Does anyone have a contact at verify-email.org, which seems to be doing stuff like briteverify.com?
We saw over 193K SMTP connection attempts yesterday and 93K attempts so far today. We're seeing connection rates up 115 per second, logged by our system like this: Sep 15 07:26:48 199.120.69.25 user:WARN [exchanger.smtp.inbound.inbound] InboundSmtpSession/77D59B55 = 52.33.162.175:45476 <- 550 Rejected <= RCPT TO: <isvolpivsm...@mtcnet.net> [HELO=verify-email.org FROM=<ch...@verify-email.org>] Sep 15 07:26:51 199.120.69.25 user:WARN [exchanger.smtp.inbound.inbound] InboundSmtpSession/17720128 = 52.89.181.163:49132 <- 550 Rejected <= RCPT TO: <isvolpivsm...@mtcnet.net> [HELO=verify-email.org FROM=<ch...@verify-email.org>] Two notes on their "Contact Us" section over two days, and no response. Sending IPs are in AWS space, so I can't simply block a few IPs. If there's a good AWS contact, that might be another approach. Regards, Frank P.S. isvolpivsm...@mtcnet.net is not a valid email address on our domain. -----Original Message----- From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Dave Warren Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 1:11 PM To: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] briteverify.com On 2014-08-19 04:36, Ian Eiloart wrote: >> On 11 Jul 2014, at 22:57, Dave Warren <da...@hireahit.com> wrote: >> >> And unless it's a big blocklist, they'll play the wounded "We're just >> trying to reduce spam too!" card. > They will, but what they’re doing can’t reduce spam. Email sent to an > undeliverable address isn’t spam, it’s just a waste of network resource for > everybody. If email addresses were never reused or recycled, this would be true. However, when email addresses can be reactivated and re-assigned to a new user, it only increases the need to drop invalid addresses from lists. > If the lists that they’re washing are spam lists, then they’re making the > spam harder to detect. However, they’ll maintain that they have responsible > commercial clients who are gathering email addresses in some legitimate > manner, and using them to send consented marketing emails. If they’re right, > then they aren’t addressing spam, they’re just taking some of the risk (of > blacklisting) from the senders. But why would they, or their clients be > blacklisted if they were just sending wanted email? Indeed. And if senders were doing proper list management, they'd be removing undeliverable addresses during every run, so this service is completely unnecessary. If a list is in that bad a state that it needs to be "cleaned" in this way, perhaps a full re-opt-in cycle upon import to a new ESP would be more appropriate since it may well have recipients of addresses that already went through a reasonable period of deactivation before re-assignment. -- Dave Warren http://www.hireahit.com/ http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
