective solutions to the problem I have been put in. If there is actually a better solution and Simplenet is the root of my problems then I will seek email (and, or) web hosting elsewhere; just looking not to have to spend more money than I currently do because of SpamCop's lists.