VERIZON'S EMAIL SERVER IN RBL LIST, CAN'T SEND EMAILS

Did you check them before paying? If not, I'd say you were not doing your job. That is step 1 before signing any contracts for internet service - check to so if the IP space you are getting has a bad net rep! See if you can find out who had it last, etc. You could wind up with even worse than mail blacklisting if you don't! For instance there have been cases of providers selling hijacked IP blocks that were not theirs to sell in the first place, etc.

As a mail server operator, it is my right to block anyone that our organization decides should blocked. Spammy ISP's fall into that category here in some cases.

Even tier one providors can wind up on lists if they ignore enough LARTs

Sounds like your problem is with qwest for selling you IPs with a bad reputation.

Nice to hear the system is working as it should.

You should be pissed at QWEST that you had to do this. They had to have known the space was listed. It does not get listed (in most lists anyway) without them being notified that there is a problem.

Yes. And the ISP should know better than to lease them out without either warning the customer or havoing them cleaned up first.

Good for you. I use a mix of both. Guess which tends to be more accurate (less false postives, more actual spam filtered)?....... yup, the lists. Hands down.

Reply to
T. Sean Weintz
Loading thread data ...

What should the provider do?

I work for the company that owns and hosts the "webmaster.com" domain. We get advertised in spam quite a bit (usually do to stupidity, typos, or joe jobs). What should our provider do to us?

DS

Reply to
David Schwartz

Isn't that a bit like saying that if you left your keys in the car you are more responsible than the guy who stole it?

Anyway, I paid on-line for an automated assignment of a block of IPs. I had no ability on the on-line form to see in advance which IPs would be spit out by the system. Granted, afterward, I could have checked, and bitched, if necessary. But at the time I did this I was not running a mail server anyway. I started that later.

Anyway, again... I am getting kinda tired of this now (LOL). I think we've run the subject to death here in the xdsl forum :) I'm happy to agree to disagree. Thanks for your input.

-Frank

Reply to
Frankster

No, it is saying that you are both responsible. One party's responsibility does not reduce the other party's at all. There is not some fixed amount of responsibility to be divided up. The amount of responsibility can be more or less as a whole.

The more extreme example is the guy who walks through a bad neighborhood at night with a dozen $100 bills peeking out of his shirt pocket. He is an idiot and is responsible for what happens to him. However, this in no way means that the criminal who robs him is any less responsible than if they had robbed someone else.

It does not have to be the case that every robbery has the exact same amount of blame to go around so that any blame that goes to the victim is taken away from the culprit.

DS

Reply to
David Schwartz

Generally such an account should be terminated right off, of course. At least in the case of "stupidity". (by which I assume you mean real spam from someone who did not know any better?)

How does something get spamvertized via a typo? I'm skeptical of that.

Joe Jobs - if the account can PROVE it is a joe job, then of course don't terminate. However given that it's one of the most common excuse/lies spammers have, the providor should never take a claim of a joe job at face value. At bare minimum make them sign a notorized affidavit stating that they have not hired any marketers to advertize their site via email, etc. If they refuse to do so, then obviously they are full of $hit...

Reply to
T. Sean Weintz

No our stupidity, the stupidity of the spammers. In one case I remember well, the default email address was something like snipped-for-privacy@webmaster.com in a spamming program. They simply failed to change the default (I presume unintentionally, but I'll never know for sure).

Well, for example, one spam was for a company that had a domain that was almost the same as ours. I don't recall the exact name, but ours was "webmaster.com" and theirs was something like "webmasters.com". In one place, they put our domain name instead of theirs.

IMO, most joe jobs are pretty obviously joe jobs. You can tell the type of web site that would spamvertize or that would benefit from spamvertizing.

However, the more burden you impose on the victim, the more effective joe jobs are and the more of them there will be. The whole spam problem is about burden shifting, and the more burden you shift on innocent people, the worse the problem will be overall.

A joe job is most effective against a web site that's pretty slimy anyway.

DS

Reply to
David Schwartz

No one should have IP's blacklisted for having an email address in their domain as the "from" or "return path" in a spam. Mute question. I have never heard of this happening. I have herad people CLAIM it, but on investigation of their cliams, has always turned out there were other reasons they were blacklisted.

If the email is a link or text in the spam itself, then this would qaulify as a joe job (althougyh an unintentional one) IMO.

That sucks. If the ISP is sure it's a typo, then upon receiving a complaint they should contact the major blacklists and post to NANAE explaining the situation. Should do so immediately after first complaint received.

let me revise that - get proof when it's not obvious that the claim is true.

True.

Reply to
T. Sean Weintz

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.