Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Andy Beverley via mailop]

On 09/07/2024 03:17, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote:
I've had a VM at Mythic Beasts doing mail for several years.  They're 
rock solid and all my interactions with them have been very positive.  I 
don't have any stake in them other than as a happy customer.


+1 for Mythic Beasts. You also have some choice over the region that you 
host in. Let's support the small hosting providers :)


Andy
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Ralph Seichter via mailop]

* Suresh Ramasubramanian:

> You might add that it is also possibly due to your being in a
> webhosting provider / datacenter that proactively manages abuse so
> that extremely high volume spammers aren’t sending from any nearby
> IPs.

That is possible, but I think that things have changed since the pool of
available IPv4 addresses was exhausted. Hetzner has been assigning my
new servers IPv4 addresses which don't share obvious similarities for
quite a while now. Based on geolocation data, the addresses were used
in various countries around the globe before being assigned to my
machines. I speculate that Hetzner either purchased these addresses not
too long ago, or perhaps stopped leasing/loaning them to providers
elsewhere. Of course, I could be mistaken.

-Ralph
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Suresh Ramasubramanian via mailop]

You might add that it is also possibly due to your being in a webhosting 
provider / datacenter that proactively manages abuse so that extremely high 
volume spammers aren’t sending from any nearby IPs.

From: mailop  on behalf of Ralph Seichter via mailop 

Date: Tuesday, 9 July 2024 at 9:11 AM
To: mailop@mailop.org 
Subject: Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?
* Philip Paeps via mailop:

> With such low volume, you will really struggle to get email delivered
> to the larger mailbox providers, whose filtering is largely based on
> reputation. It's almost impossible to build up (and maintain) a
> reputation unless you can manage at least O(hundreds) of messages to
> them per day.

I disagree, because I have never struggled to get mail from my servers
delivered to Google, Microsoft, etc.  Telekom appears to soft-block
unfamiliar mail servers by default, and I had to notify them whenever
a new server went online, but that was a one-time measure for each
individual server. Call it a minor nuisance.

As for building a reputation: I cannot say if that is tied to the email
volume. What I know for a fact is that I operate servers which on some
days don't send a single email to "big players", but have no issue with
getting messages delivered there on other days (using IPv4 and IPv6
alike). Like I already mentioned, I believe this is owed to dilligently
configuring DNS records (DKIM, DANE, SPF, forward and reverse resolution
of mail server addresses) and not sending spam.

-Ralph
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Ralph Seichter via mailop]

* Philip Paeps via mailop:

> With such low volume, you will really struggle to get email delivered
> to the larger mailbox providers, whose filtering is largely based on
> reputation. It's almost impossible to build up (and maintain) a
> reputation unless you can manage at least O(hundreds) of messages to
> them per day.

I disagree, because I have never struggled to get mail from my servers
delivered to Google, Microsoft, etc.  Telekom appears to soft-block
unfamiliar mail servers by default, and I had to notify them whenever
a new server went online, but that was a one-time measure for each
individual server. Call it a minor nuisance.

As for building a reputation: I cannot say if that is tied to the email
volume. What I know for a fact is that I operate servers which on some
days don't send a single email to "big players", but have no issue with
getting messages delivered there on other days (using IPv4 and IPv6
alike). Like I already mentioned, I believe this is owed to dilligently
configuring DNS records (DKIM, DANE, SPF, forward and reverse resolution
of mail server addresses) and not sending spam.

-Ralph
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Viktor Dukhovni via mailop]

On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 11:20:53AM +0800, Philip Paeps wrote:

> > That's not my experience.  My server for less than 10 users, sends
> > single-digit messages per day to the too big to fail email providers
> > with no apparent issues.  And my server even moved to a new network
> > provider recently (New York, NY, USA -> Melbourne Australia), without
> > any issues.  Just the same DKIM signing domains, plus matching SPF and
> > DMARC p=none.
> 
> Do those 10 users include you sending email to mailing lists with many
> subscribers?

Yes, but that's not direct from my IP, the list servers send out the
posts to the subscribes, so my own IP reputation is not involved there.

> I admit that my anecdata are from a couple of years ago.  I stopped
> hosting family/friends email partly because their email stopped being
> delivered to their correspondents' inboxes any time I took a break
> from arguing with people on popular mailing lists.

Perhaps a coincidence, or you were paying more attention after the
breaks...  Many of the lists break DKIM signatures these days, by
adding message footers and decorating subjects, so it does not seem
like post to lists would be helpful.

> I still run a couple small installations (low O(hundreds) of messages
> per day) without any issues.  I will sleep better knowing that that I
> don't have to worry about overlapping holidays affecting
> deliverability. :)

Good luck.  My ISP's address block does appear on a couple of the more
rabid RBLs (e.g., UCEProtect), but this is not leading to any problems
with mail delivery.

I did go to the trouble of getting a DWL whitelisting, it should help
to counteract the occasional hit from a marginal RBL.

-- 
Viktor.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Philip Paeps via mailop]

On 2024-07-09 10:38:51 (+0800), Viktor Dukhovni via mailop wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:17:15AM +0800, Philip Paeps via mailop 
wrote:
With such low volume, you will really struggle to get email delivered 
to the
larger mailbox providers, whose filtering is largely based on 
reputation.
It's almost impossible to build up (and maintain) a reputation unless 
you

can manage at least O(hundreds) of messages to them per day.


That's not my experience.  My server for less than 10 users, sends
single-digit messages per day to the too big to fail email providers
with no apparent issues.  And my server even moved to a new network
provider recently (New York, NY, USA -> Melbourne Australia), without
any issues.  Just the same DKIM signing domains, plus matching SPF and
DMARC p=none.


Do those 10 users include you sending email to mailing lists with many 
subscribers?


I admit that my anecdata are from a couple of years ago.  I stopped 
hosting family/friends email partly because their email stopped being 
delivered to their correspondents' inboxes any time I took a break from 
arguing with people on popular mailing lists.


Perhaps things have changed.  And that would be good.

I still run a couple small installations (low O(hundreds) of messages 
per day) without any issues.  I will sleep better knowing that that I 
don't have to worry about overlapping holidays affecting deliverability. 
:)


Philip

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Viktor Dukhovni via mailop]

On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:17:15AM +0800, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote:

> With such low volume, you will really struggle to get email delivered to the
> larger mailbox providers, whose filtering is largely based on reputation.
> It's almost impossible to build up (and maintain) a reputation unless you
> can manage at least O(hundreds) of messages to them per day.

That's not my experience.  My server for less than 10 users, sends
single-digit messages per day to the too big to fail email providers
with no apparent issues.  And my server even moved to a new network
provider recently (New York, NY, USA -> Melbourne Australia), without
any issues.  Just the same DKIM signing domains, plus matching SPF and
DMARC p=none.

-- 
Viktor.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Philip Paeps via mailop]

On 2024-07-09 06:32:17 (+0800), Tony G via mailop wrote:
I'm a small-business owner, running a small number of private domains 
for a small number of users. Outbound traffic from all accounts is 
currently less than 10 items per day. We don't send any transactions 
in bulk, send very few transactional/notification emails, and UCE 
never comes from here. I need to spend time on my business and 
infrastructure without having to deal with artificial email issues 
imposed by others. I think everyone here knows the pain.


With such low volume, you will really struggle to get email delivered to 
the larger mailbox providers, whose filtering is largely based on 
reputation.  It's almost impossible to build up (and maintain) a 
reputation unless you can manage at least O(hundreds) of messages to 
them per day.


I'm looking for a cloud host where I can run my legitimate mail 
servers with minimal concern for lists and IPv4 address issues. I need 
a hosting partner that doesn't block SMTP for clients who can prove 
reputability; a host recognized for not allowing or tolerating bad 
actors; a host with assertive, pro-active Abuse staff who strive to 
prevent issues rather than just responding casually when they occur; a 
host that isn't subject to class-C/L3 blocks. (Please let's keep this 
focused on solutions, lists, tech details, or incidents. Thanks.)


I've had a VM at Mythic Beasts doing mail for several years.  They're 
rock solid and all my interactions with them have been very positive.  I 
don't have any stake in them other than as a happy customer.  They're a 
little more expensive than the bottom dollar you'd pay at e.g. Hetzner 
or Vultr, but I don't mind paying for good service.


Philip
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Cody Millard via mailop]

On 7/8/2024 7:49 PM, Tony G via mailop wrote:


 That may or may not include names like Hetzner, Vultr, or AWS - I'm 
looking for confirmations.



I use Vultr to host my email server.  You must ask support to unblock 
port 25, answer a few questions about your emails and agree to the 
following anti-spam policy.


https://www.vultr.com/legal/antispam-policy/

Ive never experienced a blocked due to IP reputation.

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Ralph Seichter via mailop]

* Tony G. via mailop:

> So for this inquiry I really am asking about reliable hosts - anywhere
> in the world. That may or may not include names like Hetzner, Vultr,
> or AWS [...]

I have operated mail servers (both MX and outbound) on dedicated Hetzner
Servers since the early 2000s, for customers and myself. I also have VMs
there, but not in any mail server roles. My experience was that I had no
issues with blocked servers / IP adresses, but I attribute that mostly
to staying up to date with mechanisms like DKIM, DANE, and SPF, and to
rigorously screened outbound mail routing (as in never letting spam
originate from those servers). Not everybody has the luxury of knowing
mail submitters by name, but you seem to be in a position where
screening outbound traffic is possible.

Also, although I did not often require assistance, Hetzner's tech
support appeared competent and helpful when there was a need for them.
That is of high value for me, and stands out in comparison to other
companies I have had dealings with. I'm looking at you, DigitalOcean,
to name just one.

For me (!), Hetzner works well as a home for affordable mail servers,
and has done so for about 20 years. Definitely for dedicated servers.
I know too little about their VM portfolio in this role to offer a
related opinion.

-Ralph

P.S.: I am neither sponsored by Hetzner nor affiliated in any way,
simply a content customer.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[John Levine via mailop]

>So for this inquiry I really am asking about reliable hosts - anywhere in
>the world. That may or may not include names like Hetzner, Vultr, or AWS -

Take a look at Amazon SES. It's a pain to set up, but it's well run,
their mail gets delivered, and it's quite cheap. Their price estimator
says that 10 messages a day will be 15 cents/month. The free intro
lets you send 3000 messages/mo for a year.

You have to tell them and verify what domains you're sending from but the 
pricing
is per message, not per domain.

If you want your own IP, which at those volumes I doubt you do, it's
about $40/mo plus the message charge.

https://aws.amazon.com/ses/

R's,
John
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: AT Block

[Scott Mutter via mailop]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 3:23 PM John Levine  wrote:

> It appears that Scott Mutter via mailop  said:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 7:54 AM Alessandro Vesely via mailop <
> >In my opinion this is where the industry could use some oversight.  As you
> >say there is nothing to stop a large operator from blocking a small
> >operator simply because they can. ...
>
> You really REALLY do not want to go there. There are a lot of spammers
> who send mail that is 100% CAN-SPAM compliant. (It's not hard.) If a
> big mailer has to deliver your mail, why don't they have to deliver
> the spammer's mail, too?
>
> Apropos of Anne's comment, the CDA says providers can block material
> they consider "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent,
> harassing, or otherwise objectionable."  Courts have repeatedly found
> that otherwise objectionable includes spam filtering.
>
> R's,
> John
>

Most of the comment about oversight was meant as tongue-in-cheek.  But I do
echo everything that Alessandro Vesely said.  It's impossible for a
small-time operator to get any traction with any of the too-big-to-fail
mail service providers, they just simply don't care.  I think that should
be more publicly announced.  When one of these too-big-to-fail mail service
providers are blocking our IP address for no reason it should be more
commonly understood that it's impossible to work with said too-big-to-fail
mail service provider, they just simply don't care.  And when email begins
to be this walled off, it ceases to be useful.

I'm not so much after the legality of blocking an IP.  It's more the lack
of remediation or timely remediation.  And AT is a perfect example of
this.  They advertise abuse_...@abuse-att.net as the address to write with
inquiries, but they never check this email address or never respond.  Why
even include it in the rejection message?  The message might as well say:

553 5.3.0 alph749 DNSBL:RBL 521< 23.239.97.150 >_is_blocked. Neener,
Neener, Neener!

I do suspect that John Von Essen's opinion has some merit.  I wish this
information was posted on a trusted third party website.  Something to
point customers to when they complain about being unable to send mail to @
att.net email addresses.  There's no telling what email those same @att.net
users are not getting.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Tony G via mailop]

Friends - Apparently I wasn't clear. Sorry about that.

This isn't a new venture. Long ago, I considered and decided to move
forward against the sage advice "if you're thinking about DIY SMTP, don't".
I've been running our Postfix/Dovecot servers for years now. I have no
problem with that, and I've dealt with the RBLs and other issues mentioned.
It's the additional burden imposed by others that has raised the priority
on this:

 - Too many receiving servers using bad RBLs and for the wrong reasons.
 - Too many bad actors allowed to commission services.
 - Global IP address pools that are easily compromised.
 - Hosts that can't keep up with the damage from the above bad decisions.
 - IPv6 not globally implemented yet.

Use existing services? A typical cheap service costs $5/user/domain/month.
(Free? Not when you use your own domains.) For just 1 user and 10 domains,
that $50 is already more than what I pay for two cloud servers. Multiply
that by more users and domains. I'm also running DNS, websites, and other
services on these systems (arguable practice, but remember, low volume),
and I'm already paying for these servers, so new services only start at
doubling my costs. And because services don't guarantee anything better,
we'll still be subject to the same issues. Been there, done that, not
interested.

So for this inquiry I really am asking about reliable hosts - anywhere in
the world. That may or may not include names like Hetzner, Vultr, or AWS -
I'm looking for confirmations. I mean, most people here are running in a
data center - I'd really like to know who is providing the stable resources.

Or is this a unicorn that doesn't exist?

Thanks again.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: AT Block

[Michael Rathbun via mailop]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:27:10 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop"
 wrote:

>A thing to remember is that after Harris filed the lawsuit they had a change 
>of management, and Harris approached us and actually asked for help in 
>reforming their mailing practices (and then did so), and so they dropped the 
>lawsuit.  For a while they were the poster child for doing it right as a 
>result of that.  So, in fact, they were the only lawsuit that didn't go to 
>trial. 

Indeed, it worked as designed.

Nice t-shirt, tho.  One of the few I can wear inside-in.

mdr

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] AT Block

[Jeff Pang via mailop]

On 2024-07-09 02:31, John Von Essen via mailop wrote:
Just to pile on ATT issues. I assume you are trying to deliver to an 
att.net address, these are the emails they provided for free to 
dialup/broadband users, its also legacy prodigy.net.


What you are experiencing is not new news. Yes, ATT refuses email from 
any new IP - regardless how clean or dirty it is. And yes, the reason 
is always:


553 5.3.0 alph766 DNSBL:RBL 521< 208.88.X.X >_is_blocked.For assistance 
forward this error to abuse_...@abuse-att.net 





My experience with ATT:

Once I run a new mailserver hosted in NYC. When I tried to send mail to 
ATT from that server, the message was blocked as the info above. But 
after I contacted att postmaster by the address above, they did reply me 
and unblock my IP/server.


Now I run another new mailserver (this one simplemail.co.in) and I send 
messages to ATT, they get passed without problem. I guess the reason is 
that mailserver is hosted in Azure which has good reputation on IP 
spaces.


Also AFAIK att has the following mail domains included.

att.net
bellsouth.net
sbcglobal.net
currently.com
prodigy.net

Messages come to these domains are filtered by att's own gateway then 
delivered to yahoo.


--
Jeff Pang
jeffp...@aol.com
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Ken Simpson via mailop]

Hi Tony,

Gone are the days when you could just throw a Linux box up in a colo and
expect to get your mail delivered. You can easily become the unwitting
victim of being in a bad IP neighborhood through no fault of your own.
Although this advice is painful, I recommend using a service for final
delivery. Many services with free tiers are out there and would provide
more than ample capacity for your volume at no cost.

Ken

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 3:33 PM Tony G via mailop  wrote:

> I'm a small-business owner, running a small number of private domains for
> a small number of users. Outbound traffic from all accounts is currently
> less than 10 items per day. We don't send any transactions in bulk, send
> very few transactional/notification emails, and UCE never comes from here.
> I need to spend time on my business and infrastructure without having to
> deal with artificial email issues imposed by others. I think everyone here
> knows the pain.
>
> I'm looking for a cloud host where I can run my legitimate mail servers
> with minimal concern for lists and IPv4 address issues. I need a hosting
> partner that doesn't block SMTP for clients who can prove reputability; a
> host recognized for not allowing or tolerating bad actors; a host with
> assertive, pro-active Abuse staff who strive to prevent issues rather than
> just responding casually when they occur; a host that isn't subject to
> class-C/L3 blocks. (Please let's keep this focused on solutions, lists,
> tech details, or incidents. Thanks.)
>
> I know this group has rules about solicitation, etc. That's
> understandable. I'm looking for stability, not affiliates. I need facts
> about service providers, not preferences or anecdotes. I'm hoping this
> inquiry is productive for many here. If this is not the place for such a
> discussion, please suggest a better venue.
>
> Why run my own servers for this modest usage? I started originally to
> evade the exact same hassles related to paid services. Why be at the mercy
> of some other company when I can accept the responsibilities with DIY, get
> more accounts and more benefits - at much less expense? The admin time/cost
> is justified for normal operations - it's less than per-user/month fees.
> Remember, I said "small-business", so I can put in some time and I'm
> concerned about costs. But the scale is tipping. The time I spend dealing
> with lists, floating IP addresses, and other nuances not related to basic
> server administration has increased the pain level. Before I give up on DIY
> I want to try another cloud host that respects the application.
>
> Thanks!
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
>


-- 

Ken Simpson

CEO, MailChannels



Facebook   |  Twitter   |
LinkedIn  |  Help Center


Our latest case study video: watch here!

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] Cloud hosts for responsible mail servers?

[Tony G via mailop]

I'm a small-business owner, running a small number of private domains for a 
small number of users. Outbound traffic from all accounts is currently less 
than 10 items per day. We don't send any transactions in bulk, send very few 
transactional/notification emails, and UCE never comes from here. I need to 
spend time on my business and infrastructure without having to deal with 
artificial email issues imposed by others. I think everyone here knows the pain.

I'm looking for a cloud host where I can run my legitimate mail servers with 
minimal concern for lists and IPv4 address issues. I need a hosting partner 
that doesn't block SMTP for clients who can prove reputability; a host 
recognized for not allowing or tolerating bad actors; a host with assertive, 
pro-active Abuse staff who strive to prevent issues rather than just responding 
casually when they occur; a host that isn't subject to class-C/L3 blocks. 
(Please let's keep this focused on solutions, lists, tech details, or 
incidents. Thanks.)

I know this group has rules about solicitation, etc. That's understandable. I'm 
looking for stability, not affiliates. I need facts about service providers, 
not preferences or anecdotes. I'm hoping this inquiry is productive for many 
here. If this is not the place for such a discussion, please suggest a better 
venue.

Why run my own servers for this modest usage? I started originally to evade the 
exact same hassles related to paid services. Why be at the mercy of some other 
company when I can accept the responsibilities with DIY, get more accounts and 
more benefits - at much less expense? The admin time/cost is justified for 
normal operations - it's less than per-user/month fees. Remember, I said 
"small-business", so I can put in some time and I'm concerned about costs. But 
the scale is tipping. The time I spend dealing with lists, floating IP 
addresses, and other nuances not related to basic server administration has 
increased the pain level. Before I give up on DIY I want to try another cloud 
host that respects the application.

Thanks!
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: AT Block

[John Levine via mailop]

It appears that Scott Mutter via mailop  said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 7:54 AM Alessandro Vesely via mailop <
>In my opinion this is where the industry could use some oversight.  As you
>say there is nothing to stop a large operator from blocking a small
>operator simply because they can. ...

You really REALLY do not want to go there. There are a lot of spammers
who send mail that is 100% CAN-SPAM compliant. (It's not hard.) If a
big mailer has to deliver your mail, why don't they have to deliver
the spammer's mail, too?

Apropos of Anne's comment, the CDA says providers can block material
they consider "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent,
harassing, or otherwise objectionable."  Courts have repeatedly found
that otherwise objectionable includes spam filtering.

R's,
John
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] AT Block

[John Von Essen via mailop]

Just to pile on ATT issues. I assume you are trying to deliver to an att.net 
address, these are the emails they provided for free to dialup/broadband users, 
its also legacy prodigy.net.

What you are experiencing is not new news. Yes, ATT refuses email from any new 
IP - regardless how clean or dirty it is. And yes, the reason is always:

553 5.3.0 alph766 DNSBL:RBL 521< 208.88.X.X >_is_blocked.For assistance forward 
this error to abuse_...@abuse-att.net 

Its possible some “select” IP space/ASNs get better treatment, but I have not 
seen evidence of that. So by that logic, any new email provider or email host 
will have a hard time sending to att.net .

I understand “my server, my rules”, but this behavior is silly. My personal 
opinion is ATT does this on purpose to accelerate the death of their legacy 
email commitment. For starters, they dont want to support this old email 
anymore (all ISPs have long abandoned email), but some old contracts are 
forcing them to keep it for those who are grandfathered in. If you are a legit 
att.net  email user, life must be hard for you and you likely 
miss some emails. This means more people abandon their old ATT.net 
 email and get a gmail account. Over time the numbers dwindle 
down. Also, this is ATT we’re talking about...

Its possible that after a long time of sending low volume email (that 553’s) 
they might let it through after you tolerated the punishment, or they 
eventually answer the RBL request.

Good luck. Maybe redirect your att.net  email to a smarthost 
service that is able to deliver to att (Amazon SES maybe?)

-John

> On Jul 5, 2024, at 10:30 AM, Scott Mutter via mailop  
> wrote:
> 
> Anyone from AT on the list that can assist with the blacklisting of the IPs:
> 
> 23.239.97.150
> 5.101.141.35
> 
> Message is
> 
> 553 5.3.0 alph749 DNSBL:RBL 521< 23.239.97.150 >_is_blocked.For assistance 
> forward this error to abuse_...@abuse-att.net
> 
> As is the usual case, I've gotten no response from an inquiry to 
> abuse_...@abuse-att.net.  I sent one to abuse_...@abuse-att.net for 
> 23.239.97.150 on July 2nd and no response.  To be fair, I wrote 
> abuse_...@abuse-att.net about 5.101.141.35 just yesterday (July 4th) so it 
> really hasn't been 24 hours yet, but past experience has taught me that I 
> rarely get a response from an inquiries sent to abuse_...@abuse-att.net.
> 
> I suspect that this is being blocked because these are new IPs that AT has 
> never received mail from, so they block them by default.  Is there an 
> official way to inform AT before trying to send mail from new IPs that new 
> IPs will be sending mail?  As far as I know AT is the only service that 
> outright blocks messages from new and unseen IP addresses by default.
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: AT Block

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop]

> On Jul 8, 2024, at 11:46 AM, Michael Rathbun via mailop  
> wrote:
> 
> (One of life's lovely moments came when I discovered that one of my
> deliverability support clients at my new employer was Nielsen, who had
> acquired Harris Polls a while back (the spammers who sued MAPS).

A thing to remember is that after Harris filed the lawsuit they had a change of 
management, and Harris approached us and actually asked for help in reforming 
their mailing practices (and then did so), and so they dropped the lawsuit.  
For a while they were the poster child for doing it right as a result of that.  
So, in fact, they were the only lawsuit that didn't go to trial. 

Anne

--
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
Email Law & Policy Attorney
Legislative Advisor
CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law)
Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: AT Block

[Michael Rathbun via mailop]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:31:45 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop"
 wrote:

>Just a point of order (that's not quite the right term but you get the gist):
>
>> As you say there is nothing to stop a large operator from blocking a small 
>> operator simply because they can. 
>
>I'm not sure where the OP is from, but this has actually been litigated and is 
>settled law in the U.S. and has been for more than 20 years. In fact "my 
>server, my rules" is enshrined in our Federal law (of course not so succinctly 
>or in nearly as straightforward a manner).

And, I just recently found my "MAPS DEFENSE TEAM" t-shirt from an episode that
helped baked this into the crust.

(One of life's lovely moments came when I discovered that one of my
deliverability support clients at my new employer was Nielsen, who had
acquired Harris Polls a while back (the spammers who sued MAPS).  Nobody there
had a clue about what had happened in that episode, and their anti-spam,
anti-fraud measures were so thorough that my innocent attempts to open a seed
account to test their countermeasures were repulsed so strongly that I found
myself permanently barred from ever applying to be a reviewer/poll
respondent.)

mdr
-- 
The hits just keep on coming for poor "Nadine". See the sad tale 
of email lists gone horribly wrong at 
F - IWAA #2157 GEVNP

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: AT Block

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop]

Just a point of order (that's not quite the right term but you get the gist):

> As you say there is nothing to stop a large operator from blocking a small 
> operator simply because they can. 

I'm not sure where the OP is from, but this has actually been litigated and is 
settled law in the U.S. and has been for more than 20 years. In fact "my 
server, my rules" is enshrined in our Federal law (of course not so succinctly 
or in nearly as straightforward a manner).

Anne

--
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
Email Law & Policy Attorney
Legislative Advisor
CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law)
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Yahoo contact address

[Faisal Misle via mailop]

I'd believe so, given they point to the same MX and one is an alias of the 
other.

You can also always try mail-questi...@yahooinc.com and they'll answer or route 
your query to the right person.

Best,
Faisal

> On Jul 8, 2024, at 6:54 PM, Jeff Pang via mailop  wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
> I was from Netease where I had the postmaster contact at yahoo whose domain 
> was yahoo-inc.com.
> But nowadays the domain seems to be yahooinc.com.
> Does old-peo...@yahoo-inc.com reference the same one as 
> old-peo...@yahooinc.com?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> --
> Jeff Pang
> jeffp...@aol.com
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Yahoo contact address

[Marcel Becker via mailop]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 9:53 AM Jeff Pang via mailop 
wrote:

> I was from Netease where I had the postmaster contact at yahoo whose
> domain was yahoo-inc.com.
>

Throw them all away.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: AT Block

[Scott Mutter via mailop]

On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 7:54 AM Alessandro Vesely via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:

> It seems to me that large operators don't care a tinker's cuss about
> blocking
> small operators.  If I'm unable to send to Outlook users, it is my fault
> by
> definition, certainly not Outlook's.
>
>

In my opinion this is where the industry could use some oversight.  As you
say there is nothing to stop a large operator from blocking a small
operator simply because they can.  And then from an end-user's point of
view, it's obviously because of an issue with the small operator because
the large operator certainly can't be wrong.  (I refer to these operators
as "too big to fail", much like the banking systems).

I understand a mail server administrator being reluctant to disclose why a
particular IP or email was blocked.  But if there was a trusted third party
oversight involved where the large operator had to disclose why a small
operator was being blocked, that might stop some of this.  The oversight
could determine whether the justification for blocking another mail server
was valid and explain this to the small operator.

Of course, any time you add oversight you always get corruption - so I'm
speaking merely in a vacuum.

Outside of that, a trusted third party could publish a routinely updated
list scoring how difficult or easy it is to get through to a real mail
server administrators for a lot of these too big to fail email service
providers - of which AT would seem to be rated fairly low right now - in
which these small operators could point to when their customers are
complaining about being blocked by one of these large providers and see the
difficulties with which they are to work with.

There comes a point where dirty laundry has to be aired out publicly.
While my specific beef right now is with AT, they're not the old
culprit.  But the fact that their rejection message says "For assistance
forward this error to abuse_...@abuse-att.net" when it's very clear that
abuse_...@abuse-att.net is rarely if ever checked or managed, that's
something the public needs to be aware of.  If AT is going to block IPs -
for no apparent reason, and provide no means of having the issue addressed,
then the public needs to know that if you intend to write to an @att.net
email address it very well may never get delivered.  If you're an @att.net
email account user, maybe you need to think twice before using that email
account in any official capacity.


> Some restrict the audience of possible complainants to the first RIR's
> delegates.  That way a small operator can try to convince its ISP to
> either
> deal with such questions, or do a RIR registration in its name, neither of
> which is an available option to small customers.
>
>

This is also true.  And this relates to my question earlier:  Are we all on
this mailing list to learn?

I get where certain mail server administrators only want to discuss issues
with the direct owner of an IP address.  But I can tell you, from a small
operator's perspective, that's not how a lot of this works any more.  Maybe
it worked that way at one point in the past, but the times have changed
now.  The industry that I work in - the shared hosting industry - where we
get our servers from, and their related IP addresses have no involvement at
all with the management of that server or its mail server operation.  Now
it may be that the administrator that is supposed to be managing that
server has no clue what they are doing or how to manage abuse - I'm not
going to say that that doesn't happen.  But for me, and I suspect several
other small operators, I like to think that we manage the system fairly
well and have a lot of monitors in place to detect outbound spamming or
abuse.  Is there room for improvement?  There always is.  But I think we
keep it down to a minimum the best we can.  But we're the ones that manage
what goes out from these servers.  The owner of the specific IP doesn't
necessarily have the same sense of urgency when an IP block is made.

All of our servers have FCrDNS.  And any time I send an inquiry related to
one of our IP addresses being blocked, I always send out that mail from
postmaster@<> so that replying to that message will show
ownership of the reverse DNS of that blocked IP address.  This would serve
to prove that I can make configuration changes for the operation of the
mail server sending out mail from that IP address.

While I respect that this may not necessarily illustrate that you should
always go a level or two under the owner of an IP address (the first RIR
delegates) I do hope that it illustrates that being a level or two under
the RIR for an IP doesn't necessarily mean that they carry no weight.  If
you receive spam or abuse from an IP address, by all means contact the IP
address owner/first delegate under RIR - I'm not against that.  But if
someone inquires about a block and they are not the IP address owner or
first RIR delegate, it may not be right to just 

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: AT Block

[Scott Mutter via mailop]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 10:54 AM Marcel Becker via mailop 
wrote:

>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 9:27 AM Scott Mutter via mailop 
> wrote:
>
> We're all on this mailing list to learn (aren't we?).  Maybe take some of
>> the input you see from the messages on this mailing list and work to
>> improve the systems you offer.
>>
>
> Just in case that "you" is referring to me: I am also not ATT
>

Yes, just to be clear, I'm sending all of these replies to the list so any
use of "you", "them", "us" or any other pronoun is meant in the general
context.  I am not specifically pointing a finger at any one person
specifically.  While this particular topic is aimed more specifically at
AT, some of the themes within this discussion apply to other mail systems.

This particular reply might be better read as:


*We're all on this mailing list to learn (aren't we?).  Maybe take some of
the input you (all the various mail server administrators on this list) see
from the messages on this mailing list and work to improve the systems you
(all the various mail server administrators on this list) offer.*
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] Yahoo contact address

[Jeff Pang via mailop]

Hello

I was from Netease where I had the postmaster contact at yahoo whose 
domain was yahoo-inc.com.

But nowadays the domain seems to be yahooinc.com.
Does old-peo...@yahoo-inc.com reference the same one as 
old-peo...@yahooinc.com?


Thanks

--
Jeff Pang
jeffp...@aol.com
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Yahoo 'temporarily' deferred

[Marcel Becker via mailop]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 8:24 AM Kasper Peeters via mailop 
wrote:

Is there anyone on the list who can help me get our server off the
> 'temporarily deferred' Yahoo list?
>
>  [TSS05] Messages from x.x.x.x temporarily deferred due to unexpected
> volume or user complaints - 4.16.55.1; see
> https://postmaster.yahooinc.com/error-codes


Click that link. Read through it. Open a ticket with the support team.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: AT Block

[Marcel Becker via mailop]

On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 9:27 AM Scott Mutter via mailop 
wrote:

We're all on this mailing list to learn (aren't we?).  Maybe take some of
> the input you see from the messages on this mailing list and work to
> improve the systems you offer.
>

Just in case that "you" is referring to me: I am also not ATT
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] Yahoo 'temporarily' deferred

[Kasper Peeters via mailop]

Is there anyone on the list who can help me get our server off the 'temporarily 
deferred' Yahoo list? The 'temporary' seems to be rather permanent, in the 
sense that more than 24 hours have passed and there is still no sign of change. 
We do not send any unsollicited email, no bulk mail, all SPF/DKIM/DMARC in 
place, no sign of server abuse. The error is

 [TSS05] Messages from x.x.x.x temporarily deferred due to unexpected volume or 
user complaints - 4.16.55.1; see https://postmaster.yahooinc.com/error-codes

Thanks,
Kasper


pgpD9In1odTxy.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop