In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Junito) wrote:
> Date: Wed, Apr 25, 2001, 12:06am (EDT-3)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob�W.) wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >nt.webtv.net>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > (Junito) wrote:
<snip>
> >>You have been banned from spamcop for
> >> reporting an ISP response to your spam
> >> report as spam. (See enclosed report from
> >> webtv). When you signed up, you agreed to
> >> *not* do that.
>
> >After you sent a Spam report through
> > SpamCop, the ISP you complained to sent a
> > reply acknowledging your report.
>
> >But you reported that reply as Spam.
>
> Bob, that supposedly reply was a *blank* e-mail that was sent to
> *undisclosed-recipients* not directly to me.
Did you check the source?
> Also, I didn't know that by just forwarding the e-mail to spamcop, (to
> see who sent that e-mail and report it if it was fake/spam) the e-mail
> was instantly reported.
As far as I know, it can't be. You have to do the follow-through.
>I didn't press the report spam key, because it
> wasn't there, the e-mail didn't have text in the body.
If you didn't report that Spam, then maybe that's not the abuse-reply
message being referred to.
> Here's the e-mail I supposedly report:
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, Apr 23, 2001, 11:19pm (EDT-4)
> To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: (no subject)
>
>
> Bob, thanks for your reply! I will e-mail Julian to explain the
> situation. :-(
Well, if the Spam was empty, and from that non-descript address, I can
see how you might think it was Spam.
But are you sure that's the "reply" message being referred to?
--
...Bob W.
_______________________________________________
SpamCop-Help mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-help
