Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[Steve Sobol]

John Bittenbender wrote:

   We don't provide email services to our customers. 


Sure you do. When I was a VZW customer, I had a vtext.com email address and 
a few aliases. (BTW, you should provide better spam filtering to your 
customers who use SMS, but that's something we can talk about offlist as 
it's not relevant to NANOG.)



--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[Brad Knowles]

At 10:37 AM +0200 2005-06-02, Niels Bakker wrote:


Failure to do so should be considered a corporate statement that
 you implicitly condone any and all such activities that occur on
 your networks.


 Oooh, threatening, Mr Knowles!


Threatening?  No, I don't think so.  Something to be concerned about?  
Yes.


However, this discussion should be held in one of those forums where
 it is more appropriate to discuss this subject.  Unfortunately, you
 don't participate in any of them.


 Are you sure you want to inflict a sizeable portion of the Internet's
 entire population on one certain mailing list?


	A sizable portion of the Internet's entire population are network 
or access providers who have mail servers or who provide access to 
mail servers through their network, and who are not already on the 
appropriate forums?


	If that is an accurate statement, then I would be very, very 
concerned for the future of the Internet.



 Your claim to fame
 that you had something to do with AOL's mail servers once may not
 be sufficient to support this.


	At the time, on a volume basis, I was probably responsible for as 
much or more anti-spam work than anyone else around.


	I know that things have grown a great deal since then, but I 
imagine that there are probably still plenty of places that have 
fewer than ten million customers and doing less than ten million 
messages per day, and yet they are also to be found on the 
appropriate forums.  So, I figure I'm still in pretty good company.



	Of course, spam-l is not the only appropriate forum where 
discussions of that sort should be held.



	Now, if we're done with the personal attacks, can we get back to 
subjects that are appropriate for this forum?


--
Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

  SAGE member since 1995.  See  for more info.

Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[Niels Bakker]

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brad Knowles) [Thu 02 Jun 2005, 06:33 CEST]:
	You should most definitely be actively participating in the 
appropriate forums.


	Failure to do so should be considered a corporate statement that 
you implicitly condone any and all such activities that occur on your 
networks.


Oooh, threatening, Mr Knowles!

And completely lunatic, too.


	However, this discussion should be held in one of those forums 
where it is more appropriate to discuss this subject.  Unfortunately, 
you don't participate in any of them.


Are you sure you want to inflict a sizeable portion of the Internet's 
entire population on one certain mailing list?  Your claim to fame that 
you had something to do with AOL's mail servers once may not be 
sufficient to support this.



-- Niels.

--
 The idle mind is the devil's playground

Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[Brad Knowles]

At 7:21 PM -0700 2005-06-01, John Bittenbender wrote:


We don't provide email services to our customers. We are merely a
 wireless ISP generally used as their secondary connection to use while
 the customer is mobile. Another large portion of our client base are
 enterprises and public services/utilities that use their own systems.


	Do you provide mail servers of any type anywhere at all on your 
network?  Do you provide access to mail servers of any type through 
your network?  If so, then you are an e-mail service provider (even 
if that isn't your primary function).



The reason for our non-participation in Spam-L. We aren't an
 email provider.


	You should most definitely be actively participating in the 
appropriate forums.


	Failure to do so should be considered a corporate statement that 
you implicitly condone any and all such activities that occur on your 
networks.



	However, this discussion should be held in one of those forums 
where it is more appropriate to discuss this subject.  Unfortunately, 
you don't participate in any of them.


--
Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

  SAGE member since 1995.  See  for more info.

Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[John Bittenbender]

On 6/1/05, Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:46:01PM -, John Levine wrote:
> > VZW recently confirmed that their mail system is separate from VZ's,
> > and whatever mistakes they may make, they're not VZ's.
> 
> Okay, fine -- and a look at DNS seems to back this up (unless I'm
> missing something).  And I've no desire to lay VZ's mistakes at VZW's
> feet, or vice versa -- but that still leaves whoever-is-affected (like
> the orginal poster or anyone else out there) to deal with the issues.
> And the lack of participation by VZ and VZW in the leading applicable
> forum (i.e. Spam-L) isn't helping.  At least some of the other folks
> are engaged in dialogue with their peers, even if what they're saying
> isn't to everyone's liking.

Quick point to address here about VZW's email.

   We don't provide email services to our customers. We are merely a
wireless ISP generally used as their secondary connection to use while
the customer is mobile. Another large portion of our client base are
enterprises and public services/utilities that use their own systems.

   The reason for our non-participation in Spam-L. We aren't an
email provider. At most we relay for our own address space and accept
deliveries to and from vtext.com which isn't email/webmail it's only
web accessible SMS messaging so it's not really applicable either.
There are spam guards on vtext but if a customer can't receive his/her
SMS's that were sent to their phone they can call customer service and
get that resolved.

   The issue at the root of this thread was with our corporate mail
servers, not customer email. So it's a different ball of wax and not
really a topic for discussion on NANOG other than as a last cry for
help (which worked in this case).

   And yes, please don't lay VZ's problems at our feet. As was
mentioned a ways up this thread, we are just partially owned by the
same mother ship.

John Bittenbender
Verizon Wireless Netops

Re: Verizon is easily fooled by spamming zombies (was: Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists)

[Christopher L. Morrow]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

>
> On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
> >> Received: from verizon.net ([63.24.130.230])
> >>
> >> (63.24.130.230 is 1Cust742.an1.nyc41.da.uu.net, HELO'd as
> >> 'verizon.net'
> >> and VZ still relayed it)
> >
> > keep in mind I'm just thinking out loud here, but is it possible that
> > verizon is using someone else for dial access in places? So,
> > perhaps these
> > are VZ customers doing the proper helo based on their funky mail
> > client?
>
> You might be right.
>
> I couldn't get to 63.24.130.230, but from my person server (which has
> no relation to VZ's network):

1Cust742.an1.nyc41.da.uu.net == 63.24.130.230

which is like:

22Cust55.tnt13.tco2.da.uu.net. == 67.206.50.55

*Cust***.DEV.HUB.da.uu.net == dialup user ip. Most times ppp customer,
most times a /24 (or like) per DEV... So, unless someone is logged in at
this time to: 63.24.130.230 there isn't anything to get to...

>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/1:59PM% telnet relay.verizon.net 25
> Trying 206.46.232.11...
> Connected to relay.verizon.net.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 220 sv10pub.verizon.net MailPass SMTP server v1.2.0 - 013105113116JY
> +PrW ready Wed, 1 Jun 2005 12:59:33 -0500
> helo patrick.verizon.net
> 250 sv10pub.verizon.net
> mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 Sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OK
> rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 530 5.7.1 Relaying not allowed: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> This is much better than I originally thought.
>
> Still think they should allow sending mail from their network though. :)
>

'their network' I think is the problem for them, again I'm not a VZ
employee (yet?), but I'd bet they have several hundreds of blocks for DSL,
several DIAL providers and distributed smtp acceptance points for their
customers... It seems that SMTPAUTH would be a decent way to get this
resolved though (or ONE decent way).

Re: Verizon is easily fooled by spamming zombies (was: Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists)

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:


Received: from verizon.net ([63.24.130.230])

(63.24.130.230 is 1Cust742.an1.nyc41.da.uu.net, HELO'd as  
'verizon.net'

and VZ still relayed it)


keep in mind I'm just thinking out loud here, but is it possible that
verizon is using someone else for dial access in places? So,  
perhaps these
are VZ customers doing the proper helo based on their funky mail  
client?


You might be right.

I couldn't get to 63.24.130.230, but from my person server (which has  
no relation to VZ's network):


[EMAIL PROTECTED]/1:59PM% telnet relay.verizon.net 25
Trying 206.46.232.11...
Connected to relay.verizon.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 sv10pub.verizon.net MailPass SMTP server v1.2.0 - 013105113116JY 
+PrW ready Wed, 1 Jun 2005 12:59:33 -0500

helo patrick.verizon.net
250 sv10pub.verizon.net
mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 Sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OK
rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
530 5.7.1 Relaying not allowed: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

This is much better than I originally thought.

Still think they should allow sending mail from their network though. :)

--
TTFN,
patrick

Re: Verizon is easily fooled by spamming zombies (was: Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists)

[Christopher L. Morrow]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Steven Champeon wrote:

>
> on Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:07:33PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> > (As to Verizon itself, since three different people pointed out the
> > relative lack of SBL listings: keep in mind that SBL listings are put
> > in place for very specific reasons, and aren't the only indicator of
> > spam.  Other DNSBLs and RHSBLs, e.g. the CBL, use different criteria
> > and thus provide different measurements (if you will) of spam.  So,
> > to give a sample data point, in the last week alone, there have been
> > 315 spam attempts directed at *just this address* from 194 different
> > IP addresses (list attached) that belong to VZ.  Have I reported them?
> > Of *course* not.  What would be the point in that?)
>
> 
>
> Zombies I expect; what's worse is that they're /obviously/ not even
> doing the most basic checks:
>
> Received: from verizon.net ([63.24.130.230])
>
> (63.24.130.230 is 1Cust742.an1.nyc41.da.uu.net, HELO'd as 'verizon.net'
> and VZ still relayed it)
>

keep in mind I'm just thinking out loud here, but is it possible that
verizon is using someone else for dial access in places? So, perhaps these
are VZ customers doing the proper helo based on their funky mail client?


>
> IOW, VZ isn't even checking to see if a zombie'd host is forging its
> own domain into HELO, regardless of whether it comes from Comcast or
> UUNet, and as long as the forged sender has a verizon.net address, and
> the recipient hasn't blocked VZ's silly callback system, the message
> is relayed. Thanks, Verizon. We can hear you now.
>

or it's a flubb on VZ's part, like I said, just thinking out loud.

Re: Verizon is easily fooled by spamming zombies (was: Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists)

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Steven Champeon wrote:


IOW, VZ isn't even checking to see if a zombie'd host is forging its
own domain into HELO, regardless of whether it comes from Comcast or
UUNet, and as long as the forged sender has a verizon.net address, and
the recipient hasn't blocked VZ's silly callback system, the message
is relayed. Thanks, Verizon. We can hear you now.


The other half of this is if you are on VZ's network and try to send  
mail through their system, you cannot unless you have a "verizon.net"  
from address.  Or at least that was the case when my friend with VZ  
DSL tried to send e-mail through VZ from her personal domain.


--
TTFN,
patrick

Verizon is easily fooled by spamming zombies (was: Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists)

[Steven Champeon]

on Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:07:33PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> (As to Verizon itself, since three different people pointed out the
> relative lack of SBL listings: keep in mind that SBL listings are put
> in place for very specific reasons, and aren't the only indicator of
> spam.  Other DNSBLs and RHSBLs, e.g. the CBL, use different criteria
> and thus provide different measurements (if you will) of spam.  So,
> to give a sample data point, in the last week alone, there have been
> 315 spam attempts directed at *just this address* from 194 different
> IP addresses (list attached) that belong to VZ.  Have I reported them?
> Of *course* not.  What would be the point in that?)



Zombies I expect; what's worse is that they're /obviously/ not even
doing the most basic checks:

Received: from verizon.net ([63.24.130.230])

(63.24.130.230 is 1Cust742.an1.nyc41.da.uu.net, HELO'd as 'verizon.net'
and VZ still relayed it)

Received: from verizon.net ([68.130.237.39])

(68.130.237.39 is 1Cust39.tnt26.mia5.da.uu.net, HELO'd as 'verizon.net'
and VZ still relayed it)

Received: from verizon.net ([68.130.237.35])

(68.130.237.35 is 1Cust35.tnt26.mia5.da.uu.net, HELO'd as 'verizon.net'
and VZ still relayed it)

Received: from verizon.net ([65.34.38.26])

(65.34.38.26 is c-65-34-38-26.hsd1.fl.comcast.net, HELO'd as 'verizon.net'
and VZ still relayed it)

Received: from verizon.net ([65.34.184.15])

(65.34.184.15 is c-65-34-184-15.hsd1.fl.comcast.net, etc.)

IOW, VZ isn't even checking to see if a zombie'd host is forging its
own domain into HELO, regardless of whether it comes from Comcast or
UUNet, and as long as the forged sender has a verizon.net address, and
the recipient hasn't blocked VZ's silly callback system, the message
is relayed. Thanks, Verizon. We can hear you now. 

-- 
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
join us!   http://hesketh.com/about/careers/account_manager.htmljoin us!

Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:46:01PM -, John Levine wrote:
> VZW recently confirmed that their mail system is separate from VZ's,
> and whatever mistakes they may make, they're not VZ's.

Okay, fine -- and a look at DNS seems to back this up (unless I'm
missing something).  And I've no desire to lay VZ's mistakes at VZW's
feet, or vice versa -- but that still leaves whoever-is-affected (like
the orginal poster or anyone else out there) to deal with the issues.
And the lack of participation by VZ and VZW in the leading applicable
forum (i.e. Spam-L) isn't helping.  At least some of the other folks
are engaged in dialogue with their peers, even if what they're saying
isn't to everyone's liking.

(As to Verizon itself, since three different people pointed out the
relative lack of SBL listings: keep in mind that SBL listings are put
in place for very specific reasons, and aren't the only indicator of
spam.  Other DNSBLs and RHSBLs, e.g. the CBL, use different criteria
and thus provide different measurements (if you will) of spam.  So,
to give a sample data point, in the last week alone, there have been
315 spam attempts directed at *just this address* from 194 different
IP addresses (list attached) that belong to VZ.  Have I reported them?
Of *course* not.  What would be the point in that?)

---Rsk
wbar1.chi1-4-10-118-158.chi1.dsl-verizon.net [4.10.118.158]
hnllhi1-ar6-4-11-039-125.dsl-verizon.net [4.11.39.125]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [4.3.236.250]
hnllhi1-ar3-4-3-111-154.hnllhi1.dsl-verizon.net [4.3.111.154]
wbar2.wdc2-4.30.100.231.wdc2.dsl-verizon.net [4.30.100.231]
wbar12.sea1-4.32.1.170.dsl-verizon.net [4.32.1.170]
wbar12.sea1-4.32.2.144.dsl-verizon.net [4.32.2.144]
atlnga1-ar2-4-34-191-127.atlnga1.dsl-verizon.net [4.34.191.127]
chcgil2-ar7-4-34-128-080.chcgil2.dsl-verizon.net [4.34.128.80]
wbar7.sea1-4-4-042-075.sea1.dsl-verizon.net [4.4.42.75]
wbar8.sea1-4-4-065-255.sea1.dsl-verizon.net [4.4.65.255]
wbar8.sea1-4-4-073-107.sea1.dsl-verizon.net [4.4.73.107]
hnllhi1-ar3-4-42-103-001.hnllhi1.dsl-verizon.net [4.42.103.1]
hnllhi1-ar3-4-43-152-035.hnllhi1.dsl-verizon.net [4.43.152.35]
lsanca1-ar16-4-46-046-186.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.46.46.186]
lsanca1-ar19-4-46-077-103.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.46.77.103]
lsanca1-ar12-4-60-179-045.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.60.179.45]
lsanca1-ar2-4-60-003-159.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.60.3.159]
washdc3-ar8-4-62-076-106.washdc3.dsl-verizon.net [4.62.76.106]
evrtwa1-ar5-4-65-000-098.evrtwa1.dsl-verizon.net [4.65.0.98]
lsanca1-ar9-4-65-084-147.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.65.84.147]
hnllhi1-ar7-4-7-214-201.hnllhi1.dsl-verizon.net [4.7.214.201]
pool-64-222-182-239.man.east.verizon.net [64.222.182.239]
pool-64-223-119-29.burl.east.verizon.net [64.223.119.29]
pool-64-223-82-120.burl.east.verizon.net [64.223.82.120]
pool-68-160-165-106.bos.east.verizon.net [68.160.165.106]
pool-68-160-190-103.bos.east.verizon.net [68.160.190.103]
pool-68-160-210-53.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.160.210.53]
pool-68-161-112-23.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.112.23]
pool-68-161-167-156.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.167.156]
pool-68-161-42-244.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.42.244]
pool-68-161-59-43.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.59.43]
pool-68-162-13-70.nwrk.east.verizon.net [68.162.13.70]
pool-68-162-145-6.pitt.east.verizon.net [68.162.145.6]
static-68-162-251-148.bos.east.verizon.net [68.162.251.148]
static-68-162-85-97.phil.east.verizon.net [68.162.85.97]
pool-68-163-151-181.bos.east.verizon.net [68.163.151.181]
pool-68-163-66-254.res.east.verizon.net [68.163.66.254]
static-68-236-207-121.nwrk.east.verizon.net [68.236.207.121]
pool-68-237-213-60.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.237.213.60]
pool-68-238-16-251.rich.east.verizon.net [68.238.16.251]
pool-68-239-58-165.bos.east.verizon.net [68.239.58.165]
pool-70-104-104-209.chi.dsl-w.verizon.net [70.104.104.209]
pool-70-104-119-185.chi.dsl-w.verizon.net [70.104.119.185]
pool-70-105-12-148.rich.east.verizon.net [70.105.12.148]
pool-70-105-207-214.scr.east.verizon.net [70.105.207.214]
pool-70-106-208-58.chi.dsl-w.verizon.net [70.106.208.58]
pool-70-107-198-95.ny325.east.verizon.net [70.107.198.95]
static-70-107-239-188.ny325.east.verizon.net [70.107.239.188]
pool-70-108-31-161.res.east.verizon.net [70.108.31.161]
pool-70-109-107-92.alb.east.verizon.net [70.109.107.92]
pool-70-110-186-17.phil.east.verizon.net [70.110.186.17]
pool-70-16-121-96.scr.east.verizon.net [70.16.121.96]
pool-70-16-137-90.phil.east.verizon.net [70.16.137.90]
pool-70-17-10-94.balt.east.verizon.net [70.17.10.94]
pool-70-17-197-159.balt.east.verizon.net [70.17.197.159]
pool-70-17-75-173.res.east.verizon.net [70.17.75.173]
pool-70-18-148-156.norf.east.verizon.net [70.18.148.156]
pool-70-18-215-41.ny325.east.verizon.net [70.18.215.41]
pool-70-19-255-63.bos.east.verizon.net [70.19.255.63]
pool-70-20-192-78.phil.east.verizon.net [70.20.192.78]
pool-70-20-241-84.phil.east.verizon.net [70.20.241.84]
pool-70-20-45-51.man.east.verizon.net [70.20.45.51]
pool-70-20-54-159.man.east.verizon.net [70.20.54.15

Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

On 31/05/05, Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:24:41PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
> > It appears VerizonWireless.com has some rather aggressive mail filters.
> 
> Verizon is hopelessly clueless when it comes to mail system operations
> and mail filters -- as evidenced by their ongoing decision to deliberately
> provide anonymizing spam support and DoS attack services to anyone clever

Interesting rant, if one that I've heard before often enough, given
some spam-l posters'  current obsession with "outscatter"

Anyway, you're ranting about Verizon.  The OP has a problem with
Verizon Wireless, which seems a completely separate outfit, with a
different mail farm, different admins and postmasters (and different
corporate hierarchy upto a point - certainly different wrt operational
issues)

If you have operational rants about Verizon Wireless, fine.  Else,
please leave the ranting for rants sake for spam-l or nanae.  Makes
interesting reading there I guess, but I dont see much use for it on
nanog.

-srs

Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[John Levine]

>On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:24:41PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
>> It appears VerizonWireless.com has some rather aggressive mail filters.
>
>Verizon is hopelessly clueless when it comes to mail system operations
>and mail filters -- as evidenced by their ongoing decision to deliberately
>provide anonymizing spam support and DoS attack services to anyone clever
>enough to use them via their abusive "callback" system, and by their total
>failure to to address the torrent of spam emanating from their own network.

Not to belabor the obvious, but Verizon Wireless and Verizon are
different companies with different management and separate
infrastructure.  VZW is a joint venture between VZ and Vodaphone.

VZW recently confirmed that their mail system is separate from VZ's,
and whatever mistakes they may make, they're not VZ's.

Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:24:41PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
> It appears VerizonWireless.com has some rather aggressive mail filters.

Verizon is hopelessly clueless when it comes to mail system operations
and mail filters -- as evidenced by their ongoing decision to deliberately
provide anonymizing spam support and DoS attack services to anyone clever
enough to use them via their abusive "callback" system, and by their total
failure to to address the torrent of spam emanating from their own network.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that it's probably best to a find a
way to work around whatever stupidity they're inflicting on you, as it's
very unlikely that anyone at Verizon is capable of even comprehending
the problem, let alone taking steps to correct it. 

---Rsk

Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[Crist Clark]

Mad props out to Mr. John Bittenbender who got me in contact with
someone at VZW who was quick and helpful getting this fixed.

Apparently, VZW did decide that our IAP as a whole originated too
much spam and just blocked the whole thing. I don't know if they
made their filters more precise or whitelisted our subnet, but
mail to verizonewireless.com works for us now.

Personally, I feel verizonwireless.com can filter whatever they want,
BUT should stick to SMTP standards. Dropping connections with no
SMTP banner, no error code is a Bad Thing. Give me a hint of why
you don't like me with an error message and fail hard so outgoing
messages don't sit queued up for days before my users get failure
messages. And of course, if you're gonna block wide swaths of
Internet, you should have mechanisms in place for your help desk
to deal with blocked senders, customer and non-customers alike.
But as usual, once you penetrate the front line of help desk drones,
the real technical people are professional and helpful.

Crist Clark wrote:


It appears VerizonWireless.com has some rather aggressive mail filters.
Verizon.net's blocking of Europe, Asia, Africa... well, everything but
North America has made some headlines and even some lawsuits. Anyone
know if VerizonWireless.com and Verizon.net are independent operations
from an SMTP point of view? Verizon.net has,

http://verizon.net/whitelist

And I haven't found an equivalent for VerizonWireless.com. And given
the differences in Verizon.net's and VerizonWireless.com's MX setup,
I doubt they use common resources.

Anyone here ever get off of their blacklist or even know what they are
using? Even though we have accounts with them, I haven't been successful
in getting through to clueful help *shock*.

FWIW, it really looks like an IP-based blacklist. From our main mail
server to any of their MX hosts, the 25/tcp connection completes, but
then their server drops the connection, no banner, no nothing. I get
a banner and can send mail to their servers from other IP addresses
outside of that network. My guess is that they're using SPEWS? We're
collateral damage in a SPEWS block.

--
Crist J. Clark   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Globalstar Communications(408) 933-4387

RE: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[Dennis Dayman]

> They're different companies. I'm pretty sure they have 
> different server farms and corporate policies. Verizon owns 
> 100% of Verizon.net and only 55% of Verizon Wireless.

When I left Verizon.net abuse/security last year they were NOT sharing mail
systems/resources or
anti-spam measures with VZW

-Dennis

Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[Steve Sobol]

Following up to my own post
I'm going to forward this to an acquaintance I have at Verizon.net and 
see what he says.
Mail's been sent. Don't know how busy my friend is, but he should be able to 
get back to me relatively quickly.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Re: VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[Steve Sobol]

Crist Clark wrote:
It appears VerizonWireless.com has some rather aggressive mail filters.
Verizon.net's blocking of Europe, Asia, Africa... well, everything but
North America has made some headlines and even some lawsuits. Anyone
know if VerizonWireless.com and Verizon.net are independent operations
from an SMTP point of view? Verizon.net has,
http://verizon.net/whitelist
And I haven't found an equivalent for VerizonWireless.com. And given
the differences in Verizon.net's and VerizonWireless.com's MX setup,
I doubt they use common resources.
They're different companies. I'm pretty sure they have different server farms 
and corporate policies. Verizon owns 100% of Verizon.net and only 55% of 
Verizon Wireless.

But that's not to say they don't share information.
I'm going to forward this to an acquaintance I have at Verizon.net and see what 
he says.

FWIW, it really looks like an IP-based blacklist. From our main mail
server to any of their MX hosts, the 25/tcp connection completes, but
then their server drops the connection, no banner, no nothing. I get
a banner and can send mail to their servers from other IP addresses
outside of that network. My guess is that they're using SPEWS? We're
collateral damage in a SPEWS block.
I'll find out for you (hopefully).
--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists

[Crist Clark]

It appears VerizonWireless.com has some rather aggressive mail filters.
Verizon.net's blocking of Europe, Asia, Africa... well, everything but
North America has made some headlines and even some lawsuits. Anyone
know if VerizonWireless.com and Verizon.net are independent operations
from an SMTP point of view? Verizon.net has,
http://verizon.net/whitelist
And I haven't found an equivalent for VerizonWireless.com. And given
the differences in Verizon.net's and VerizonWireless.com's MX setup,
I doubt they use common resources.
Anyone here ever get off of their blacklist or even know what they are
using? Even though we have accounts with them, I haven't been successful
in getting through to clueful help *shock*.
FWIW, it really looks like an IP-based blacklist. From our main mail
server to any of their MX hosts, the 25/tcp connection completes, but
then their server drops the connection, no banner, no nothing. I get
a banner and can send mail to their servers from other IP addresses
outside of that network. My guess is that they're using SPEWS? We're
collateral damage in a SPEWS block.
--
Crist J. Clark   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Globalstar Communications(408) 933-4387