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

This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields:

Message-id: Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:45:29 -0700 From: DELETED To: snipped-for-privacy@safenet-inc.com Subject: upgrade cost from 8.0 to latest of softremote

Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:

Recipient address: snipped-for-privacy@safenet-inc.com Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address Diagnostic code: smtp;553-mail rejected because your IP is in RBL. See

formatting link
Remote system: dns;cluster2.us.messagelabs.com (TCP|206.46.252.42|36335|216.82.255.67|25) (server-4.tower-73.messagelabs.com ESMTP)

Reply to
dude
Loading thread data ...

Boundary_(ID_wODftB2uJnCR0qrLrx9v6Q)

Reply to
Frankster

Boundary_(ID_wODftB2uJnCR0qrLrx9v6Q)

Reply to
Frankster

Boundary_(ID_wODftB2uJnCR0qrLrx9v6Q)

Reply to
Frankster

Boundary_(ID_wODftB2uJnCR0qrLrx9v6Q)

Reply to
T. Sean Weintz

Boundary_(ID_wODftB2uJnCR0qrLrx9v6Q)

Reply to
Frankster

formatting link

Funny. Now it's NOT listed. 3 hours later.

Reply to
T. Sean Weintz

And three hours after that it is back...

---------------- Checking 206.46.252.42 against 144 known blacklists... Listed: 7 time(s) Timeouts:6 __________

Reply to
Frankster

And that punishes the repsonsible ISP how exactly?

Reply to
T. Sean Weintz

It's not about punishing the ISP silly. It's about GETTING VALID E-MAIL THOROUGH!

-Frank

Reply to
Frankster

From the senders prospective, usually yes. On the receiver's end, things may be seen a little differently.

It's about getting email only from non-spam friendly sources where I sit. My mail server users about 15 or so black lists as well as a bayesian filter. I find blacklist to be much more effective and reliable, giving fewer false positives and fewer false negatives than bayesian filtering.

Furthermore, I find your attitude that making sure mail gets through being more important than putting pressure on ISP's that refuse to curb their spammers to be rather irresponsible. If a message is critcal, send it certified next day snail mail, or FedEx, or UPS red, or whatever. Email is and always has been a "best effort delivery" technology.

Luckily enough of us see thing differently from the way that you do that RBL's will continue to be a thorn in the side of irresponsible ISP's and their clueless users.

Reply to
T. Sean Weintz

There is nothing wrong with my attitude. I run a mail server and I comply will all the recommended standards to include having a reverse lookup and an SPF record.

However, the blacklist method of identifying spam is a technology that has reached the end of its useful life. The new technologies are much better. And they can focus on true spam rather than an IP address that has the POTENTIAL of sending spam based on past history.

-Frank

Reply to
Frankster

My original qoute is below!

The words you attributed to me are quoted below!

Two entirely different meanings. Note the word VALID! Are you trying to twist my comments?

-Frank

Reply to
Frankster

What "new technologies" are you referring to? I know of no new technology that eliminates the need for blacklists. If you know something nobody else does, perhaps you could share.

DS

Reply to
David Schwartz

Exactly. I use a bayesian filter AND filter on SPF records, and STILL over 50% of my incoming spam is caught by blacklists, not the other two methods.

Reply to
T. Sean Weintz

My point is I think forcing ISP's to clean up their users acts (or terminate their accounts more aggressively) is more important than making sure every piece of valid email gets through.

If a piece of mail is that important, you send it certified rerurn receipt or fedex anyway, not via email!

If verizon won't take the steps needed to stay out of the blacklist, then their usres should switch ISP's or learn to live with mail service that will not work to certain destinations.

Reply to
T. Sean Weintz

I doubt he meant bayesian filtering anyway. His whole problem with blacklists was that it excludes some legitimate mail. Bayesian filters do so too. The classic example is when your sister forwards you a scam she was considering responding to. Since the forwarded email is nearly identical to the scam email, your bayesian filters will ensure you never see it, and never warn your sister.

DS

Reply to
David Schwartz

The biggest problem with the blacklists are keeping them updated and keeping them fair to all ISPs. Also, there is no "authorized authority" to make decision on who should be on a blacklist. Just a bunch of cowboys taking their best guess. No one appointed these cowboys. They just do what they want to.

Example: You know as well as I do that AOL, MS HOTMAIL, YAHOO and all the big names send out tons of spam (yes, I know it's actually people abusing their systems, but that doesn't matter for blacklisting). YET THEY ARE NOT ON THE BLACKLIST LIKE OTHER SMALLER IPSs ARE!!!! HMM!!!!!

It's a bunch of bullshit.

-Frank

Reply to
Frankster

I disagree. It's been YEARS since I have seen spam actual come from a hotmail or AOL IP. I HAVE seen forged hotmail and aol return addresses, but of course that's not the same thing.

I think most of the blacklists are pretty darn accurate. Some are better than others, but most are pretty good.

Unless you can point to a specific cases that illustrate your point, I have to disagree.

Reply to
T. Sean Weintz

Depends on the list.

Some of them simply have trap mailboxes set up. ANY mail sent to the trap address automatically causes the sending IP to be blacklisted. I like those - accurate and not prone to human error.

Others are merely list of dynamic IP blocks, which of course should not be directly sending mail.

Still others are lists of hosts that have been scanned and determined to be open relays.

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.