#61
|
|||
|
|||
bloody CTC
Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 00:34:59 +0100, Andy Key wrote: If you are unable to read the format of an email the CTC has sent you, by all means ask the sender to provide it in a different format. If you can't read it because of some disability or other, you are doubly (nay, triply) justified in asking. But bear in mind that the format you're complaining about will be readable by almost EVERY other person on the mailing list. You are talking ********. I guarantee that not one person the message was sent to could read it. 100% failure rate. It wasn't a mailing list post - it was an email from one CTC bod to me alone - one CTC member. Sent with no plain text translation and no indication what the .doc file contained. No way whatsoever to distinguish it from any number of viral infections (in fact, it was rather less convincing than many virus attempts). I've never had any replies to my few emails to the CTC over the last few years. It occurs to me that if they sent me nothing but an attached Word doc their email would probably have been diverted by the university's spam filters into my spam bucket, since that kind of cluelessness is characteristic of spam. I'm supposed to check carefully that the spam bucket contains only spam before emptying it, but when it only contains 99.9% spam you get a bit careless :-) -- Chris Malcolm DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
bloody CTC
On Sun, 10 Jun, Chris Malcolm wrote:
Ian Smith wrote: It wasn't a mailing list post - it was an email from one CTC bod to me alone - one CTC member. Sent with no plain text translation and no indication what the .doc file contained. No way whatsoever to distinguish it from any number of viral infections (in fact, it was rather less convincing than many virus attempts). I've never had any replies to my few emails to the CTC over the last few years. It occurs to me that if they sent me nothing but an attached Word doc their email would probably have been diverted by the university's spam filters into my spam bucket, Actually, it seems as if their 'do not email' preference over-rides everything else. They say I was not getting newsnet because I'd said I didn't want to be emailed (I don't know when I said that, quite possibly I did some time in the past). I would have thought that their systems would be set up so that someone actively requesting newsnet would over-ride the general 'do-not-email' setting, but maybe not. Given that, it would not surprise me to find that their 'do-not-email' setting is deemed to over-ride responding to people too. I'm supposed to check carefully that the spam bucket contains only spam before emptying it, but when it only contains 99.9% spam you get a bit careless :-) I never used to check - my main work account gets about 1200 spam attempts a week (our current worst email address gets about 2000 spam a week) and life is too short. However, putting greylisting on the server has been miraculous - I'm down to about 3 a day getting through greylisting and into the spam bucket, about 5 or 6 a day avoiding both filter systems. Minor problems with a badly set up relay in Hong Kong (makes one delivery attempt, waits 36 hours to do the second) but otherwise no detected false positives and better performance than anything else we've done. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
bloody CTC
Chris Malcolm wrote on 10/06/2007 19:13:
I've never had any replies to my few emails to the CTC over the last few years. Now you come to mention it... I contacted my MP about the bikes on trains thing and they asked for us to copy the letter sent, and any replies, to a contact at CTC. I got quite a good reply back from my MP (Beverley Hughes) and a letter via her from someone in the Transport dept. I pdfed it and duly forwarded it to the CTC contact, explicitly asking for an acknowledgement (since I'd not heard the time before when I copied them my original communication). I still haven't heard anything. I thought they were just being rude... perhaps not. Peter -- http://www.scandrett.net/lx/ http://www.scandrett.net/bike/ |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
bloody CTC
Peter Scandrett wrote on 11/06/2007 09:47 +0100:
Chris Malcolm wrote on 10/06/2007 19:13: I've never had any replies to my few emails to the CTC over the last few years. Now you come to mention it... I contacted my MP about the bikes on trains thing and they asked for us to copy the letter sent, and any replies, to a contact at CTC. I got quite a good reply back from my MP (Beverley Hughes) and a letter via her from someone in the Transport dept. I pdfed it and duly forwarded it to the CTC contact, explicitly asking for an acknowledgement (since I'd not heard the time before when I copied them my original communication). I still haven't heard anything. I thought they were just being rude... perhaps not. They have quite a small staff at the CTC and I suspect its a choice of either spending time replying to each communication or doing something about the subject of the communication or putting up membership fees to employ more staff. Which would you prefer they did? -- Tony "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
bloody CTC
Tony Raven wrote on 11/06/2007 10:20:
They have quite a small staff at the CTC and I suspect its a choice of either spending time replying to each communication or doing something about the subject of the communication or putting up membership fees to employ more staff. Which would you prefer they did? Not sure. I didn't really want a full letter but a quick acknowledgement wouldn't have gone amiss, particularly when they solicited emails on this matter. I'm one of those people who values good customer service and communication and if the price has to go up to cover that then so be it. I work for a charity and if we just ignored our supporters I suspect we'd go under pretty quickly. I'm a new(ish) member of the CTC and somewhat taken aback by the number of negative comments made in this ng about them. It seems to me that they are doing a good job defending cycling issues, particularly in light of recent events (Highway Code, Cadden, Rhyll) and we should be grateful for that... Peter -- http://www.scandrett.net/lx/ http://www.scandrett.net/bike/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bloody rock | Unicaw89 | Unicycling | 57 | January 19th 07 03:12 AM |
Bloody London Bus | Tom Crispin | UK | 22 | December 11th 06 11:18 AM |
Bloody media | wafflycat | UK | 25 | September 26th 06 11:06 AM |
Bloody AUK | Arthur Clune | UK | 75 | March 1st 06 11:25 AM |
Bloody cyclists!!! | dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers | UK | 5 | December 7th 04 11:40 PM |