[SpamCop-List] Re: "Hello SpamCop user"

[Mike Easter]

Martijn Lievaart wrote:
> Julian Haight wrote:
>
>> Q: The person who found the bug claims he gave you plenty of notice.
>>    Why didn't you act sooner?
>> A: Henning Schmeidehausen found the problem and tried to notify us,
>>    but was not successful in contacting us - his email was sent to
>>    default postmaster/abuse/info accounts, but these addresses are
>>    not monitored. He should have received an auto-response notifying
>>    him that his mail was not received and listing alternate methods
>>    for contacting us. Apparently he did not see this email, or he
>>    ignored it.  He did not attempt to contact us in any other way
>> (by calling us for instance).
>
> I have very mixed feelings about this.

> That said, spamcop is very easy to reach, Henning should have tried
> other means.

Maybe Henning feels the same way as rfc-ignorant, that one shouldn't have
to 'jump through hoops' to communicate - that emailing those three
addresses should be able to reach someone important enough somehow.
Maybe that an autoack is 'permissible' for quicker and 'guiding'
repsonse, but that there should also be a human oversight of the address.
How long would it take a human to 'click through' a pile of emails which
had already been autoacked with guidance to the faq and another address?

Maybe Henning feels that, 'If I can't reach you with those 3 addresses,
then I guess going public is the next step.'

To me, it seems that the publicity over this issue, including the address
management, is appropriate.  Henning is saying 'I'm a busy man;  I don't
have time to check out the particular idiosyncrasies of communicating
with this domain.'  SpamCop is saying 'We get an awful lot of mail.  What
you should do is read our faq first and then correspond by whatever you
find in there.' - or maybe it has the deputies address in the ack, I
haven't seen it.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin