Re: Microsoft / Outlook.com contact???

[Michael J Wise]

> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:47:28 -0700 Robert wrote:
> RG> On 10/13/2015 5:44 PM, Robert Story wrote:
> RG> > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:25:27 -0700 Robert wrote:
> RG> > RG> We are having a problem with email from a certain IP being
> RG> > RG> rejected with code FBLW15.  We have gone through the normal
> RG> > RG> channels but have received no communication/acknowledgement from
> RG> > RG> Microsoft at all. Emails to any domain with *outlook.com MX
> RG> > RG> records are rejected with the following:
> RG> > RG> []
> RG> > RG> We have emailed del...@messaging.microsoft.com, with no
> response.
> RG> >
> RG> > This has happened to me twice this year. Both times I got an
> RG> > auto-response fairly quickly, and a followup message within a week,
> RG> > and was delisted. Never could get any info on why I was listed in
> the
> RG> > first place, though.
> RG> >
> RG> >
> RG> > Robert
> RG> >
> RG> An MS engineer reached out earlier, gave me this:
> RG>
> RG> https://postmaster.live.com/snds/addnetwork.aspx
> RG>
> RG> Signing for and using that tool, I was able to pin-point the cause.
> You
> RG> can also sign-up for their junk-mail feedback loop.
> RG>
> RG> Hope this helps you next time!
>
> Excellent, thanks!

Unfortunately, that's not going to work if the refusal reason was FBLW15
(or TBLW15).

You're not dealing with an issue on the Outlook/Hotmail side of the house.

If you had provided the last two octets, I might have been able to give
some advice earlier, but alas, everyone seems loathe to actually say which
IP is having issues.

Aloha mai Nai`a.
-- 
" So this is how Liberty dies ...  http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
" To Thunderous Applause.

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Tony Wicks]

> While you are at it you might want to stop sending DMCA notices to Canadian
> ISPs. The DMCA does not apply in Canada. If your clients wish to litigate 
> against
> individual residential customers in Canada, you will first need to obtain a 
> court
> order requiring handover of data, on a case-by-case basis.

Well said, the 500 or so a day that get filtered into my deleted items folder 
are mildly annoying, and all our IP ranges are APNIC (not America!). DCMA does 
not extend outside of the USA, no matter how much spam you send. If you want 
someone to do something that applies to other countries spend some time 
bothering to find out what the relevant laws are in those countries.

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Fred Hollis]

At least, we tried contacting you many times, but you ignored all our 
requests.


Still receiving thousands of e-mails not related to our IPs on daily basis.

On 13.10.2015 at 00:04 Seth Arnold wrote:

Hi All,

Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.

Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice Recipient 
Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 


If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is reflected in the 
records of the US Copyright Office:  http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html 



Cheers,
Seth

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Bjørn Mork]

Seth Arnold  writes:

> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.
>
> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice Recipient 
> Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 
> 

Are you serious? You receive spam and then you go to a link provided by
the spammer, entering your contact information into a web form? I don't
think so...

Take it with their upstream abuse contact instead.


Bjørn

Re: IPv6 Irony.

[Stephen Satchell]

On 10/13/2015 02:56 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:

So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6
adoption;)


Was that a typo?  Didn't you have to upgrade your network admins, too? 

Re: IPv6 Irony.

[Max Tulyev]

Well, especially our copmany hire admins already familiar with IPv6. But
yes, some of our friends company had to upgrade admins too.

On 13.10.15 13:22, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> On 10/13/2015 02:56 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:
>> So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6
>> adoption;)
> 
> Was that a typo?  Didn't you have to upgrade your network admins, too?
> 
> 

Re: IPv6 Irony.

[Max Tulyev]

On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware.

Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on...

So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6
adoption ;)

On 13.10.15 06:17, Ca By wrote:
> On Monday, October 12, 2015, Donn Lasher  wrote:
> 
>>
>> Having just returned from NANOG65/ARIN36, and hearing about how far IPv6
>> has come.. I find my experience with  support today
>> Ironic.
>>
>> Oh wait..
>>
>> Hi, my name is Donn, and I’m speaking for… myself.
>>
>> Irony is a cable provider, one of the largest, and earliest adopters of
>> IPv6, having ZERO IPv6 support available via phone, chat, or email. And
>> being pointed, by all of those contact methods, to a single website. A
>> static website. In 2015, when IPv4 is officially exhausted.
>>
>> :sigh:
>>
>>
>>
> Tech support websites are long tail
> 
> Pragmatists are focused on getting ipv6 to the masses by default in
> high traffic use cases.
> 
> Sighing about edge cases in the long tail  with ipv6 ... Not sure what you
> expect.
> 
>  outtages>
> 
> CB
> 

Re: GPON Optical Levels

[Florian Lohoff]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:46:59PM +0200, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> Here is a small secret: If you attenuate the PON port so the signal level
> at the OLT is as low as possible, your network will be more robust against
> people connecting P2P fiber media converters to your network. This is
> because these devices typically have TX power that is significantly less
> than your ONUs. By attenuate the signal you can bring the rogue signal
> below the detection threshold of the OLT.
> 
> In my experience one way to do this is to always use 1:128 splits. Even if
> you are only going to connect less than 32 ONUs, you will find that 1:128
> can be more robust. In fact I discovered this little trick after we started
> using 1:128 splits (for flexibility, not because we actually connect that
> many clients). Because the fiber plant is shared with other service

Wouldnt a 1:32 splitter + a 9dB attenuation be the same? From
the price/performance the 1:128 splitter should be much more expensive.

We have seen happening the same converting a former p2p footprint to
GPON and somebody got a left over p2p device connected. But this was
a single incident so far.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: IPv6 Irony.

[Paul S.]

Anyone in a network administrator position struggling with IPv6 (and not 
willing to fix that out of their own initiative) has no business running 
any network.


You should hire better staff.

On 10/13/2015 06:56 PM, Max Tulyev wrote:

On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware.

Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on...

So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6
adoption ;)

On 13.10.15 06:17, Ca By wrote:

On Monday, October 12, 2015, Donn Lasher  wrote:


Having just returned from NANOG65/ARIN36, and hearing about how far IPv6
has come.. I find my experience with  support today
Ironic.

Oh wait..

Hi, my name is Donn, and I’m speaking for… myself.

Irony is a cable provider, one of the largest, and earliest adopters of
IPv6, having ZERO IPv6 support available via phone, chat, or email. And
being pointed, by all of those contact methods, to a single website. A
static website. In 2015, when IPv4 is officially exhausted.

:sigh:




Tech support websites are long tail

Pragmatists are focused on getting ipv6 to the masses by default in
high traffic use cases.

Sighing about edge cases in the long tail  with ipv6 ... Not sure what you
expect.



CB

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 13 October 2015 at 16:17, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> So even when they give an avenue to resolve the issue, people still
> complain... *sigh*
>

IP-Echelon used a faulty automated script to harvest abuse addresses and
then expect everyone else to use a manual process to fix their errors,
including a captcha. Where do we send the bill for labour?

The ranges that we receive complaints from are totally unrelated to us.
Have never been owned by us or any entity related to us. Is not even
registred in the same country. Are not numerically close to any of our IP
ranges. The ranges usually have a valid abuse address in whois and it is
not ours. It is a bit of mystery how they came up with our abuse address.

My conclusion is that I have zero obligations to tell anyone that I
received an abuse report that is not for anything my users did. Especially
not after already contacting the sender and they continue to send wrong
reports. So I can just discard it. And with it I can discard all the
reports that _are_ for our own users, because why is it my responsibility
to write a filter? If they send me accurate information, I may want to
consider forwarding the stuff, but if they are lazy, why would I not also
choose the lazy way out?

Adding IP-Echelon to the spam filter is very easy.

Finding our ranges is extremely easy. You will find a complete list here
and many other places: https://stat.ripe.net/as60876#tabId=routing. Someone
from IP-Echelon is reading this, so go remove any prefixes not on that
list. If you do not, then you choose to be lazy and thereby choose to be
filtered as spam.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:17:14AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> So even when they give an avenue to resolve the issue, people still 
> complain... *sigh* 

"Handing over more information" to unrepentant, chronic, systemic
spammers (who also happen to be engaged in massive abuse of the DMCA)
is not in any sense a "resolution".

---rsk

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Bob Evans]

WAIT WAIT - I know the solution to all of this.  Let's pass a law that
requires everyone to fill out a form to buy a device with a MAC address.
Make them wait 10 days to verify the buyer has never committed a digital
crime. While law enforcement puts it in a pile forms and pretends they can
verify through the process of piling and ignoring it. 10 days later, If
law enforcement doesn't call - the store can then call the buyer and tell
them they can pick up their new potential crime committing internet
device.

Oh Gee, I see here that I have been living in California too long.

Bob Evans
CTO

BTW, from this thread, I just learned that responding the way the spam
email states doesn't make it possible communicate with company personnel -
you must first fill out an application and register to communicate ? A
kind or opt-in-proof.

We get these emails 99% of the time its the same IP address subnets of
wi-fi in hotels or schools. They are always 12 hours late and often older
- days late - hotel guests customers have checked out or closed their
hacked laptop after their lunch meeting.

What's a busy hotel staff suppose to do track down a guest MAC addresses -
hire better firewall companies to block specific port traffic because of
its potential use? Thought that ol' bit-torrent stuff flips ports whenever
it needs too ?


> Hi Fred,
>
> I can’t find your name, email address or the domain-name from your email
> in our mailboxes.
>
> If you send the request via this webform or via email to the address
> specified in the notice, we’ll absolutely jump on it and respond ASAP.
>
> I can’t monitor this thread further but please reach out via the
> channels described so we can help.
>
> Cheers,
> Seth
>
>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:10 AM, Fred Hollis  wrote:
>>
>> At least, we tried contacting you many times, but you ignored all our
>> requests.
>>
>> Still receiving thousands of e-mails not related to our IPs on daily
>> basis.
>>
>>> On 13.10.2015 at 00:04 Seth Arnold wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.
>>>
>>> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice
>>> Recipient Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
>>> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/
>>> 
>>>
>>> If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is
>>> reflected in the records of the US Copyright Office:
>>> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Seth
>>>
>

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Mike Hammett]

So even when they give an avenue to resolve the issue, people still complain... 
*sigh* 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Bjørn Mork"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:03:45 AM 
Subject: Re: IP-Echelon Compliance 

Seth Arnold  writes: 

> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes. 
> 
> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice Recipient 
> Management for ISPs section of our website located here: 
> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 
>  

Are you serious? You receive spam and then you go to a link provided by 
the spammer, entering your contact information into a web form? I don't 
think so... 

Take it with their upstream abuse contact instead. 


Bjørn 

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[seth]

Hi Fred,

I can’t find your name, email address or the domain-name from your email in our 
mailboxes.

If you send the request via this webform or via email to the address specified 
in the notice, we’ll absolutely jump on it and respond ASAP.

I can’t monitor this thread further but please reach out via the channels 
described so we can help.

Cheers,
Seth

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:10 AM, Fred Hollis  wrote:
> 
> At least, we tried contacting you many times, but you ignored all our 
> requests.
> 
> Still receiving thousands of e-mails not related to our IPs on daily basis.
> 
>> On 13.10.2015 at 00:04 Seth Arnold wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.
>> 
>> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice 
>> Recipient Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
>> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 
>> 
>> 
>> If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is reflected in 
>> the records of the US Copyright Office:  
>> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Seth
>> 

Re: IPv6 Irony.

[Yucong Sun]

I don't understand the strategy here, how is that getting more traffic
going-through IPv6 help its adoption by the mass?  IMHO it only helps
high-end, backbone type of network equipment producers sell more of
their big box with advanced IPv6 license.  It has absolutely no help
with the long tail crowd, which really need more push and incentive to
support ipv6.

Cheers.

Re: IPv6 Irony.

[Ca By]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Yucong Sun  wrote:

> I don't understand the strategy here, how is that getting more traffic
> going-through IPv6 help its adoption by the mass?  IMHO it only helps
> high-end, backbone type of network equipment producers sell more of
> their big box with advanced IPv6 license.  It has absolutely no help
> with the long tail crowd, which really need more push and incentive to
> support ipv6.
>
> Cheers.
>

Which "big box" has an "advanced IPv6 license"?


CB

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Peter Kristolaitis]

On 10/13/2015 11:30 AM, Bob Evans wrote:

WAIT WAIT - I know the solution to all of this.  Let's pass a law that
requires everyone to fill out a form to buy a device with a MAC address.
Make them wait 10 days to verify the buyer has never committed a digital
crime. While law enforcement puts it in a pile forms and pretends they can
verify through the process of piling and ignoring it. 10 days later, If
law enforcement doesn't call - the store can then call the buyer and tell
them they can pick up their new potential crime committing internet
device.


Background checks are great and all, but really what we need to do is 
restrict the ability of criminals to access illegal information, and we 
also need to get high-powered crime devices off of our streets.


To that end, we're currently working on drafting new legislation which 
we're calling the "Personal Access To Restricted Information Over 
Telecommunications Act" (PATRIOT Act) that will give the government the 
ability to remove illegal information from the internet, monitor global 
internet access so we can detect criminal activity, and also streamline 
the process for dealing with offenders.  In talking with our 
intelligence and police services, we've found that there are several key 
areas that can be improved to be able to deal with threats faster and 
more efficiently.  For example, "due process" is quite slow, requiring 
the gathering of something I believe is called "evidence", and we are 
currently examining ways to simply make it "process".  This will give 
our law enforcement the tools that they desperately want.


On the hardware level, we need to get rid of all devices with more than 
1 USB port.  No one other than a criminal needs more than 1 external 
hard drive.   This will inconvenience a very small number of people who 
also use USB ports for devices such as keyboards, mice and printers, but 
we commissioned a study that said the impact should be minor.  We 
recommend that those affected by this change look at alternatives such 
as "PS2".  The government computing infrastructure has been using this 
standard for several years now with great success.


Limiting USB ports on a device introduces another problem -- the "USB 
hub loophole", which we will address with future legislation. We will 
need to work with the ATF and Homeland Security to identify the best way 
to deal with this issue.  We will probably need to bring in CIA and NSA 
as well, to monitor the production and sale of these devices both abroad 
and domestically.  We are also in talks at the UN to introduce a new, 
multinational, multilateral civilian oversight committee to monitor and 
regulate the international trade of these dangerous items.  However, we 
are having difficulties getting some member states to accept the 
inspection requirements, and talks are ongoing.


Next, we're going to limit the general availability of network 
connections to no more than 32kbit/sec in either direction.  Faster 
network connections will be available, but you will have to register 
with the government and pay for a tax stamp.  This ensures that 
criminals can't misuse high-speed network connections, unless they can 
afford to pay $200.


Finally, we are going to introduce a total digital-crime-device ban to 
help tackle the problem in high-crime areas.  We are going to give 
states and municipalities the ability to make "digital-free zones" where 
the possession of digital crime devices is prohibited. This will result 
in the complete elimination of digital crimes committed in public areas 
such as schools and movie theaters, because it will be double-illegal to 
commit crimes there.

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Jason Hellenthal]

RoFLx1000 

Srysly! Cluebat who are these people again and why does anyone need them ?

#Sigh

-- 
 Jason Hellenthal
 JJH48-ARIN

On Oct 13, 2015, at 09:52, s...@ip-echelon.com wrote:

Hi Fred,

I can’t find your name, email address or the domain-name from your email in our 
mailboxes.

If you send the request via this webform or via email to the address specified 
in the notice, we’ll absolutely jump on it and respond ASAP.

I can’t monitor this thread further but please reach out via the channels 
described so we can help.

Cheers,
Seth

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:10 AM, Fred Hollis  wrote:
> 
> At least, we tried contacting you many times, but you ignored all our 
> requests.
> 
> Still receiving thousands of e-mails not related to our IPs on daily basis.
> 
>> On 13.10.2015 at 00:04 Seth Arnold wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.
>> 
>> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice 
>> Recipient Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
>> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 
>> 
>> 
>> If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is reflected in 
>> the records of the US Copyright Office:  
>> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Seth
>> 

Microsoft / Outlook.com contact???

[Robert Glover]

Anyone from Microsoft / Outlook.com / Office365 around?

We are having a problem with email from a certain IP being rejected with 
code FBLW15.  We have gone through the normal channels but have received 
no communication/acknowledgement from Microsoft at all. Emails to any 
domain with *outlook.com MX records are rejected with the following:


---
host
klatencor-com0i.mail.eo.outlook.com[207.46.163.138] said: 550 5.7.1 
Service
unavailable; Client host [65.111..] blocked using 
FBLW15; To request

removal from this list please forward this message to
del...@messaging.microsoft.com (in reply to RCPT TO command)
---

We have emailed del...@messaging.microsoft.com, with no response.

The IP in question is not showing up on any blacklists that we have 
searched (mxtoolbox, multi-rbl-check, etc etc)


Thanks
-Robert

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Scott Weeks]

--- s...@ip-echelon.com wrote:

If you send the request via this webform or via 
email to the address specified in the notice...
---


Maybe I'm cynical, but...  :-)

That's one good way to assure your email spam
list is of a higher quality.  Turn your automated 
spam cannon directly at network engineers, rather 
than to a whois email address.  Shortcuts and all 
that...

scott

Re: Microsoft / Outlook.com contact???

[Michael J Wise]

> Anyone from Microsoft / Outlook.com / Office365 around?

> We are having a problem with email from a certain IP being rejected with
> code FBLW15.  We have gone through the normal channels but have received
> no communication/acknowledgement from Microsoft at all.

When did you send the request in to del...@messaging.microsoft.com?

> Emails to any
> domain with *outlook.com MX records are rejected with the following:
>
> ---
> host
>  klatencor-com0i.mail.eo.outlook.com[207.46.163.138] said: 550 5.7.1
> Service
>  unavailable; Client host [65.111..] blocked using
> FBLW15; To request
>  removal from this list please forward this message to
>  del...@messaging.microsoft.com (in reply to RCPT TO command)
> ---
>
> We have emailed del...@messaging.microsoft.com, with no response.
>
> The IP in question is not showing up on any blacklists that we have
> searched (mxtoolbox, multi-rbl-check, etc etc)
>
> Thanks
> -Robert
>


Aloha mai Nai`a.
-- 
" So this is how Liberty dies ...  http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
" To Thunderous Applause.

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Matthew Black]

As a recipient of their stuff, it would be nice if IP Echelon even followed the 
information registered with the US Copyright Office for such notices. We paid 
$80 to let everyone know where notices should be sent.

matthew black
First Amendment: speaking for myself and not my employer!


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Seth Arnold
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:05 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

Hi All,

Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.

Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice Recipient 
Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 


If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is reflected in the 
records of the US Copyright Office:  
http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html 



Cheers,
Seth

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Christopher Morrow]

I'm still.amazed that my name servers are performing bit torrent...
According to ip-echelon.
On Oct 13, 2015 12:14 PM, "Matthew Black"  wrote:

> As a recipient of their stuff, it would be nice if IP Echelon even
> followed the information registered with the US Copyright Office for such
> notices. We paid $80 to let everyone know where notices should be sent.
>
> matthew black
> First Amendment: speaking for myself and not my employer!
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Seth Arnold
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:05 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: IP-Echelon Compliance
>
> Hi All,
>
> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.
>
> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice
> Recipient Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ <
> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/>
>
> If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is reflected
> in the records of the US Copyright Office:
> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html <
> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Seth
>

Charter Communication internet issues in SE Washington State.

[Mark Keymer]

Hi All,

I was just wondering if anyone on the list might have some info on the 
ongoing issues with Charter in SE Washington state? I have heard that 
the issues are in Yakima WA. Off-list or on-list replies welcomed.


Sincerely,

--
Mark Keymer

Re: Microsoft / Outlook.com contact???

[Robert Story]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:25:27 -0700 Robert wrote:
RG> We are having a problem with email from a certain IP being rejected
RG> with code FBLW15.  We have gone through the normal channels but have
RG> received no communication/acknowledgement from Microsoft at all. Emails
RG> to any domain with *outlook.com MX records are rejected with the
RG> following:
RG> []
RG> We have emailed del...@messaging.microsoft.com, with no response.

This has happened to me twice this year. Both times I got an auto-response
fairly quickly, and a followup message within a week, and was delisted.
Never could get any info on why I was listed in the first place, though.


Robert

-- 
Senior Software Engineer @ Parsons


pgpq7os2n7Dnm.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Microsoft / Outlook.com contact???

[Robert Glover]

On 10/13/2015 5:44 PM, Robert Story wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:25:27 -0700 Robert wrote:
RG> We are having a problem with email from a certain IP being rejected
RG> with code FBLW15.  We have gone through the normal channels but have
RG> received no communication/acknowledgement from Microsoft at all. Emails
RG> to any domain with *outlook.com MX records are rejected with the
RG> following:
RG> []
RG> We have emailed del...@messaging.microsoft.com, with no response.

This has happened to me twice this year. Both times I got an auto-response
fairly quickly, and a followup message within a week, and was delisted.
Never could get any info on why I was listed in the first place, though.


Robert


An MS engineer reached out earlier, gave me this:

https://postmaster.live.com/snds/addnetwork.aspx

Signing for and using that tool, I was able to pin-point the cause. You 
can also sign-up for their junk-mail feedback loop.


Hope this helps you next time!

--
Sincerely,
Bobby Glover
Director of IS & Engineering
SVI Incorporated

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Eric Kuhnke]

While you are at it you might want to stop sending DMCA notices to Canadian
ISPs. The DMCA does not apply in Canada. If your clients wish to litigate
against individual residential customers in Canada, you will first need to
obtain a court order requiring handover of data, on a case-by-case basis.

Just because the IP blocks in question are in ARIN space does not mean they
are subject to the DMCA.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/court-tells-teksavvy-to-reveal-customers-who-illegally-download-movies/article17025513/



On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:52 AM,  wrote:

> Hi Fred,
>
> I can’t find your name, email address or the domain-name from your email
> in our mailboxes.
>
> If you send the request via this webform or via email to the address
> specified in the notice, we’ll absolutely jump on it and respond ASAP.
>
> I can’t monitor this thread further but please reach out via the channels
> described so we can help.
>
> Cheers,
> Seth
>
> > On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:10 AM, Fred Hollis  wrote:
> >
> > At least, we tried contacting you many times, but you ignored all our
> requests.
> >
> > Still receiving thousands of e-mails not related to our IPs on daily
> basis.
> >
> >> On 13.10.2015 at 00:04 Seth Arnold wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.
> >>
> >> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice
> Recipient Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
> >> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ <
> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/>
> >>
> >> If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is
> reflected in the records of the US Copyright Office:
> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html <
> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Seth
> >>
>

Re: Microsoft / Outlook.com contact???

[Robert Story]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:47:28 -0700 Robert wrote:
RG> On 10/13/2015 5:44 PM, Robert Story wrote:
RG> > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:25:27 -0700 Robert wrote:
RG> > RG> We are having a problem with email from a certain IP being
RG> > RG> rejected with code FBLW15.  We have gone through the normal
RG> > RG> channels but have received no communication/acknowledgement from
RG> > RG> Microsoft at all. Emails to any domain with *outlook.com MX
RG> > RG> records are rejected with the following:
RG> > RG> []
RG> > RG> We have emailed del...@messaging.microsoft.com, with no response.
RG> >
RG> > This has happened to me twice this year. Both times I got an
RG> > auto-response fairly quickly, and a followup message within a week,
RG> > and was delisted. Never could get any info on why I was listed in the
RG> > first place, though.
RG> >
RG> >
RG> > Robert
RG> >
RG> An MS engineer reached out earlier, gave me this:
RG> 
RG> https://postmaster.live.com/snds/addnetwork.aspx
RG> 
RG> Signing for and using that tool, I was able to pin-point the cause. You 
RG> can also sign-up for their junk-mail feedback loop.
RG> 
RG> Hope this helps you next time!

Excellent, thanks!


Robert

-- 
Senior Software Engineer @ Parsons


pgpDHjXkRnpre.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature