Re: What's wrong now, Spamcop?

SpamCop Admin wrote:
> Alan Brown wrote:
>> -because I have grown accustomed to these outages (SC may not call them 
>> -that, but from a user perspective, it IS an outage).  Databases corrupt, 
>> -mail servers down, DNS problems, parser errors, you name it.  Spam Cop 
>> -has a history of technical problems.
> 
> Yes, we have plenty of problems.  And yes, we routinely don't believe
> there is a problem until we see it for ourselves.  That's because we
> access SpamCop from outside just like everybody else, and we're coming
> in from Canada, Idaho, Georgia, and California.  If we're not
> experiencing the problem, it's highly likely not a system-wide
> problem.
> 
> SpamCop is an extremely complicated living entity that needs to be
> tweaked constantly to keep up with the latest spammer tricks.  Plus,
> our database has grown to huge proportions that the system was never
> designed to handle.  We are continually upgrading our software and
> rewriting routines so that we can handle the load.  The same applies
> to the server farm that does the processing.
> 
> Plus, we're constantly under attack, so we have to use third-party
> servers to run interference for us in order to keep from getting taken
> down by a Denial of Service attack.  Sometimes those servers have
> problems, which in turn cause problems for people in one part of the
> world that aren't seen by people in other places.
> 
> The days of Julian running his one-man show out of his home are long
> gone.  It takes an entire team to manage SpamCop these days.  Servers
> fail, mistakes get made, bad stuff happens.  Such is life among
> savages.
> 
> On the bright side, we're making good progress in getting the database
> and the subroutines under control.  We're experiencing way fewer
> sudden outages.  And during all this, SpamCop still manages to process
> some 3 Million spams a day on average.  I'd say that's pretty good for
> a system with problems.
> 
> - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - 

Personally, having used SPAMCOP for a number of years, I have had very 
little problems.  Those that I did have I was notified about at the time 
or soon thereafter.

I cannot believe the attitude of Jeff on this thread, more so, I can't 
believe how tolerant Mike Easter has been in his reply to him.  If I had 
have been Mike, Jeff would have been KF'd a long time ago and his rants 
accepted of someone who is very ignorant of the situation.

I would suggest to Jeff if reading this, that he calms down, gets a grip 
of the situation and tries to understand the complicated system involved.

Does he know how many users there are of SPAMCOP?

Does he realise what a tiny percentage himself and the 'other people' 
who have reported a problem are?

Does he not think that if this were such a major problem then there 
would be massive signal to noise on the web/forums/newsgroups?

I don't object so much to his problem, as that seems to be genuine.  But 
his total lack of understanding of the problem is amazing, and his tone 
despite being font rather than vocal based is just down right rude.

He claims to have shouted for help, but didn't even have the decency to 
read the FAQ and find out that his specific problem already appears to 
be noted, documented and it appears a solution being worked upon.

I'd say thumbs up to SPAMCOP and ask Jeff to slow down, take stock.

IMHO of course, which for some don't count for toffee.

Regards

Chris