Michelle wrote: > Ok first I'm going to apologise to Bryan for being abrasive my nature is to > be suspicious of anyone who publicly criticizes SORBS whilst hiding the > cause/listing details and making claims of legitimacy. I thank those who > took part in the thread that gave support directly or indirectly. > > The email in the DB does appear to be a legitimate email. > > It was sent to multiple recipients. > > One of the recipients was a spamtrap email address which was rejecting all > emails (as "550 5.7.1 User Unknown") for at least 6 months of the last 10 > months and in the last 4 months is one of the [many] addresses that if you > email it you might receive a "550 5.7.1 User Unknown" or not based on a whole > complex rule set the involves all sorts of connection/sender/recipient and > DNS heuristics. In another 2 months it will blanket accept all emails, > filtering out certain types of emails after accepting and forwarding them to > the SORBS Automated Spamtrap system along with a whole load of other systems > that are non-SORBS. > > The listing was held for 48 hours in-spite of this seemingly obvious error > because of internal policy, and that is my fault. I instructed that Spamtrap > listings should be held for 48 hours for reasons explained elsewhere in this > thread. The support ticket was first handled by the robot (as all are) - > Level 0 support - , then it was handled by a real person - Level 1 Team -, > and unfortunately that person did not escalate after the 2nd or 3rd reply to > the Level 2 team, or take the initiative and consider delisting themselves as > an exception... I am Level 3, and I get about one support case a quarter to > look at now instead of 200+ per day which shows how the system has improved > over the years (especially as we see thousands of tickets a week and it is > growing in number).. That said it (the system/policy/process) is not > infallible which this case proves. > > This reply is as always *my* attempt to be as transparent in our processes as > possible as I have always tried, without compromising company secrets, I hope > it is informative to others when it comes to the use and/or contact with > SORBS in the future. The important thing to do in every case is reply when > you don't have the answer you need to get it escalated up the chain... > (particularly to robot replies if the robot did not do what you want.. as if > you don't it will never be seen by a human.)
Michelle, having been both on the anti-spam side specifically (at MAPS, and at Habeas before it went to the...less white side...), as well as being an intermediary between the anti-spam receiver side and the legitimate sender side for years, I *know* how difficult it is to provide a legitimate, valuable service to the receivers while still being fair to the senders, and mindful of all the rocks and hard places. So, I just want to *thank you* for the above explanation and transparency. Thank you. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. CEO/President, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance http://www.SuretyMail.com/ http://www.SuretyMail.eu/ Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Member, California Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cybersecurity Consortium Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Committee Member, Board of Directors, Greenwood Wildlife Rehabilitation Former Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Attorney at Law / Legislative Consultant Available for consultations by special arrangement. amitch...@isipp.com | @AnnePMitchell Facebook/AnnePMitchell | LinkedIn/in/annemitchell _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
