On 12/07/21 12:49, Jayson Smith wrote: > Hi, > > > Just over two weeks since I found myself on Microsoft's blocklist and > was manually removed, I find myself back on their blocklist again. > Possibly coincidentally, this morning MXToolbox informed me that > Linode has apparently found itself back on Uceprotectl3. Does anyone > know if Microsoft considers that particular blacklist when deciding > to blocklist an IP? Naturally, I've submitted a deliverability > support ticket, and will probably have to wait several hours for the > result.
I am also on Linode and also a repeat-victim of Microsoft: sjdm.org (and Linode thinks we are jbaron.org, both addresses sort of work). I strongly believe that nobody pays attention to UCEPROTECT3. I don't think we have ever been off of it, and lately we have 100% success except for a few "user not found" or "over quota" messages, including with Microsoft. The last problem with Microsoft took over a week to resolve despite repeated emails from what seemed to be a person saying that they had brought in their escalation team, or something like that. That weeklong outage was due to an error message about IPv4 addresses in "our range". UCEPROTECT3, as I recall, looks at IPv6. Microsoft uses only ipv4. Of course we control exactly one ipv4 address. (We do have one /64 ipv6 address, installed at my request by Linode, and that fixed some of the other blocklists that look at ipv6, even though we have another ipv6 address without that range specifier, which is what I think it is.) > As always, I'm not doing anything wrong (that I know of at least). > Even if someone had hacked my server, my hypothesis is that they'd > have to be a very careful and methodical hacker if their aim were to > get me blocklisted by Microsoft and only Microsoft. If my server were > spewing out spam, I ought to be hitting Spamhaus/SORBS/etc. spam > traps left and right. Trust me, one time I was hacked, my server was > sending out spam and I didn't know it, and I quickly found myself on > Spamhaus XBL. Spamhaus is a much bigger problem. I think the /64 helped with that. For the last few months they have not given us trouble. Please feel free to communicate with me directly at ba...@sjdm.org or the address I am writing from. I've spent a lot of time getting things to work, and, at this moment, they do. Jon > > Any thoughts? > > > Thanks, > > > Jayson > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ > Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 > Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 > Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/ -- Jonathan Baron, Professor of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania Home page: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron Founding Editor: Judgment and Decision Making (http://journal.sjdm.org) ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
