Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >believe me, if your user is jackass enough to click report spam on > >email that comes through his .forward the complaints can go up real > >high) .. is enough to get your IP blocked. > > > While there really should be some sort of particularly painful and > embarrassing punishment for this sort of jackass** we just kill their > .forward and try to clue-by-four them when they call. Sigh. > > > On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be > nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or > the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by-four > me if I've missed it. > Hi Chuck, Mail problems that are operational in nature are more than welcome here. The politics and kookery of spam policy and fighting should be directed elsewhere. Best Regards, Martin Hannigan NANOG MLC Member
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote: On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be > nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or > the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by-four > me if I've missed it. MAAWG come pretty close: http://www.maawg.org/home Smaller/regional ISPs need not apply. Minimum cost of entry is $3,000/year, no voting rights ($12.5K if you actually care about voting). So if you're not Verizon or Comcast or similarly sized, it appears you're not really welcome. Though it might make sense to discuss some other things NANOG could do in addition to worrying about routing table size and churn in the core, those are all discussions for the Futures list.
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be > nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or > the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by-four > me if I've missed it. MAAWG come pretty close: http://www.maawg.org/home Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA Remove "lists" from my email address to reach me faster and directly.
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
believe me, if your user is jackass enough to click report spam on email that comes through his .forward the complaints can go up real high) .. is enough to get your IP blocked. While there really should be some sort of particularly painful and embarrassing punishment for this sort of jackass** we just kill their .forward and try to clue-by-four them when they call. Sigh. On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by-four me if I've missed it. --chuck goolsbee **who seem to have all been drawn like moths to a flame into the companies my company has acquired over the years... as if to punish ME for some past transgression!
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
> > I'm pretty sure > > none of our systems have been compromised and forwards mail that we > > don't know about. > > Yet your sending IP reputation is poor Do you actually have data that confirms that? We've had random problems mailing Hotmail (frequently), Yahoo! (infrequently), and other places where the mail stream consists of a low volume (<10/day) of transactional and support e-mail directly arising from user-purchased services, on an IP address that had never previously sent e-mail - ever. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
On 10/30/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 29, 2007 11:01 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > "Fix your forwarding a lot better". Not sure what this > > > means. My machines are MX's for the clients domain. They > > > accept it, and either forward it around locally to one of the > > > processing MX's or ARE one one of the processing MX's. Its > > > > Yes, that's just how forwarding and .forwards work. > > > > And if you mix inbound email (much dirtier than outbound email even if > > you run a secure shop) into a mail stream that includes email sent out > > by your clients, you potentially have random botnet spam, spam from > > sbl listed spammers etc (in other words, a lot of "block on sight" > > stuff) leaking through your IP, the same IP that a bunch of your other > > customers use to mail out to their aunt mary on yahoo. > > > AH, I see the confusion. We are a managed server hosting > company, not a Cable/DSL/T#/Dialup provider. The only way mail gets > sent out of here is Webmail, FormMail and Mail exploder. So no mail would ever be coming inbound and then being forwarded on? That seems...unlikely. > I'm pretty sure > none of our systems have been compromised and forwards mail that we > don't know about. Yet your sending IP reputation is poor Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA Remove "lists" from my email address to reach me faster and directly.
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
> > > On Oct 29, 2007 11:01 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "Fix your forwarding a lot better". Not sure what this > > means. My machines are MX's for the clients domain. They > > accept it, and either forward it around locally to one of the > > processing MX's or ARE one one of the processing MX's. Its > > Yes, that's just how forwarding and .forwards work. > > And if you mix inbound email (much dirtier than outbound email even if > you run a secure shop) into a mail stream that includes email sent out > by your clients, you potentially have random botnet spam, spam from > sbl listed spammers etc (in other words, a lot of "block on sight" > stuff) leaking through your IP, the same IP that a bunch of your other > customers use to mail out to their aunt mary on yahoo. > AH, I see the confusion. We are a managed server hosting company, not a Cable/DSL/T#/Dialup provider. The only way mail gets sent out of here is Webmail, FormMail and Mail exploder. I'm pretty sure none of our systems have been comprimised and forwards mail that we don't know about. > > The numbers from that one .forward are enough to screw up the rest of > your numbers, a 5% or less complaint rate on email from your IP (and > believe me, if your user is jackass enough to click report spam on > email that comes through his .forward the complaints can go up real > high) .. is enough to get your IP blocked. > Except for maybe unfortunately backscatter from people CLAIMING to originate email from our clients, our outbound should be fairly low volume and reasonably clean. > > Dealing with tier 1 support anywhere (not the least of where is yahoo) > is always a pain. Which is why what I am suggesting is avoidance and > prevention rather than going around alternatively begging yahoo to fix > something or accusing them on nanog of being arrogant. > I'm not begging Yahoo to fix something, just to accept our mail. I'm doing the best I can, and I'm sure to the DETRIMENT of the user, to cut down on the spam, but short of having someone physically inspect all email for spam and backscatter I really can't do much else (Except get the user to have a local Webmail which I know they don't want). Tuc/TBOH
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
> > On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with > > > > specific information other than to suggest a review > > > > of the questionnaire we supplied and try to determine > > > > where your mailing practices may be improved upon." > > > > > > In other words, fix your forwarding a lot better (and possibly > > > segregate it from your main mail stream, clearly label the forwarding > > > IP as a forwarder, etc) > > > > > > Yahoo arent really in the business of teaching people how to do a > > > better job. If that sounds like arrogance .. > > > > > > srs > > > > > "Fix your forwarding a lot better". Not sure what this > > means. My machines are MX's for the clients domain. > > What are the addresses of the machines? > > -M< > 192.136.64.0/24, with the 3 main machines being at 108, 116, 156 and lesser machines at 204, 212, etc. Tuc/TBOH
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > "Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with > > > specific information other than to suggest a review > > > of the questionnaire we supplied and try to determine > > > where your mailing practices may be improved upon." > > > > In other words, fix your forwarding a lot better (and possibly > > segregate it from your main mail stream, clearly label the forwarding > > IP as a forwarder, etc) > > > > Yahoo arent really in the business of teaching people how to do a > > better job. If that sounds like arrogance .. > > > > srs > > > "Fix your forwarding a lot better". Not sure what this > means. My machines are MX's for the clients domain. What are the addresses of the machines? -M<
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
On Oct 29, 2007 11:01 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Fix your forwarding a lot better". Not sure what this > means. My machines are MX's for the clients domain. They > accept it, and either forward it around locally to one of the > processing MX's or ARE one one of the processing MX's. Its Yes, that's just how forwarding and .forwards work. And if you mix inbound email (much dirtier than outbound email even if you run a secure shop) into a mail stream that includes email sent out by your clients, you potentially have random botnet spam, spam from sbl listed spammers etc (in other words, a lot of "block on sight" stuff) leaking through your IP, the same IP that a bunch of your other customers use to mail out to their aunt mary on yahoo. The numbers from that one .forward are enough to screw up the rest of your numbers, a 5% or less complaint rate on email from your IP (and believe me, if your user is jackass enough to click report spam on email that comes through his .forward the complaints can go up real high) .. is enough to get your IP blocked. Dealing with tier 1 support anywhere (not the least of where is yahoo) is always a pain. Which is why what I am suggesting is avoidance and prevention rather than going around alternatively begging yahoo to fix something or accusing them on nanog of being arrogant. --srs
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
>
>
> On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with
> > specific information other than to suggest a review
> > of the questionnaire we supplied and try to determine
> > where your mailing practices may be improved upon."
>
> In other words, fix your forwarding a lot better (and possibly
> segregate it from your main mail stream, clearly label the forwarding
> IP as a forwarder, etc)
>
> Yahoo arent really in the business of teaching people how to do a
> better job. If that sounds like arrogance ..
>
> srs
>
"Fix your forwarding a lot better". Not sure what this
means. My machines are MX's for the clients domain. They
accept it, and either forward it around locally to one of the
processing MX's or ARE one one of the processing MX's. Its
then run through SpamAssassin hoping to do the best we can to
filter out REALLY bad spam, and the box either directly tries
to send to a Yahoo! MX mailer, or forwards to another outbound
box to attempt to send it out. I'm not sure where in that whole
equation we are doing anything that isn't the best we can
except if we assign a person to sit down, read each and every
email, and then forward it along to the destination user. As
it is now, I'm sure we drop some legit mail... And I know
some legit mail isn't getting through since Yahoo! relays aren't
accepting ANYTHING. (And, as a result, even my emails to them
were lagged by days while they stopped accepting anything from
us for a while).
Segregate from our main mail stream? We have this 1
customer (Yes, currently, one) who has this type of setup. They
are on a shared server. I should set up a single box just to
handle their MX? We are a hosting company, the only time
we send mail to Yahoo! otherwise is if one of their customers
fills a webform out that maybe copies them, they are on a
mailing exploder, or we reply to a customer who uses Yahoo!.
Label forwarding IP as a forwarder... We told them,
they told us that our IP was RFC1918 (Which it wasn't)
and that they wouldn't accept that. Once I could convince
them that we weren't using RFC1918 to route, and that our
IP range was Legacy Internic IP's which were perfectly
valid to be routed, they then turned around and found
another excuse.
No, they aren't in the business to teach someone
who's been in the industry all his life, and run
Managed Server Companies for over 11 years... But to
play the "We aren't going to tell you why we aren't
accepting your mail, you'll just have to guess and
submit back in *6* months (AND, tell their user
to set up a filter to receive the email {WHEN ITS
IMPOSSIBLE SINCE THE MAIL NEVER MAKES IT}) is just
unbelievable and arrogant to me.
Tuc/TBOH
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with > specific information other than to suggest a review > of the questionnaire we supplied and try to determine > where your mailing practices may be improved upon." In other words, fix your forwarding a lot better (and possibly segregate it from your main mail stream, clearly label the forwarding IP as a forwarder, etc) Yahoo arent really in the business of teaching people how to do a better job. If that sounds like arrogance .. srs
Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
Background: We MX for a domain, and turn it right around to Yahoo! Mail. I know others have run into this before. Because a fair amount of it is spam, Yahoo stops accepting the mail, yadda yadda yadda. Problem: I jumped through all the hoops, and they tell me I'm denied. When I ask what part I fail on, I get : "Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with specific information other than to suggest a review of the questionnaire we supplied and try to determine where your mailing practices may be improved upon." WTF is that all about?! How can I improve on getting an email, spam filtering the best I can, and turning it around to it intended recipient. Anyone have any clues? Thanks, Tuc
