listadmin,
Can you PLEASE, PLEASE find *any* other blacklist than manitu? This asshole's method was ok a dozen years ago; these days, with hosting sites hosting tens or hundreds of thousands of domains, with too many running Windows, and so infected and sending out spam. They then send all mail via one mailhost, with the result that those of us with *no* spam coming out are frequently blocked.
This ain't the first time for me with this jerk, either. A few years ago, Cogeco in Canada was using him, and on and off for *months* I was blocked from exchanging email with an old friend... because I was mailing from Roadrunner in Chicago (hosting hundreds of thousands of households), until my friend dropped Cogeco.
mark, who is wondering if this will be blocked
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 17:10 -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
listadmin,
Can you PLEASE, PLEASE find *any* other blacklist than manitu? This asshole's method was ok a dozen years ago; these days, with hosting sites hosting tens or hundreds of thousands of domains, with too many running Windows, and so infected and sending out spam. They then send all mail via one mailhost, with the result that those of us with *no* spam coming out are frequently blocked.
This ain't the first time for me with this jerk, either. A few yearsago, Cogeco in Canada was using him, and on and off for *months* I was blocked from exchanging email with an old friend... because I was mailing from Roadrunner in Chicago (hosting hundreds of thousands of households), until my friend dropped Cogeco.
mark, who is wondering if this will be blocked
No I got it in England, Europe.
Why not run your own mail server ? I use Exim (a Sendmail replacement) on several servers. I refuse incoming mails where the sender's HELO / EHLO does not match the sender's IP host name, because that - for me - eliminates 90% or more of spam and I absolutely detest spam.
Discardable sub-domain names for mailing list subscriptions also helps. (currently on my third change for this list ... u61)
Having spare domains, control over the DNS and assigning unique email addresses for different purposes means you can simply bloke a compromised email address whilst continuing to receive emails from everyone else. I've been doing this for about 10 years with great success.
Spam is a USA invention created by someone called Wallace? about 15? years ago. It is now a world-wide pest.
No Centos fan should have to depend on other's email services for daily communications, so do consider operating your own mail server.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 03:08:46AM +0100, Always Learning wrote:
Why not run your own mail server ? I use Exim (a Sendmail replacement) on several servers. I refuse incoming mails where the sender's HELO / EHLO does not match the sender's IP host name, because that - for me - eliminates 90% or more of spam and I absolutely detest spam.
Not everyone is in a position to run their own server. Nor should people be required to do so if they don't care to take on the burden of doing so.
Discardable sub-domain names for mailing list subscriptions also helps. (currently on my third change for this list ... u61)
Why? I've been on this list for years all using the same address, which I might add is the same address I have been using since the late 80s.
Having spare domains, control over the DNS and assigning unique email addresses for different purposes means you can simply bloke a compromised email address whilst continuing to receive emails from everyone else. I've been doing this for about 10 years with great success.
Waste of time and resources. Learn how to properly handle email and none of this nonsense is necessary.
Spam is a USA invention created by someone called Wallace? about 15? years ago. It is now a world-wide pest.
The question marks indicate that you indeed don't know what you are talking about.
No Centos fan should have to depend on other's email services for daily communications, so do consider operating your own mail server.
Can you please stop with the sweeping statements that are without merit until you fully understand the problem at hand?
John
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 21:36 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
Waste of time and resources. Learn how to properly handle email and none of this nonsense is necessary.
Properly handling emails means, to me, not being too reliant on others whose faults and omissions could impair your ability to send and receive mail ..... and not being a willing victim of spam ;-)
Always Learning wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 21:36 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
Waste of time and resources. Learn how to properly handle email and none of this nonsense is necessary.
Properly handling emails means, to me, not being too reliant on others whose faults and omissions could impair your ability to send and receive mail ..... and not being a willing victim of spam ;-)
You don't seem to understand the issue. My hosting provider has literally hundreds of thousands of domains. The email gets funneled for all, I assume, except those paying for co-location, through their heavy-duty mailhost. manitu sees spam coming from that mailhost, and blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN that goes through it, even though none of the rest of us are running windows or spamming....
marmk
Hi Mark,
You don't seem to understand the issue. My hosting provider has literally hundreds of thousands of domains. The email gets funneled for all, I assume, except those paying for co-location, through their heavy-duty mailhost. manitu sees spam coming from that mailhost, and blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN that goes through it, even though none of the rest of us are running windows or spamming....
Its the same old "one size fits all" syndrome.
What I was suggesting, is can't you have a back-up plan. For example:-
(1) run your own mail server ?
(2) use something like Google which will automatically forward by SMTP and allow POP3 collection ?
Obviously I don't know your computer situation. It seems your present 'service' is not always reliable, so is there anything we can do to help you devise an alternative plan ?
Always Learning wrote:
Hi Mark,
You don't seem to understand the issue. My hosting provider has literally hundreds of thousands of domains. The email gets funneled for all, I assume, except those paying for co-location, through their heavy-duty mailhost. manitu sees spam coming from that mailhost, and blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN that goes through it, even though none of the rest of us are running windows or spamming....
Its the same old "one size fits all" syndrome.
What I was suggesting, is can't you have a back-up plan. For example:-
(1) run your own mail server ?
(2) use something like Google which will automatically forward by SMTP and allow POP3 collection ?
Obviously I don't know your computer situation. It seems your present 'service' is not always reliable, so is there anything we can do to help you devise an alternative plan ?
No, you still don't understand. 1. I'm not going to join this list, or any other, from multiple email accounts 2. I do not want to use my current 'Net provider (that provides access to my home), because I've relocated too many times, and want one, utterly stable email address that's under my control. That's why I pay for hosting. My home 'Net access is through my local phone company. In the US, you have to pay significantly extra for a business line, which would *not* block my own mailserver. 3. 5-cent.us is my own domain. I'm paying a hosting provider (somewhere in the west of the US), because another techie mailing list I'm on recommended them as being a) reliable, and b) inexpensive.
Finally, you're missing the real issue: not how I can use different email addresses, or run my own mailserver, but that I was hoping to have a conversation with the CentOS mailing list admin about using *anyone* else than manitu.net to block spam to the list. I mentioned the problems I had a few years back emailing to a friend in Canada through his then-local 'Net provider, because they were also using manitu.net.
The real problem is manitou.net, and their "algorythm". 15 years ago, it might have been reasonable to track mailhosts, and block all mail coming from that host. For the last 10 years, at least, it's *wrong*. Even the best of 'Net providers can't keep up with all the spammers (or don't have what I would consider reasonable policies in place). With the exception of a few outlaw sites, mostly, I believe, in eastern Europe or Asia, most ISPs *try*... but with all the mergers 10 years ago, most ISPs are *huge*. Roadrunner, that I mentioned, is a US national provider that does cable, VOIP, and 'Net in *many* cities around the US. I, personally, used them in Chicago and central Florida. I *think* they're part of Time-Warner. They are the ISP for millions of people, and tens or hundreds of thousands in each area, just as my hosting provider, Bluehost, hosts tens (or is it hundreds?) of *thousands* of domains. Some of those domains are running on *bleah* Windows (not Linux, as I am), and are clearly infected.
For manitu.net to decide that *everyone* coming from that mailhost, regardless of the source domain, is incompetence and hostile to the way things are for years now. They are doing a *very* bad job, and have companies convinced that since they've been doing it for years, they should stay with them. I want the CentOS list maintainer to reconsider.
I might also note that months ago - last year? - one or more other folks on this list had the same problem, for the same reason. It's manitu.net that's the problem, not my hosting provider.
mark
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 09:09 -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
The real problem is manitou.net, and their "algorythm". 15 years ago, it might have been reasonable to track mailhosts, and block all mail coming from that host. For the last 10 years, at least, it's *wrong*. Even the best of 'Net providers can't keep up with all the spammers (or don't have what I would consider reasonable policies in place). With the exception of a few outlaw sites, mostly, I believe, in eastern Europe or Asia, most ISPs *try*... but with all the mergers 10 years ago, most ISPs are *huge*. Roadrunner, that I mentioned, is a US national provider that does cable, VOIP, and 'Net in *many* cities around the US. I, personally, used them in Chicago and central Florida. I *think* they're part of Time-Warner. They are the ISP for millions of people, and tens or hundreds of thousands in each area, just as my hosting provider, Bluehost, hosts tens (or is it hundreds?) of *thousands* of domains. Some of those domains are running on *bleah* Windows (not Linux, as I am), and are clearly infected.
For manitu.net to decide that *everyone* coming from that mailhost, regardless of the source domain, is incompetence and hostile to the way things are for years now. They are doing a *very* bad job, and have companies convinced that since they've been doing it for years, they should stay with them. I want the CentOS list maintainer to reconsider.
ISP amalgation in the western world is a fact of life.
Who do you, and others, suggest as a 'fit for purpose' alternative to manitu.net ?
On 8/11/2011 8:09 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Obviously I don't know your computer situation. It seems your present 'service' is not always reliable, so is there anything we can do to help you devise an alternative plan ?
No, you still don't understand.
How much sympathy do you expect for self-inflicted pain?
- I'm not going to join this list, or any other, from multiple email
accounts
So move them to gmail. Price is right. End of problem. If you don't like their browser interface, use pop/imap and authenticated smtp. Plus, you can set it up so they archive a copy when you download so you can delete your instance and still be able to log into their web interface and find it in a search if you want to review it later. If you like using your own mail host, use fetchmail to move it for you.
Finally, you're missing the real issue: not how I can use different email addresses, or run my own mailserver, but that I was hoping to have a conversation with the CentOS mailing list admin about using *anyone* else than manitu.net to block spam to the list. I mentioned the problems I had a few years back emailing to a friend in Canada through his then-local 'Net provider, because they were also using manitu.net.
That conversation would make sense if there were any spam blockers that cared about the collateral damage to unrelated hosts that happen to be in an IP range that they don't like. I don't think you'll find any. And it has always been that way since the start of those businesses.
For manitu.net to decide that *everyone* coming from that mailhost, regardless of the source domain, is incompetence and hostile to the way things are for years now.
Good luck with that... I think you'll find it easier to send though some service that accepts authenticated smtp and fights that battle for you than to do it yourself.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:52:47AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 8/11/2011 8:09 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
So move them to gmail. Price is right. End of problem.
If you don't
like their browser interface, use pop/imap and authenticated smtp.
Did gmail ever fix their "feature" that if you send an email to a mailing list, you don't receive a copy?
On 8/11/2011 9:58 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:52:47AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 8/11/2011 8:09 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
So move them to gmail. Price is right. End of problem.
If you don't
like their browser interface, use pop/imap and authenticated smtp.
Did gmail ever fix their "feature" that if you send an email to a mailing list, you don't receive a copy?
It is still like that at least through the web interface - not sure about through smtp. I actually use fetchmail to pull to my own imap host (set up before gmail did imap) and send through my own server except from my phone. I'll probably revisit the setup one of these days because I need a vpn to reach my own smtp host.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 8/11/2011 8:09 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
<snip>
- I'm not going to join this list, or any other, from multiple email
accounts
So move them to gmail. Price is right. End of problem. If you don't
No. Not ever. I have no intention of using a service that will have *years*, at least, of backups of all my mail, including stuff that was hypothetically d/l and *deleted*.
Finally, you're missing the real issue: not how I can use different email addresses, or run my own mailserver, but that I was hoping to have a conversation with the CentOS mailing list admin about using *anyone* else than manitu.net to block spam to the list. I mentioned the problems I had a few years back emailing to a friend in Canada through his then-local 'Net provider, because they were also using manitu.net.
That conversation would make sense if there were any spam blockers that cared about the collateral damage to unrelated hosts that happen to be
So, in your experience, there aren't *any*, they all block an entire range?
If so, why is that a valid method for blocking spam?
in an IP range that they don't like. I don't think you'll find any. And it has always been that way since the start of those businesses.
Yes, 15 years ago. I reiterate: it has been *completely* wrong for about 10 years. <snip>
Good luck with that... I think you'll find it easier to send though some service that accepts authenticated smtp and fights that battle for you than to do it yourself.
Um, my email does.
mark
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:02 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 8/11/2011 8:09 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
<snip> >> 1. I'm not going to join this list, or any other, from multiple email >> accounts > > So move them to gmail. Price is right. End of problem. If you don't
No. Not ever. I have no intention of using a service that will have *years*, at least, of backups of all my mail, including stuff that was hypothetically d/l and *deleted*.
The CentOS list is publicly archived. Who cares if Google keeps an extra copy?
On 8/11/2011 10:02 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
So move them to gmail. Price is right. End of problem. If you don't
No. Not ever. I have no intention of using a service that will have *years*, at least, of backups of all my mail, including stuff that was hypothetically d/l and *deleted*.
Wait, do you think you can send something anywhere on the internet without it being monitored and potentially recorded? What country is this? If you are concerned about who will see something, don't put it anywhere on the internet. My mail is boring enough that no one else would bother reading it anyway.
That conversation would make sense if there were any spam blockers that cared about the collateral damage to unrelated hosts that happen to be
So, in your experience, there aren't *any*, they all block an entire range?
If so, why is that a valid method for blocking spam?
I haven't done extensive research, but there's not really a good way to do it at all, much less correctly.
in an IP range that they don't like. I don't think you'll find any. And it has always been that way since the start of those businesses.
Yes, 15 years ago. I reiterate: it has been *completely* wrong for about 10 years.
It was always wrong. That doesn't mean it won't happen.
On Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:28 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
That conversation would make sense if there were any spam blockers that cared about the collateral damage to unrelated hosts that happen to be
So, in your experience, there aren't *any*, they all block an entire range?
If so, why is that a valid method for blocking spam?
I haven't done extensive research, but there's not really a good way to do it at all, much less correctly.
Man, this is getting to sound more and more like SPAM-L. Outblaze Ltd, before they sold their message business to IBM, did the right thing. Where net blocks are proven to be entirely spew engines, the whole net block gets blocked, persistent abusive ones get firewalled. Said net block would be released a year later for review in case it had been reassigned.
Single mail servers with spammy domains and clean ones get 'whitelisted' in that the ip is not stuffed in the block rules but the domains are.
in an IP range that they don't like. I don't think you'll find any. And it has always been that way since the start of those businesses.
Yes, 15 years ago. I reiterate: it has been *completely* wrong for about 10 years.
It was always wrong. That doesn't mean it won't happen.
Whether it is wrong depends on the black list maintainer imho. Some black lists are very clear in their criteria. Whole country. eg: China. Don't like that? Don't use it. That's what you want? Good for you.
When a black list starts doing things inconsistently, then maybe you can label them wrong. Maybe the Centos mail admins might want to take another look into manitu.net...
On Aug 11, 2011, at 4:51 AM, mark wrote:
Always Learning wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 21:36 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
Waste of time and resources. Learn how to properly handle email and none of this nonsense is necessary.
Properly handling emails means, to me, not being too reliant on others whose faults and omissions could impair your ability to send and receive mail ..... and not being a willing victim of spam ;-)
You don't seem to understand the issue. My hosting provider has literally hundreds of thousands of domains. The email gets funneled for all, I assume, except those paying for co-location, through their heavy-duty mailhost. manitu sees spam coming from that mailhost, and blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN that goes through it, even though none of the rest of us are running windows or spamming....
---- Not sure who it is that doesn't understand the issues.
If an RBL has designated a particular SMTP server or range of SMTP servers as a source for spam then the solution lies with those that own the SMTP servers to satisfy the RBL and get the blocks removed.
Yes, some RBL's are more aggressive than others but the notion that it blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN is exactly what RBL's are supposed to do since they don't worry at all about which e-mail or which domain at all... only SMTP servers from a particular IP Address or a range of IP Addresses.
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 4:51 AM, mark wrote:
Always Learning wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 21:36 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
Waste of time and resources. Learn how to properly handle email and none of this nonsense is necessary.
Properly handling emails means, to me, not being too reliant on others whose faults and omissions could impair your ability to send and receive mail ..... and not being a willing victim of spam ;-)
You don't seem to understand the issue. My hosting provider has literally hundreds of thousands of domains. The email gets funneled for all, I assume, except those paying for co-location, through their heavy-duty mailhost. manitu sees spam coming from that mailhost, and blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN that goes through it, even though none of the rest of us are running windows or spamming....
Not sure who it is that doesn't understand the issues.
If an RBL has designated a particular SMTP server or range of SMTP servers as a source for spam then the solution lies with those that own the SMTP servers to satisfy the RBL and get the blocks removed.
Yes, some RBL's are more aggressive than others but the notion that it blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN is exactly what RBL's are supposed to do since they don't worry at all about which e-mail or which domain at all... only SMTP servers from a particular IP Address or a range of IP Addresses.
Craig
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Sorry, mouse ran away there with the last post with no comments.
Craig White wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 4:51 AM, mark wrote:
Always Learning wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 21:36 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
<snip>
You don't seem to understand the issue. My hosting provider has literally hundreds of thousands of domains. The email gets funneled for all, I assume, except those paying for co-location, through their heavy-duty mailhost. manitu sees spam coming from that mailhost, and blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN that goes through it, even though none of the rest of us are running windows or spamming....
Not sure who it is that doesn't understand the issues.
If an RBL has designated a particular SMTP server or range of SMTP servers as a source for spam then the solution lies with those that own the SMTP servers to satisfy the RBL and get the blocks removed.
Yes, some RBL's are more aggressive than others but the notion that it blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN is exactly what RBL's are supposed to do since they don't worry at all about which e-mail or which domain at all... only SMTP servers from a particular IP Address or a range of IP Addresses.
And that's *EXACTLY* what I'm saying is the wrong thing to do. Dunno where you live, but go ahead, for whoever provides 'Net access to your home: call them up, or email them, and tell them to contact manitu, and to request that manitu put them on a whitelist.
Let me know when they get back to you. I'll look for your email sometime around the time when you move and change providers.
mark
On 08/11/2011 10:56 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 4:51 AM, mark wrote:
Always Learning wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 21:36 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
<snip> >> You don't seem to understand the issue. My hosting provider has >> literally hundreds of thousands of domains. The email gets funneled for >> all, I assume, except those paying for co-location, through their >> heavy-duty mailhost. manitu sees spam coming from that mailhost, and >> blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN that goes through it, even though >> none of the rest of us are running windows or spamming.... > ---- > Not sure who it is that doesn't understand the issues. > > If an RBL has designated a particular SMTP server or range of SMTP servers > as a source for spam then the solution lies with those that own the SMTP > servers to satisfy the RBL and get the blocks removed. > > Yes, some RBL's are more aggressive than others but the notion that it > blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN is exactly what RBL's are supposed to > do since they don't worry at all about which e-mail or which domain at > all... only SMTP servers from a particular IP Address or a range of IP > Addresses.
And that's *EXACTLY* what I'm saying is the wrong thing to do. Dunno where you live, but go ahead, for whoever provides 'Net access to your home: call them up, or email them, and tell them to contact manitu, and to request that manitu put them on a whitelist.
Let me know when they get back to you. I'll look for your email sometime around the time when you move and change providers.
In fact, that is one of the single most effective mechanisms used to combat spam, in my experience and will cut down the amount accepted at the gateway(s) by up to 95%.
(I know a lot of folks on this list will maintain their own mail server and might get a few hundred or thousand messages each day going through but I've run systems with up to billions of messages a day which is a completely different ball game.)
Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/11/2011 10:56 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 4:51 AM, mark wrote:
Always Learning wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 21:36 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
<snip> >> You don't seem to understand the issue. My hosting provider has >> literally hundreds of thousands of domains. The email gets funneled >> for all, I assume, except those paying for co-location, through their >> heavy-duty mailhost. manitu sees spam coming from that mailhost, and >> blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN that goes through it, even though >> none of the rest of us are running windows or spamming.... > ---- > Not sure who it is that doesn't understand the issues. > > If an RBL has designated a particular SMTP server or range of SMTP > servers as a source for spam then the solution lies with those > that own the SMTP > servers to satisfy the RBL and get the blocks removed. > > Yes, some RBL's are more aggressive than others but the notion that it > blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN is exactly what RBL's are supposed
<snip>
And that's *EXACTLY* what I'm saying is the wrong thing to do. Dunno where you live, but go ahead, for whoever provides 'Net access to your home: call them up, or email them, and tell them to contact manitu, and to request that manitu put them on a whitelist.
Let me know when they get back to you. I'll look for your email sometime around the time when you move and change providers.
In fact, that is one of the single most effective mechanisms used to combat spam, in my experience and will cut down the amount accepted at the gateway(s) by up to 95%.
I'm not sure who you're answering or agreeing with, but my point is still that 90% of everybody blocked has no clue whatever about what to do about it, and esp. the people with infected systems. A standard channel *to* an ISP for this kind of technical issue - either the ISP notifying the spammer that their machine needs to be cleaned before they'll be allowed back online, or between ISP, would do something useful. But I doubt very much that most of those 90% of users who are *not* spammers, nor infected, would have any idea to complain to their ISP that something needed to be done, and so the ISP goes on thinking there's no problem. The result that *I* see from that is that people simply drop, or change services, and nothing gets fixed. <snip> mark
On 08/11/2011 11:12 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Josh Miller wrote:
In fact, that is one of the single most effective mechanisms used to combat spam, in my experience and will cut down the amount accepted at the gateway(s) by up to 95%.
I'm not sure who you're answering or agreeing with, but my point is still that 90% of everybody blocked has no clue whatever about what to do about it, and esp. the people with infected systems. A standard channel *to* an ISP for this kind of technical issue - either the ISP notifying the spammer that their machine needs to be cleaned before they'll be allowed back online, or between ISP, would do something useful. But I doubt very much that most of those 90% of users who are *not* spammers, nor infected, would have any idea to complain to their ISP that something needed to be done, and so the ISP goes on thinking there's no problem. The result that *I* see from that is that people simply drop, or change services, and nothing gets fixed.
<snip>
Mark,
I totally understand your viewpoint. I have been that guy on the phone with Comcast demanding that port 25 be un-blocked so that I could continue hosting email from my home ISP as part of my service agreement included the ability to check/send/receive email on-line (that only worked 2-3 times).
The problem is that most home users don't host mail and don't care to. Along with that attitude is the fact that a significant amount of spam comes from IP addresses that are dynamically assigned or assigned by residential serving ISPs. It's much easier to block those IP ranges than to care that someone might be sending a few messages out of one of them from a reputable domain.
Also, where I'm from (greater Seattle area even), you don't have much choice as far as ISPs go, so changing service providers is not a big option.
Josh Miller wrote:
On 08/11/2011 11:12 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Josh Miller wrote:
In fact, that is one of the single most effective mechanisms used to combat spam, in my experience and will cut down the amount accepted at the gateway(s) by up to 95%.
I'm not sure who you're answering or agreeing with, but my point is still that 90% of everybody blocked has no clue whatever about what to do about it, and esp. the people with infected systems. A standard channel *to* an ISP for this kind of technical issue - either the ISP notifying the spammer that their machine needs to be cleaned before they'll be allowed back online, or between ISP, would do
<snip>
*I* see from that is that people simply drop, or change services, and nothing gets fixed.
<snip>
Also, where I'm from (greater Seattle area even), you don't have much choice as far as ISPs go, so changing service providers is not a big option.
Yup. That's true most places (competition, *hah*). And all the major ISP's I've dealt with since the conglomeration in Chicago of ISP's about 11 years ago have been the same: common carrier, but not understanding (as I think of it) that spam is the same as problem noise on the line.
mark
M.roth@5-cent.us wrote on Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:12:03 -0400:
I'm not sure who you're answering or agreeing with, but my point is still that 90% of everybody blocked has no clue whatever about what to do about it, and esp. the people with infected systems. A standard channel *to* an ISP for this kind of technical issue - either the ISP notifying the spammer that their machine needs to be cleaned before they'll be allowed back online, or between ISP, would do something useful.
You confuse things. Either talk about RR (= ISP) or Bluehost (= Hosting Provider). *You cannot mix both.* Users on ISP networks are blocked by most mailservers for direct mail delivery, anyway. They have to use the smarthost of their ISP. That smarthost is supposed to make sure that the amount of spam originating from it is as small as possible. If they do that they are very unlikely to get on any list. If they do that they also care about getting on whitelists. If they don't do that you better look for another provider or other means to send out your mail. Of course, if you don't care either then you get what you paid for.
Kai
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
M.roth@5-cent.us wrote on Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:12:03 -0400:
I'm not sure who you're answering or agreeing with, but my point is still that 90% of everybody blocked has no clue whatever about what to do about it, and esp. the people with infected systems. A standard channel *to* an ISP for this kind of technical issue - either the ISP notifying the spammer that their machine needs to be cleaned before they'll be allowed back online, or between ISP, would do something useful.
You confuse things. Either talk about RR (= ISP) or Bluehost (= Hosting Provider). *You cannot mix both.* Users on ISP networks are blocked by
I'm sorry if I've confused you. I used to be on RR when I lived in Chicago twice, and also in central Florida; that was several years ago. The last two years, I've used Bluehost/Hostmonster as my HP, and used them to send mail, *not* using my local ISP (which happens to be the phone co). <snip>
mark
M.roth@5-cent.us wrote on Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:03:45 -0400:
I'm sorry if I've confused you.
*You* confused things. You mixed ISPs and hosting. You can't. You were talking largely about ISPs and how their customers get blocked from sending mail directly and how they don't have a clue. I was trying to tell you that most mailservers won't accept mail from them, anyway.
Kai
On Thursday, August 11, 2011 05:31:21 PM Kai Schaetzl wrote:
*You* confused things. You mixed ISPs and hosting. You can't.
An Internet Service Provider is an Internet Service Provider regardless of the type, bandwidth, or technology of the pipe provided, regardless of the number of IP addresses, and regardless of whether the hosts on their networks are primarily eyeballs (typical consumer at the end of a DSL, cable, or other dynamically assigned single IP address (in IPv4) connection) or content providers. A hosting provider will have its own ISP; our ISP's here do both hosting and eyeballs. Yeah, a single ISP can have co-lo cages, large transit and peering customers with multiple /24's each, as well as a consumer-grade dynamically-provisioned single-IP-per-customer eyeball net.
No ISP is entirely an eyeball network (in NANOG list terminology).
But this thread is getting entirely out of hand.
On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 13:41 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday, August 11, 2011 05:31:21 PM Kai Schaetzl wrote:
*You* confused things. You mixed ISPs and hosting. You can't.
An Internet Service Provider is an Internet Service Provider regardless of the type, bandwidth, or technology of the pipe provided, regardless of the number of IP addresses, and regardless of whether the hosts on their networks are primarily eyeballs (typical consumer at the end of a DSL, cable, or other dynamically assigned single IP address (in IPv4) connection) or content providers. A hosting provider will have its own ISP; our ISP's here do both hosting and eyeballs. Yeah, a single ISP can have co-lo cages, large transit and peering customers with multiple /24's each, as well as a consumer-grade dynamically-provisioned single-IP-per-customer eyeball net.
No ISP is entirely an eyeball network (in NANOG list terminology).
But this thread is getting entirely out of hand.
---- considering that it began as a rant which was inappropriately targeted, I would say that it was out of hand when it began.
Craig
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 13:56 -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Craig White wrote:
If an RBL has designated a particular SMTP server or range of SMTP servers as a source for spam then the solution lies with those that own the SMTP servers to satisfy the RBL and get the blocks removed.
Yes, some RBL's are more aggressive than others but the notion that it blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN is exactly what RBL's are supposed to do since they don't worry at all about which e-mail or which domain at all... only SMTP servers from a particular IP Address or a range of IP Addresses.
And that's *EXACTLY* what I'm saying is the wrong thing to do. Dunno where you live, but go ahead, for whoever provides 'Net access to your home: call them up, or email them, and tell them to contact manitu, and to request that manitu put them on a whitelist.
Let me know when they get back to you. I'll look for your email sometime around the time when you move and change providers.
You can not change the world on your own, even a little bit, without some help. Help from mass 'Internet connections' ISP staff is often dependent on not very intelligent people being able to understand your problem and then having the ability to forward-on your concerns to a more skilled person.
Your task can be onerous and arduous and it will consume your ever decreasing free-time.
Be pragmatic. Accept partial defeat. Get an alternative email arrangement and you may become more happier.
Incidentally as you run your own mail via Bluehost are you actually affected, at the moment, by manitu because, presumably, you can send-out by BH ?
Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 13:56 -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Craig White wrote:
And that's *EXACTLY* what I'm saying is the wrong thing to do. Dunno where you live, but go ahead, for whoever provides 'Net access to your home: call them up, or email them, and tell them to contact manitu, and to request that manitu put them on a whitelist.
Let me know when they get back to you. I'll look for your email sometime around the time when you move and change providers.
You can not change the world on your own, even a little bit, without some help. Help from mass 'Internet connections' ISP staff is often dependent on not very intelligent people being able to understand your problem and then having the ability to forward-on your concerns to a more skilled person.
That's "people who are deeply trained to ask, as the first question, and not think to the second sentence, until you answer "what is your operating system?", or maybe "have you turned on your computer", or "have you rebooted your computer", and the idea that the problem is on *their* end is out of the room.
Try getting one of them to ping your cable modem when the *ethernet* port burns out, but the coax port is fine. Last time I had to, it took about 10 min before she went to talk to her manager....
Your task can be onerous and arduous and it will consume your ever decreasing free-time.
Be pragmatic. Accept partial defeat. Get an alternative email arrangement and you may become more happier.
NO. I WILL *NOT* allow the goddamned spammers to block me from the 'Net, and I'm *not* willing to have them cost me my email, and go to somewhere else; certainly not to someone's suggestion of yahoo (and they aren't banned by manitu?)
Incidentally as you run your own mail via Bluehost are you actually affected, at the moment, by manitu because, presumably, you can send-out by BH ?
You misunderstand: I pay them for hosting. They provide the mailserver; it just comes from my domain on my virtual host on their servers. I don't run a business, so I'm not going to pay a *lot* more than $6US/mo to run my own mailserver....
mark
On 8/11/2011 1:35 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Be pragmatic. Accept partial defeat. Get an alternative email arrangement and you may become more happier.
NO. I WILL *NOT* allow the goddamned spammers to block me from the 'Net, and I'm *not* willing to have them cost me my email, and go to somewhere else; certainly not to someone's suggestion of yahoo (and they aren't banned by manitu?)
Nobody is blocking _you_. The spam services just provide a listing that lets the recipients choose if they want to accept what you send from questionable locations.
Incidentally as you run your own mail via Bluehost are you actually affected, at the moment, by manitu because, presumably, you can send-out by BH ?
You misunderstand: I pay them for hosting. They provide the mailserver; it just comes from my domain on my virtual host on their servers. I don't run a business, so I'm not going to pay a *lot* more than $6US/mo to run my own mailserver....
Many/most ISP's provide an upstream SMTP relay as part of the service. If they do, configure it as your smart_host and it will fix the problem. If they don't, find some other relay service. Sending authenticated smtp though a free gmail account would work but they might check to see if the From: address matches the account (haven't tested that). The point is, that it will be easier to find a relay that someone trusts than to get the rest of the world to trust your random IP address in a block that anyone can get for $6/mo. Or, feel free to waste your time trying to change the world, but don't expect a lot of sympathy for the pain of beating your head on a wall, even if the wall doesn't belong there.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
*snip*
Many/most ISP's provide an upstream SMTP relay as part of the service. If they do, configure it as your smart_host and it will fix the problem. If they don't, find some other relay service.
Is this any good?
http://www.noreply.org/echolot/rlist2.html
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------------- Websites: http://www.karsites.net http://www.php-debuggers.net http://www.raised-from-the-dead.org.uk
All email addresses are challenge-response protected with TMDA [http://tmda.net] -----------------------------------------------------------------
On 8/11/2011 4:56 PM, Keith Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
*snip*
Many/most ISP's provide an upstream SMTP relay as part of the service. If they do, configure it as your smart_host and it will fix the problem. If they don't, find some other relay service.
Is this any good?
Different concept. Those remailers try to remove identifying information from the headers. For normal email you just want it to be sent from an address that others don't expect to be originating spam.
On 8/11/2011 1:16 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Let me know when they get back to you. I'll look for your email sometime around the time when you move and change providers.
You can not change the world on your own, even a little bit, without some help. Help from mass 'Internet connections' ISP staff is often dependent on not very intelligent people being able to understand your problem and then having the ability to forward-on your concerns to a more skilled person.
And it's fairly safe to assume that every IP range that permits uncontrolled customers _will_ have spam-forwarding viruses present. It's even likely on a slightly out of date CentOS box although I thought the botnets valued linux hosts more as coordinating nodes to distribute the workload.
Your task can be onerous and arduous and it will consume your ever decreasing free-time.
Be pragmatic. Accept partial defeat. Get an alternative email arrangement and you may become more happier.
Incidentally as you run your own mail via Bluehost are you actually affected, at the moment, by manitu because, presumably, you can send-out by BH ?
The quick fix normally is to relay through the upstream ISP's mailer, although those sometimes are blacklisted too.
On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:56 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Sorry, mouse ran away there with the last post with no comments.
Craig White wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 4:51 AM, mark wrote:
Always Learning wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 21:36 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
<snip> >> You don't seem to understand the issue. My hosting provider has >> literally hundreds of thousands of domains. The email gets funneled for >> all, I assume, except those paying for co-location, through their >> heavy-duty mailhost. manitu sees spam coming from that mailhost, and >> blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN that goes through it, even though >> none of the rest of us are running windows or spamming.... > ---- > Not sure who it is that doesn't understand the issues. > > If an RBL has designated a particular SMTP server or range of SMTP servers > as a source for spam then the solution lies with those that own the SMTP > servers to satisfy the RBL and get the blocks removed. > > Yes, some RBL's are more aggressive than others but the notion that it > blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN is exactly what RBL's are supposed to > do since they don't worry at all about which e-mail or which domain at > all... only SMTP servers from a particular IP Address or a range of IP > Addresses.
And that's *EXACTLY* what I'm saying is the wrong thing to do. Dunno where you live, but go ahead, for whoever provides 'Net access to your home: call them up, or email them, and tell them to contact manitu, and to request that manitu put them on a whitelist.
Let me know when they get back to you. I'll look for your email sometime around the time when you move and change providers.
---- hmmm... I just got AT&T admins to fix their blocks a few weeks ago but I did have to be persistent and insistent.
you do what you have to do and if you start with a defeated attitude...
Craig
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Always Learning wrote:
snip
Why not run your own mail server ? I use Exim (a Sendmail replacement) on several servers. I refuse incoming mails where the sender's HELO / EHLO does not match the sender's IP host name, because that - for me - eliminates 90% or more of spam and I absolutely detest spam.
snip
No Centos fan should have to depend on other's email services for daily communications, so do consider operating your own mail server.
I have been wondering about that myself.
I'm using postfix instead of sendmail:
postfix 0:off 1:off 2:on 3:on 4:on 5:on 6:off ... sendmail 0:off 1:off 2:off 3:off 4:off 5:off 6:off
Can I use postfix to send outgoing emails directly from my machine, without opening any external ports? Or is that required for the server handshake protocol?
I did have problems with UCEprotect blocking outgoing emails from my ISP, on the mc@gnome.org list. But that appears to have rectified itself now :)
One way around it was to configure alpine MUA to send my outgoing email via my web hosting providers mail server, which they kindly agreed to.
Only problem with that was their mail server needed a password to connect to the server, and alpine is currently compiled without that option. So I had to enter the password whenever I wanted to send an email.
Kind Regards,
Keith Roberts
----------------------------------------------------------------- Websites: http://www.karsites.net http://www.php-debuggers.net http://www.raised-from-the-dead.org.uk
All email addresses are challenge-response protected with TMDA [http://tmda.net] -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 06:52 +0100, Keith Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Always Learning wrote:
Why not run your own mail server ? I use Exim (a Sendmail replacement) on several servers. I refuse incoming mails where the sender's HELO / EHLO does not match the sender's IP host name, because that - for me - eliminates 90% or more of spam and I absolutely detest spam.
No Centos fan should have to depend on other's email services for daily communications, so do consider operating your own mail server.
I have been wondering about that myself.
I'm using postfix instead of sendmail:
postfix 0:off 1:off 2:on 3:on 4:on 5:on 6:off ... sendmail 0:off 1:off 2:off 3:off 4:off 5:off 6:off
I did:-
yum install exim yum erase (or was it remove?) sendmail
Can I use postfix to send outgoing emails directly from my machine, without opening any external ports? Or is that required for the server handshake protocol?
Never used postfix. For mail I use Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-19.el5). If I want to route outgoing mail by the Exim on the machine I'm using I just quote the mail server's host name (example. m4.u226.com). Obviously the Exim, or in your instance Postfix, needs to be configured to accept locally originating mail
My Exim examples:-
daemon_smtp_ports = 25 : 55525 local_interfaces = 127.0.0.1 : 10.123.123.42 (the IP address of the machine)
Only problem with that was their mail server needed a password to connect to the server, and alpine is currently compiled without that option. So I had to enter the password whenever I wanted to send an email.
Running your own mail server(s) generally means you simply send direct and your emails are not delayed by problems at your ISP.
Paul,
Always Learning wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 17:10 -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
listadmin,
Can you PLEASE, PLEASE find *any* other blacklist than manitu? This asshole's method was ok a dozen years ago; these days, with hosting sites hosting tens or hundreds of thousands of domains, with too many running Windows, and so infected and sending out spam. They then send all mail via one mailhost, with the result that those of us with *no* spam coming out are frequently blocked.
This ain't the first time for me with this jerk, either. A few yearsago, Cogeco in Canada was using him, and on and off for *months* I was blocked from exchanging email with an old friend... because I was mailing from Roadrunner in Chicago (hosting hundreds of thousands of households), until my friend dropped Cogeco.
<snip>
Why not run your own mail server ? I use Exim (a Sendmail replacement)
Because I'm not going to pay for colocation, or whatever. This is my personal domain, etc, and I'm paying about $6US for it a month. I'm not running a business, and so don't want to pay $$$ to Verizon for a business line. <snip>
Spam is a USA invention created by someone called Wallace? about 15? years ago. It is now a world-wide pest.
Ah, yes. I think you're thinking of the Green Card Scam, from Cantor and Siegal. Yes, I was on usenet then.... "There's no such thing as community, this is just a marketing opportunity".
mark
Hi Mark,
Why not run your own mail server ? I use Exim (a Sendmail replacement)
Because I'm not going to pay for colocation, or whatever. This is my personal domain, etc, and I'm paying about $6US for it a month. I'm not running a business, and so don't want to pay $$$ to Verizon for a business line.
My domains cost about USD 7.50 annually. Couldn't you get a VPS for little more than your USD 6 a month, or does that include your DSL connection ?
Do you get mail by SMTP ?
Ah, yes. I think you're thinking of the Green Card Scam, from Cantor and Siegal. Yes, I was on usenet then.... "There's no such thing as community, this is just a marketing opportunity".
Used to be on flame-wars then :-) And an ardent critic of the NRA gun nutters.
we block with manitu = nixspam as our primary RBL (followed by Spamhaus). Results are excellent. Their blocking is very reasonable. It's also possible to ask for inclusion in the whitelist. Obviously your great ISP Roadrunner isn't interested in inclusion or is sending out so many spam that they won't include it. Ask Roadrunner. Actually, Roadrunner has been known for years for big spam amounts originating from their network. I set it independently on our ACL for all mail servers years ago (not their whole IP range but all hosts matching their internet access assignment scheme). So, what you ask for is supporting one of the biggest spam output machinaries (besides Chinese ISPs) on the net. Thanks, no.
Because I'm not going to pay for colocation, or whatever.
Well, you are sending via monsterhost.com/bluehost.com which doesn't seem to belong to Roadrunner. So, what's your problem?
Kai
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
we block with manitu = nixspam as our primary RBL (followed by Spamhaus). Results are excellent. Their blocking is very reasonable. It's also possible to ask for inclusion in the whitelist. Obviously your great ISP Roadrunner isn't interested in inclusion or is sending out so many spam that they won't include it. Ask Roadrunner.
I'm sorry, nobody seems to get what I've been saying: I haven't been on roadrunner for two years. I'm sending this email via bluehost, my current hosting provider. Also, with these giant ISP/hosting services, trying to get them to do something for me, that's one vs. MegaGiantCo, w/ layers upon layers of managers and policy, is nearly impossible.
I can try emailing Bluehost, but...
Actually, Roadrunner has been known for years for big spam amounts originating from their network. I set it independently on our ACL for all mail servers years ago (not their whole IP range but all hosts matching their internet access assignment scheme).
AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE between you and manitu.net. You're not going for their whole IP range, which seems to be what manitu is doing.
So, what you ask for is supporting one of the biggest spam output machinaries (besides Chinese ISPs) on the net. Thanks, no.
Well, except that means that a lot of people are in the boat the way I would have been, had I been on this list two years ago. My choice, where I was living in Chicago, for 'Net access was a) Comcast (*GAG*), AT&T, or roadrunner. Great choice... and rr was the best, most reliable, and cheapest.
Because I'm not going to pay for colocation, or whatever.
Well, you are sending via monsterhost.com/bluehost.com which doesn't seem to belong to Roadrunner. So, what's your problem?
Again, I haven't been with rr for two years. My current hosting provider, Bluehosts, is is telling me that I was banned.
Also, again, it isn't just me. What was it, earlier this year? late last year? one or two other folks were complaining, when they could *finally* post again, that they'd been banned.
mark mark
M.roth@5-cent.us wrote on Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:46:22 -0400:
I'm sorry, nobody seems to get what I've been saying: I haven't been on roadrunner for two years. I'm sending this email via bluehost, my current hosting provider.
Ok, so you use Bluehost and one of their mailservers got on the list because spam was sent over it. Is that correct? There is an easy solution for them: they can ask Nixspam to be put on the whitelist or they can spamscan their outgoing SMTP (many hosting providers do that). Complain to them.
AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE between you and manitu.net. You're not going for their whole IP range, which seems to be what manitu is doing.
Not correct. Nixspam adds single IP numbers once their spamtraps have received spam from them. The IP gets automatically removed after 12 or 24 hours (look it up in their policy). That's fair enough, isn't it?
Again, I haven't been with rr for two years. My current hosting provider, Bluehosts, is is telling me that I was banned.
*You* were "banned" or one of *their* mail servers got "banned"?
Also, again, it isn't just me. What was it, earlier this year? late last year? one or two other folks were complaining, when they could *finally* post again, that they'd been banned.
It's simple. If there is no spam originating from that mail server it won't get on the list. If there is some spam originating from that mail server despite all good efforts to avoid that and they are on the whitelist it won't get on the list. In any other case I don't see why it shouldn't make it on the list if spam originates from it.
You got blocked this single one time in two years and you already complain? I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for that. If it were going to happen frequently you would have my sympathy. But I would also tell you to move to a better host that cares more about not spamming.
Is it really the first time that you hear about the concept of RBLs? They have been around for years and have proven to be one of the most effective ways to combat spam, still.
Kai
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
M.roth@5-cent.us wrote on Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:46:22 -0400:
I'm sorry, nobody seems to get what I've been saying: I haven't been on roadrunner for two years. I'm sending this email via bluehost, my current hosting provider.
Ok, so you use Bluehost and one of their mailservers got on the list because spam was sent over it. Is that correct? There is an easy solution for them: they can ask Nixspam to be put on the whitelist or they can spamscan their outgoing SMTP (many hosting providers do that). Complain to them.
Assuming I can get someone who is *willing* to bump it up to tier 2 or 3 support, who *might* be able to do something about it.
And I will do that. However, manitu has been a problem a number of times.
Again, I haven't been with rr for two years. My current hosting provider, Bluehosts, is is telling me that I was banned.
*You* were "banned" or one of *their* mail servers got "banned"?
It appears that mail coming from their mailhost's IP was banned.
Also, again, it isn't just me. What was it, earlier this year? late last year? one or two other folks were complaining, when they could *finally* post again, that they'd been banned.
You got blocked this single one time in two years and you already complain?
No. I've been blocked for a period ranging from hours to several days, and kept getting myself unbanned, a number of times in the last couple of years. And once or twice, the same time I was having this problem, there were one or two others who, once they got unbanned, complained of the same problem. <snip>
Is it really the first time that you hear about the concept of RBLs? They have been around for years and have proven to be one of the most effective ways to combat spam, still.
No, and I've always disagreed with the way they do it.
mark
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 08:53:02PM +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Is it really the first time that you hear about the concept of RBLs? They have been around for years and have proven to be one of the most effective ways to combat spam, still.
I'll love to see how they handle IPv6 once machines can use "privacy extensions" and have a complete /48 to themselves...
They can't block whole subnets 'cos a /64 might be subnetted to different customers (see linode, panix for two examples).
Will be interesting!
-
Always Learning -
Christopher Chan -
Craig White -
Craig White -
John R. Dennison -
Josh Miller -
Kai Schaetzl -
Keith Roberts -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
mark
-
Scott Robbins -
Stephen Harris -
William Hooper