>We did not wait two weeks. Two weeks would be the end of the month.
>We cut his mail services off when I opened the thread and the rest of
>his services when people recommended it.
So "We cut off spammers when we find out about them." refers to your
*new* behavior, not to your behavior at the time that you requested
delisting.
>We have not undermined our own credibility. Note above.
Nothing there explains why you claimed that you *couldn't* provide a
replacement web page saying terminated for spamming. Nothing there
explains why you have misrepresented other posters.
>We have complied with every feasible recommendation.
No.
>I don't really know what 'spin control' means
It means PR to limit the damage to your reputation from bad choices by
denying the obvious. I believe that the term derives from the Nixon
administration, but ICBW.
>but I have been nothing but honest.
"However, you seem to be set on the notion that we're a hardcore spam
host by putting a negative spin on everything positive I say." was
dishonest. Claiming that you couldn't do trivial things was less than
honest.
>We will even set up spam traps.
That should help. What about monitoring outbound traffic? What about
random checks that "subscribers" really are?
>There are simply no other recommendations left.
404 &foo terminated for spamming.
>The record is wrong.
You keep climing that, but currently you lack credibility. At best
you've been negligent.
>I never have.
"If you dig around enough, maybe you'll find a few more reasons to
hate us."
>You're finding problems where problems don't exist.
Au contraire; your paranoia and lack of candor are creating distrust
where none existed.
>Incorrect. We have followed every feasible suggestion.
404 &foo terminated for spamming.
>Note previous post regarding steps we have taken to combat spam.
The fact that you took steps *after* posting here does not mean that
the data in the record are incorrect.
>Sniffing packets and determining spam based on a heuristic
>network-wide is not feasible. After all, we don't make money from
>spammers to execute such a costly upgrade :)
Others do. Besides, even if the sniffing weren't feasible, why is it
so hard to provide notification?
>Again, we cut his mail when I opened the thread which we considered
>'throwing out'. Shortly afterwards by recommendation of people
>here, we cut off the rest of his services.
You're still dodging the question of why you claimed it was impossible
to implement a web page at the spammer's IP address that said he had
been shut down for spamming.
>This is a clear indication that we
>are not spammers or a spam-supporting host.
No. Spam support can be through negligence as well as through malice.
>We are being treated like a host who does not set forth the above
>practices and policies.
You are being treated like a host that cannot be trusted.
>This is reflected in attitudes towards us and
>the content in S3036.
You have created that attitude by your negligence and by your words.
It's good that you have *partially* corrected your negligence, but
that doesn't invalidate the information on your past behavior. If you
really want to be delisted, you need to convince the SPEWS
administrators that you are trustworthy, and you won't do that by
denying the data that they have collected.
>It's wrong and it needs to stop.
You are the only one that can stop it, by taking responsibility for
your actions instead of dumping on those trying to help you.
>Seriously, chill out, we're good guys
Then start acting like good guys. You might even thank people for
their advice instead of claiming that they hate you.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<
http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do
not reply to spamtrap@
library.lspace.org
