Re: ATTENTION: DNSWL to be disabled by default.
>
> Maybe disable VALIDITY rule as well... They also have 10k limit in 30 days
> window ..
>
> My understanding is that Validity returns a specific value (127.255.255.255)
> for blocked queries.
I kept going back and forth as to whether to jump in on this thread and point
out that our own positive reputation DNSRL, the GSL - or as many of you know
it, and as it appears in the rules, the IADB - has always been and will always
be free to query or xfer, and with no restrictions, because we consider the
receiving community to be with whom we have our allegiance, and to whom we owe
responsibility. After all, the founder (me) came out of MAPS, and I have
always adhered to (and made sure that ISIPP SuretyMail adheres to) the
strictest of standards before a sender can be certified with us and have their
IPs placed on the GSL.
We are incredibly proud of and grateful for our relationship with the SA
community. In fact, the model of using discrete IP-address-based data points
(which we pioneered and we knew others would copy, (which they did) and we were
fine with that because it was a benefit to the receiving community which, after
all, is the point) was designed *specifically* with SA in mind, so that SA
could take full advantage of the granularity of the data; this was designed by
me and Craig Hughes.
Having run this by a trusted advisor in this community, I was encouraged to go
ahead and post in this thread, so now I have.
Again, here is a clear statement: The IADB ('GSL') is a positive reputation
DNS-based list which is and always will be free to query, and free to transfer.
The only way for an IP to appear on the IADB is after strict vetting and
making sure that the sender adheres to our own very high and strict standards.
We also take spam complaints (the few we receive - only a handful a year) very
seriously, and we have *zero* problem hitting a sender with a clue bat, and
'firing' a sender if we find that they have veered towards the gray side after
becoming certified with us. (The fact that we charge a relatively small
monthly sum to the senders makes firing them pretty painless. Thus it has
always been - best practices over money *always* - we can take this stand
because we are, always have been, and always will be, privately held, and the
buck stops with me).
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)
Re: Lots of FN because of VALIDITY* rules
> On Jun 3, 2024, at 4:09 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > I forgot to add that I have "lowered" (increased to small negative number) > scores for RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_*, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_* and RCVD_IN_IADB_* > because I has similar bad experience with them. Matus, if you EVER have a bad experience with RCVD_IN_IADB_ (or any other IADB test), *please* let me personally know asap. We take our responsibility to the receiving industry *very* seriously (always have, for more than 20 years now) - that's *why* we invented the data response code concept, and developed it specifically so that SA could take advantage of it (and didn't patent it so that others could use the concept to, again, assist receivers). So, *please*, again, let me know personally, directly, if you ever find an issue with a certified sender (that is who would trigger the IADB tests) not doing the right thing! Thank you, Anne --- Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. Internet Law & Policy Attorney CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP) Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Creator of the term 'deliverability' and founder of the deliverability industry 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)
Re: OT - Hotmail/Outlook.com marking most of our email as Junk
Cian, first, MailTester (and also the other automated systems) is notoriously bad about giving false negatives because so long as it finds *a* record (such as an SPF record) it considers it "ok"; this is why we've gone to a human-review system for test emails - I'd say in at least half the cases (if not more) MailTester gave the email a passing grade, including for SPF, and we determined quickly that the SPF was *wrong*. if you'd like to send us a test email (no charge :-) ) send it to t...@gettotheinbox.com from the *same* system as you are wanting to test for deliverability (so *not*, for example, from your Gmail account), then send a second email to supp...@gettotheinbox.com from the email account at which you'd like to receive our findings, tell them Anne sent you :-), and in that second email tell them who the test email was from, and the subject line of the test email. Anne --- Outsource your email deliverability headaches to us, and get to the inbox, guaranteed! www.GetToTheInbox.com Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. CEO Get to the Inbox by SuretyMail 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 In-house Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (Closed in 2004) > On Feb 18, 2022, at 6:09 PM, Cian wrote: > > I am also having a world of trouble getting my emails to Outlook users. For > reference, my work domain has one user (me). I have had the account for > about 9 months and I have not yet sent 100 emails. I typically send an email > to a single recipient, although I will occasionally CC a handful of people. > > > > What I’ve tried: > > > > • I have also set up SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. I’m *pretty sure* they’re > solid. Emails still go to junk. > • Initially, I didn’t have anything actually at the website for my > domain, so I threw my executive summary into a google site. Emails still go > to junk > • I've checked our public IP and the domain name at mxtoolbox.com – no > errors, but it warns that a) my DMARC policy isn’t q or r, and b) it doesn’t > care for my SOA > • I tried to get on Microsoft’s SDNS and JMRP, but I was not able. I > am pretty sure I have a shared IP, but I don’t know how I would check that. > Microsoft also suggested I join the Return Path Safe Senders program, but I > am pretty sure I would need a dedicated IP for that. In any case, I don’t > love the idea of paying to get whitelisted so I can send 11 emails a month. > • I’ve checked several sites and my domain isn’t on any blacklists. > However, I did register the domain through NameCheap, which is on the > UCEPROTECT_LVL3 list > • The domain is relatively new, as I said, but I don’t send any bulk > mail of any kind from it. All mail is either to people I specifically know, > people to whom I have received a personal introduction, or people listed as > contacts for their organization on public websites > • My mail is handled by Zoho Mail, so I haven’t done anything fancy > with the mail server. If there’s anything I should try, I will, but I might > need the instructions at a fifth-grade level > • I am fairly careful with my words, and the emails are appropriately > long, so I would be surprised if they were getting flagged for trigger words. > I have tried mail-tester.com and it did not object to the body of my emails > • Mail-tester.com claims to test emails against SA, although I know > this is a contentious point around here. I bring it up, though, because the > fact that my TLD is “.space” raised some flags > • When I have called my contacts, they have been as confused as I am > that they did not receive my emails > • Emails I send to any other domains are never a problem spam-wise > > > Notes: > > • I do not have a list-unsubscribe header in my emails, for one because > I don’t have a list, and for two, because I don’t really know how. I can add > one if necessary, although ideally I’d like the language to be clear that my > emails don’t go to a list of any kind > • I have a signature in my email. It has my phone number, but no > address because I don’t have a physical location yet. Some articles > suggested this is bad; I hate to put my home address in all my emails, but I > can if necessary. It’s in my Dun and Bradstreet profile, anyway > • My domain contacts are anonymized, courtesy of NameCheap. NameCheap > made this sound appealing, but I read somewhere that this makes you look > sketchy. I could fix this, if necessary. > > > I suspect I’ve already given you the smoking gun, but if this isn’t enough > information to hit on the problem, I am happy to provide more > > >
Re: netflix phishing emails forwarded via sendgrid
Does anyone have a copy of the netflix phishing that they could forward to me at amitch...@isipp.com, including the body of it? TIA! Anne > On Feb 2, 2021, at 1:04 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > On 2021-02-02 03:25, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: >> Since it's already hitting 8.9, why do more? > > too much phishing in winter half year to my taste > > i just google report urls now, and still add to phishtank, hopefully phishers > get a real life > > you can safely add 1.5 more to KAM_SENDGRID, if it continues i do it localy > > no need to argue http://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/149.72.91.245.html :-) > >> On 1/19/2021 9:07 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: >>> i have added urls to phishtank >>> if its could be added rules to spamassassin to detect it better i can send >>> sample to sa pmc members >>> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=8.9, required=5.0, Autolearn=no >>> autolearn_force=no, >>> LastExt=149.72.91.245 >>> X-Spam-Rules_score: >>> DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.076,DKIM_SIGNED=-0.1,DKIM_VALID=-0.1, >>> DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, >>> HTML_MESSAGE=0.1,KAM_NUMSUBJECT=0.5,KAM_REALLYHUGEIMGSRC=0.5, >>> KAM_SENDGRID=1.5,RCVD_IN_BRUKALAI_BLACK=2,SENDGRID_REDIR=0.932, >>> SPF_HELO_NONE=3,SPF_PASS=-0.1,TXREP=-0.187,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001 >>> mx relay is sendgrid, but enveloppe sender is not sendgrid >>> https://phishtank.com/phish_detail.php?phish_id=6927641 >>> https://phishtank.com/phish_detail.php?phish_id=6927893
Re: Technically not spam
> Really? Does it specific that the user dodoesn’t have to be logged in to the > site? > > Do you have the law handy, I'd like to add it to some boilerplate. It was part of the FTC's 2008 update to CAN-SPAM, using their rulemaking authority, so it's not directly in the text of the original CAN-SPAM (which was brought online in 2003). What the FTC said in that update in 2008 is: "an e-mail recipient cannot be required to pay a fee, provide information other than his or her e-mail address and opt-out preferences, or take any steps other than sending a reply e-mail message or visiting a single Internet Web page to opt out of receiving future e-mail from a sender." It's this: "or take any steps other than sending a reply e-mail message or visiting a single Internet Web page to opt out of receiving future e-mail from a sender" that creates the one-step rule. Having to visit a page, and then enter a password, and then opt-out is 3 steps. The somewhat plain English explanation of this and the other new 2008 rules/clarifications is here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2008/05/ftc-approves-new-rule-provision-under-can-spam-act The more in-depth version is here: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/federal_register_notices/definitions-and-implementation-under-can-spam-act-16-cfr-part-316/080521canspamact.pdf Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Advisor, Governor's Innovation Response Team Task Force Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant, GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Re: Technically not spam
> Probably not, but the user doesn't care, just wants the mail gone and to stop > showing up. Telling them to go to the site, jump through password recovery > hoop and then unsubscribe (which on some sites is quite difficult, as you > will be signed up for 5 or 6 different mailings, each of which you have to > seek out individually) is … well, not going to work with many users, > especially the less technical. Not to mention that it is a violation of Federal law. Federal law requires a "one-step" unsubscribe method. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Advisor, Governor's Innovation Response Team Task Force Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant, GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Re: who is IADB and why does this spam get a -3.8 score?
The offending sender has been terminated by the ESP.
> On Aug 7, 2019, at 3:06 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
> wrote:
>
> Hi David!
>
> We are the IADB, and if you are getting spam from an accredited IP address,
> we definitely want to know about it. The reason that email from that IP gets
> that score is because it is supposed to be 100% opt-in - clearly if you
> didn't opt in, then it's not - and so we will take the responsible party to
> task for it, and asap.
>
> Can you please forward a copy, with headers, directly to me, and I will
> personally make sure that it is taken care of, and with haste.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Anne
>
> Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
> CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
> Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
> Legislative Consultant
> GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
> Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
> Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
> Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
> Member: California Bar Association
>
>
>>
>> Why does this spam source get such a boost?
>>
>> -0.0 RCVD_IN_IADB_LISTEDRBL: Participates in the IADB system
>> -0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF RBL: IADB: Sender publishes SPF record
>> -1.5 RCVD_IN_IADB_OPTIN RBL: IADB: All mailing list mail is opt-in
>> -2.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_VOUCHED RBL: ISIPP IADB lists as vouched-for sender
>> -0.0 RCVD_IN_IADB_SENDERID RBL: IADB: Sender publishes Sender ID record
>>
>> In particular how can they claim "All mailing list mail is opt-in" for a
>> message sent to a spam-trap address that has never been used in any way
>> other than a spam-trap? (IE never used to send mail, never listed as a
>> contact address, etc).
>>
>> The message had a "unsubscribe" link but no "report spam" functions.
>>
>> Why should we have to "unsubscribe" an address that was never subscribed at
>> all?
>> (that would tend to give legitimacy to the spammer's claims that it was
>> subscribed/opt-in ).
>>
>> who should I report this travesty to?
>>
>> --
>> Dave Funk University of Iowa
>> College of Engineering
>> 319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
>> Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_adminIowa City, IA 52242-1527
>> #include
>> Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
>
Re: who is IADB and why does this spam get a -3.8 score?
Hi David!
We are the IADB, and if you are getting spam from an accredited IP address, we
definitely want to know about it. The reason that email from that IP gets that
score is because it is supposed to be 100% opt-in - clearly if you didn't opt
in, then it's not - and so we will take the responsible party to task for it,
and asap.
Can you please forward a copy, with headers, directly to me, and I will
personally make sure that it is taken care of, and with haste.
Thank you.
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Member: California Bar Association
> On Aug 7, 2019, at 2:57 PM, David B Funk wrote:
>
> This afternoon I found a spam in one of my spam-traps that was sent via
> constantcontact.com and got a whopping -3.8 from IADB rules.
>
> Why does this spam source get such a boost?
>
>-0.0 RCVD_IN_IADB_LISTEDRBL: Participates in the IADB system
>-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF RBL: IADB: Sender publishes SPF record
>-1.5 RCVD_IN_IADB_OPTIN RBL: IADB: All mailing list mail is opt-in
>-2.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_VOUCHED RBL: ISIPP IADB lists as vouched-for sender
>-0.0 RCVD_IN_IADB_SENDERID RBL: IADB: Sender publishes Sender ID record
>
> In particular how can they claim "All mailing list mail is opt-in" for a
> message sent to a spam-trap address that has never been used in any way other
> than a spam-trap? (IE never used to send mail, never listed as a contact
> address, etc).
>
> The message had a "unsubscribe" link but no "report spam" functions.
>
> Why should we have to "unsubscribe" an address that was never subscribed at
> all?
> (that would tend to give legitimacy to the spammer's claims that it was
> subscribed/opt-in ).
>
> who should I report this travesty to?
>
> --
> Dave Funk University of Iowa
> College of Engineering
> 319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
> Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_adminIowa City, IA 52242-1527
> #include
> Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
Re: semi-OT - reporting an organization that ignores unsubscribe requests
> > I don't want to weigh in on the perceived worth of your signature, but > are you aware of the signature convention that has been around for > decades? It is mentioned in RFC 3676 and many other places: > > There is a long-standing convention in Usenet news which also commonly > appears in Internet mail of using "-- " as the separator line between > the body and the signature of a message. > > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3676#section-4.3) > > If you prefix your signature with DASH DASH SPACE, smart MUAs will > either show the signature in muted colours, in a collapsed state, or by > other means of making it less intrusive. That's odd...until you mentioned it I wasn't aware that my MUA was *not* including that!...let me see if I can figure out why it isn't. Thank you! Anne (suppressing .sig for now)
Re: semi-OT - reporting an organization that ignores unsubscribe requests
> On Nov 24, 2018, at 4:25 PM, @lbutlr wrote: > > This is a very excessive signature block. I’m glad your proud of your resume, > but inflicting itnon a mailing list with every post is a bit much. It's not a matter of pride, and I generally don't disagree with you...however when discussing things actually having to do with the law, I have found that establishing my expertise and authority up front tends to ward off lengthy discussions that take up way more mailing list bandwidth than the signature. Much like this email, really. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Re: semi-OT - reporting an organization that ignores unsubscribe requests
> On Nov 21, 2018, at 12:03 PM, Bill Cole > wrote: > > On 21 Nov 2018, at 13:03, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > >> Except for the private right of action provided in GDPR, and small claims >> court in the U.S. > > Are you saying an EU law can create an actionable civil tort claim in a US > state small claims court for actions which are not illegal under any US state > or federal law? No, I'm saying that anybody can sue anybody for anything in the U.S., and it's extremely easy to file an action in small claims court. It wouldn't even have to be, technically, 'under' GDPR (as you mention, there is always tort) - but GDPR would be the hook that they would use, and the authority (note I said authority, not law) they would cite. That said, I think it's much more likely that the lawsuits already filed against Google and Facebook by Max Schrems will be ones to test the jurisdiction/enforcement issues. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Re: semi-OT - reporting an organization that ignores unsubscribe requests
P.S. I should have added: the whole jurisdiction issue is, clinically speaking, one of the most interesting parts of GDPR. I've never seen a law that so broadly asserted that the country or union from which the law was promulgated will enforce it anywhere and everywhere - it's pretty damned gutsy. It will almost certainly be sorted out through lawsuits, and that will definitely be popcorn time. > On Nov 21, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. > wrote: > > > >> On Nov 21, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Bill Cole >> wrote: >> >> There is no reason for anyone without a commercial presence in the EU or CH >> to be concerned with GDPR. > > Except for the private right of action provided in GDPR, and small claims > court in the U.S. > > And, for entities that spam enough people "in the EU" (for our > analysis/explanation of that, along with why U.S. companies should comply > with GDPR, see here: > https://www.isipp.com/resources/how-email-marketing-must-comply-with-the-eu-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/ > NB: GDPR does not state anywhere that it applies to EU residents or > citizens, only the vague and ambiguous "in the EU") the language in GDPR that > states they will go after anyone, anywhere in the world. > > Anne > > Anne P. Mitchell, > Attorney at Law > GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant > Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) > Legislative Consultant > CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy > Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange > Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop > Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute > Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center > California Bar Association > Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee > Colorado Cyber Committee > Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose > Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop > > > >
Re: semi-OT - reporting an organization that ignores unsubscribe requests
> On Nov 21, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Bill Cole > wrote: > > There is no reason for anyone without a commercial presence in the EU or CH > to be concerned with GDPR. Except for the private right of action provided in GDPR, and small claims court in the U.S. And, for entities that spam enough people "in the EU" (for our analysis/explanation of that, along with why U.S. companies should comply with GDPR, see here: https://www.isipp.com/resources/how-email-marketing-must-comply-with-the-eu-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/ NB: GDPR does not state anywhere that it applies to EU residents or citizens, only the vague and ambiguous "in the EU") the language in GDPR that states they will go after anyone, anywhere in the world. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Re: semi-OT - reporting an organization that ignores unsubscribe requests
> The email address is an address, part of your personally identifiable data.
> If an identifiable entity in the US sends mass mail to European addresses,
> then they must have a representative in Europe and comply with the GDPR.
I somehow missed that John is in the U.K., and actually re-reading his email
suggests that he may be in Canada ("hoses me off" ;-) )... John, if you are in
Canada than this may fall under CASL, in which case you can report the email
here:
http://fightspam.gc.ca/eic/site/030.nsf/eng/h_00017.html
If you are, in fact, in the EU, then by all means I'd go the route of invoking
GDPR. Many (if not most..sigh) entities in the U.S. believe that they don't
have to worry or care about GDPR..however the language in GDPR that says, in
essence, "we will go after anybody anywhere in the world who violates GDPR"
coupled with the private right of action suggests that you'd at least have a
shot. The reason that political spam is exempted in the U.S. is because of the
1st Amendment..which of course does not apply outside the U.S.. ;-)
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell,
Attorney at Law
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center
California Bar Association
Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Colorado Cyber Committee
Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 17:03, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, if you are European, and might get some money as compensation.
>>
>> From a US political advocacy group which has no commercial presence in EU?
>> How does GDPR apply in that situation?
>>
>> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 04:19, Joe Acquisto-j4
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gents,
>> >>
>> >> I somehow became subscribed to a list, political in nature, in whose mail
>> >> I have no interest. This is a legitimate AFAIK, US organization.
>> >>
>> >> Thus far, several uses of their unsubscribe link had not provided relief.
>> >> Direct email to the founder and operations manager seem to have been
>> >> ignored as well.
>> >>
>> >> While I can just dump their mail, it offends my finely hones sense of
>> >> propriety, justice and my all around good nature. Besides, it hoses me
>> >> off.
>> >>
>> >> So, is there some "authority" to which I can report these a**holes? that
>> >> might have an effect?
>>
>> --
>> John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
>> jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
>> key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
>> ---
>> The world has enough Mouse Clicking System Engineers.
>> -- Dave Pooser
>> ---
>> 600 days since the first commercial re-flight of an orbital booster (SpaceX)
>
>
Re: semi-OT - reporting an organization that ignores unsubscribe requests
> > Gents, Ahem. ;-) > > I somehow became subscribed to a list, political in nature, in whose mail I > have no interest. This is a legitimate AFAIK, US organization. > > Thus far, several uses of their unsubscribe link had not provided relief. > Direct email to the founder and operations manager seem to have been ignored > as well. > > While I can just dump their mail, it offends my finely hones sense of > propriety, justice and my all around good nature. Besides, it hoses me off. > > So, is there some "authority" to which I can report these a**holes? that > might have an effect? Speaking as someone who actually wrote part of the U.S. anti-spam law (of which I'm the first to say that it is pathetic and anemic (except of course, the part that I wrote ;-) )...I can say categorically that political email is exempt from most Federal law relating to email, email marketing, etc.. But THAT said, a word to their provider can (and sometimes does) still have the desired (individual) effect, because providers care about their IP space reputation (more so than most political campaigns). Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Re: Bayes overtraining
> >>> There are spams hitting negative scoring rules e.g. MAILING_LIST_MULTI, >>> RCVD_IN_RP_*, RCVD_IN_IADB_* and they are constantly trained as ham. Just a reminder, if you ever receive spam which is tagged as RCVD_IN_IADB (or *any* flavour of IADB tag) *please* forward it to me personally and I will personally make sure that whoever it is sending it is soundly whacked. We do *not* have a sense of humour about anyone sending anything that is not 100% true opt-in (if not confirmed opt-in) - and we do *not* certify anyone who is doing anything less - and if we find that someone's practices have slipped and they are being sloppy with permission, we fire them. Our definition of spam is the definition that Paul (Vixie) and I put forward years ago: “An electronic message is “spam” IF: (1) the recipient’s personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients; AND (2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and still-revocable permission for it to be sent; AND (3) the transmission and reception of the message appears to the recipient to give a disproportionate benefit to the sender.” Anything less is grounds for immediate termination. So, again, if you ever find anything that triggers an IADB rule that is not something for which you/your user affirmatively opted in, we want to know about it. The buck stops right here: Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance GDPR & CCPA Compliance Consultant GDPR & CCPA Compliance Certification http://www.SuretyMail.com/ http://www.SuretyMail.eu/ Attorney at Law / Legislative Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center Member, California Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cybersecurity Consortium Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Re: IADB whitelist - again
one of the few aspects of CAN-SPAM with teeth - it's the vendor liability section, which actually means the "you don't get to run an affiliate program and look the other way while you profit from your affiliates spamming - we're looking at you Gevalia" section." (*For those of you who are also law/policy wonks, text of Section 6 available upon request. :-) ) My point is - I am, and we are, about as rabidly anti-spam as they come. And that's why we have the scores that we do. Because we worked hard to earn that trust, we are trustworthy, approachable, transparent and, most importantly, on the right side of the fight. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification http://www.SuretyMail.com/ http://www.SuretyMail.eu/ Attorney at Law / Legislative Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center Member, California Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cybersecurity Consortium Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Member, Advisory Board, Cause for Awareness Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Former Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Available for consultations by special arrangement. amitch...@isipp.com | @AnnePMitchell Facebook/AnnePMitchell | LinkedIn/in/annemitchell
Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam
> > I know the definition of spam is very subjective and dependent on your > particular the mail flow along with the expectations of the recipients. > Back when I was in-house counsel at MAPS, Paul (Vixie) and I came up with this definition of spam: “An electronic message is “spam” IF: (1) the recipient’s personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients; AND (2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and still-revocable permission for it to be sent; AND (3) the transmission and reception of the message appears to the recipient to give a disproportionate benefit to the sender.” I think that it still holds up. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cyber Committee Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Re: Tone of emails with subject: 'hey'
Ironically, Gmail's spam filters have filtered every single one of the emails in this thread. :-\ Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cyber Committee Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Re: IADB whitelist
> > My sense is that ESPs engage ISIPP thinking they are getting an advocate and > ambassador to mailbox providers when in fact they get a teacher/evangelist > for sender best practices. ITYM 'schooled in best practices. ;-) ;-) Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance http://www.SuretyMail.com/ http://www.SuretyMail.eu/ Attorney at Law / Legislative Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center Member, California Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cybersecurity Consortium Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Member, Advisory Board, Cause for Awareness Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Former Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Available for consultations by special arrangement. amitch...@isipp.com | @AnnePMitchell Facebook/AnnePMitchell | LinkedIn/in/annemitchell
Re: IADB whitelist
> > What do you call *verified* opt-in (what the marketers call "double opt-in"), > where the recipient needs to comfirm that they gave permission for contact > via that email address before receiving any content, in order to avoid > unwanted third-party subscriptions? Confirmed opt-in, which is what it was called back at MAPS and when we launched SuretyMail. Even there we have granular breakdowns, such as: 127.3.100.8 All mailing list mail is at least opt-in, and has a confirmed (double) opt-in mechanism available, used less than 50% of the time 127.3.100.9 All mailing list mail is at least opt-in, and has a confirmed (double) opt-in mechanism available, used more than 50% of the time 127.3.100.10All mailing list mail is confirmed (double) opt-in --- (Note that we include the 'double' term (even though I feel I have to shower after typing it) because that is the vernacular with which more senders are familiar. Also note that there are data response codes that we would, in fact, almost never (if ever) use, but which are *great* for applicant screening - so for example if an applicant says: "Accepts unverified sign-ups such as through web page" (which is one of our codes) ...they are never actually going to get certified (unless we can educate them and they actually change their wicked ways). You can see the full list of codes here: http://www.isipp.com/email-accreditation/about-the-codes/list-of-codes/ Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance http://www.SuretyMail.com/ http://www.SuretyMail.eu/ Attorney at Law / Legislative Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center Member, California Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cybersecurity Consortium Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Member, Advisory Board, Cause for Awareness Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Former Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Available for consultations by special arrangement. amitch...@isipp.com | @AnnePMitchell Facebook/AnnePMitchell | LinkedIn/in/annemitchell
Re: IADB whitelist
> > 'magically' re-subscribe after a while, or simply get around rules by > creating a new list and re-subscribing everybody who unsubscribed. Just so you know, that behavior is specifically made illegal by CAN-SPAM. And Sebastian, I see that you are in the UK, which already has tighter laws. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance http://www.SuretyMail.com/ http://www.SuretyMail.eu/ Attorney at Law / Legislative Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center Member, California Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cybersecurity Consortium Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Member, Advisory Board, Cause for Awareness Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Former Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Available for consultations by special arrangement. amitch...@isipp.com | @AnnePMitchell Facebook/AnnePMitchell | LinkedIn/in/annemitchell
Re: IADB whitelist
Bill, thank you for this excellent explanation, and for the kind words! For those of you who don't know us, or me, I came out of MAPS; I was in-house counsel for MAPS during the first rash of lawsuits against MAPS brought by spammers. To say that I am rabidly anti-spam would be an understatement. ISIPP, and our SuretyMail service, were founded by me a year and a bit after I left MAPS. As such, our priority has always been, and remains, first and foremost, to the *receivers* - ISPs, spam filters, and any receiver who is using our data/zones. It is true that the senders are our paying customers, however by design the amount of monies we receive from any given customer is small enough that the pleasure of whacking a spammer far outweighs any downside of giving a paying customer the boot if they are not doing The Right Thing. Plus, we have a very extensive background check that we put a potential customer (sender) through before we will certify them. We reject plenty of applicants. > However, the different responses from IADB are VERY nuanced and the two > strongest rules you listed (RCVD_IN_IADB_OPTIN and RCVD_IN_IADB_VOUCHED) are > essentially "good intentions" markers. > Due to unfortunate terminology choices by ISIPP and a willingness to engage > in nuance and estimate intentions, those aren't really as worthwhile as they > might seem. Hey Bill - can you please elaborate on the terminology choices which you see as unfortunate? We are *always* open to input. Where we say "opt-in" we mean exactly that - single opt-in; if someone didn't ask for the email not only would we call that "opt-out", but we would not certify that sender's email. And if one of our senders is sending spam where they claim that all of their mailings are 100% opt-in (at least) we want to know, because...whack! Seriously, we are always open to feedback, and if a change in terminology is warranted we have no problem doing that (we also are happy to create a custom zone based on whatever the receiver wants for those who would like zones with highly specific profiles of the IPs therein - some receivers do that because they can't take advantage of the granularity of the data in our zones (although that is not the case for SA...in fact our data response codes were *specifically* created for SA because SA *can* take advantage of that level of granularity)). Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance http://www.SuretyMail.com/ http://www.SuretyMail.eu/ Attorney at Law / Legislative Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center Member, California Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cybersecurity Consortium Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Member, Advisory Board, Cause for Awareness Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Former Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Available for consultations by special arrangement. amitch...@isipp.com | @AnnePMitchell Facebook/AnnePMitchell | LinkedIn/in/annemitchell
Response from ISIPP (was Re: ISIPP - Re: bb.barracudacentral.org)
Hi Guys! This thread was only just brought to our attention, and the thread is now several levels deep and a bit old, so if you can help me out with letting me know what the outstanding issues are, I'd really appreciate it. As best as I can tell from reading through the thread online, there are two questions: 1. Something to do with our zones not responding (?) and 2. Something which is causing questions regarding the IADB rules, however I can't find what triggered it or the actual question. We did have an issue with our master zone server a few weeks ago, however to the best of my knowledge it was a) resolved quickly, and b) hasn't happened again. We also have several secondaries on line so, at least in theory, any lookups to the IADB should have been serviced as usual. Are folks still seeing issues with that? As for #2, I'm here to answer any questions and to address any concerns you may have. We treasure (seriously) our relationship with SA - we developed the IADB response codes with Craig Hughes *specifically* so that SA could take advantage of them, and the IADB generally, so if there are issues now, we definitely want to know and get them addressed. I should also remind folks, in case institutional memory from back then is no longer here, that we are happy to create any new data response code that would be useful for SA. (For example, the "127.3.100.100The only email which comes from this IP address is mailing list email, and that mailing list email is entirely confirmed (double) opt-in" data response code was created at the request of another spam filtering/reporting system, and they make a point of looking for it in our zones now.) As you may know, we consider our first duty to be to the *receiving* community (for those who don't know, I came to this by way of being in-house counsel for Paul Vixie and MAPS, so I am seriously anti-spam, and part of the receiving community); but we can't address any issues if they aren't brought to our attention. That just happened, and here I am! :-) Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP) Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cyber Committee Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop On 2017-09-18 08:12, "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote: > On 9/16/2017 4:36 PM, Chris wrote:> > > I'm also seeing issues with ISIPP which is in 20_dnsbl_tests.cf. I've> > > attached the message I sent them as well as their reply. Another issue> > > I noticed with ISIPP is> > >> > > Sep 16 12:09:38 localhost named[1284]: host unreachable resolving> > > 'ns1.ns.isipp.com/A/IN': 67.227.190.38#53> > > Sep 16 12:09:38 localhost named[1284]: host unreachable resolving> > > 'ns2.ns.isipp.com/A/IN': 67.227.190.38#53> > >> > > My network is up> > >> > > chris@localhost:~$ time host isipp.com> > > isipp.com has address 67.227.187.192> > > isipp.com mail is handled by 5 smtp.secureserver.net.> > > isipp.com mail is handled by 0 concerto.isipp.com.> > > isipp.com mail is handled by 10 mailstore1.secureserver.net.> > >> > > real††† 0m0.866s> > > user††† 0m0.008s> > > sys††† 0m0.004s> > > chris@localhost:~$ time host isipp.com> > > isipp.com has address 67.227.187.192> > > isipp.com mail is handled by 0 concerto.isipp.com.> > > isipp.com mail is handled by 10 mailstore1.secureserver.net.> > > isipp.com mail is handled by 5 smtp.secureserver.net.> > >> > > real††† 0m0.010s> > > user††† 0m0.008s> > > sys††† 0m0.000s> > >> > > Problem, or something I shouldn't concern myself about?> > > Good question.† Perhaps another rate-limit issue or they block dynamic IPs.> > > I took this off-list by accident but Chris has low volume and uses a > > Dynamic IP.† I wonder if ISIPP is similar to barracuda in that it should > > be considered for removal from the default rules. Anyone have any feedback?> > > regards,> > KAM> >
MailChimp Update (Was Re: MailChimp with link to javascript/zip malware)
MailChimp has said that they believe that they have terminated all accounts that were responsible for this. BUT, they say, this is a group that keeps cropping up (think whack-a-mole), so to please report any more of these that anyone receives. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cyber Committee Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Re: MailChimp with link to javascript/zip malware
Sorry for top-posting, but just to let folks know, our contact has just let me know that he is on this; I'll report back with anything I hear that I can share. Anne > > Hi, > >>> Another email from a whitelisted mailchimp address that contains malware. >>> >>> https://pastebin.com/ay83iWjC >>> >>> It's also not tagged when not whitelisted, and I hoped someone had >>> some ideas on what further can be done to block it. >>> >>> Complicating things, it's in Italian. >>> >>> I've reported it to MailChimp and also removed mailchimp (mcdlv.net >>> and rsgsv.net) from the local whitelist. >> >> Alex, may I share this, confidentially and directly, with our abuse czar >> contact at Mailchimp? > > Yes, sure, feel free to send them the pastebin.com link above, or > contact me directly for more details and I'd be happy to help. > >> And if so, can you please give me the spammer's from address? > > Yes, it's listed in the pastebin post above as i...@scria.org.au. > > Thanks, Anne, it's good to have you on this list. > > Antony Stone wrote: >> I'm intrigued as to what the "Esq." in your From address indicates? > > In the US, it means she's an attorney. > > Thanks, > Alex
Re: Off-topic, was: [Re: MailChimp with link to javascript/zip malware]
> > On Friday 20 October 2017 at 19:29:31, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote: > >> Anne P. Mitchell, >> Attorney at Law > > I'm intrigued as to what the "Esq." in your From address indicates? > > Please feel free to reply offlist if appropriate. In the U.S., Esq. (short for 'Esquire') means specifically a person who has been admitted to the practice of law and who is permitted to represent clients (as compared to having completed law school but not being admitted to practice law - in which case the person can/will put "J.D." (for juris doctor) after their name). That said, there are attorneys who are admitted to practice law, and who still use J.D., so you can't really be sure whether someone with J.D. after their name is admitted to practice law or not, while Esq. denotes definitively that the person is allowed to practice and represent clients. :-) Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cyber Committee Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Re: MailChimp with link to javascript/zip malware
> > Hi, > > Another email from a whitelisted mailchimp address that contains malware. > > https://pastebin.com/ay83iWjC > > It's also not tagged when not whitelisted, and I hoped someone had > some ideas on what further can be done to block it. > > Complicating things, it's in Italian. > > I've reported it to MailChimp and also removed mailchimp (mcdlv.net > and rsgsv.net) from the local whitelist. Alex, may I share this, confidentially and directly, with our abuse czar contact at Mailchimp? And if so, can you please give me the spammer's from address? Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cyber Committee Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Re: ISIPP - Re: bb.barracudacentral.org
On 9/16/2017 4:36 PM, Chris wrote: > I'm also seeing issues with ISIPP which is in 20_dnsbl_tests.cf. I've > attached the message I sent them as well as their reply. Another issue I > noticed with ISIPP is Sep 16 12:09:38 localhost named[1284]: host unreachable > resolving 'ns1.ns.isipp.com/A/IN': 67.227.190.38#53 Sep 16 12:09:38 > localhost named[1284]: host unreachable resolving 'ns2.ns.isipp.com/A/IN': > 67.227.190.38#53 I apologize profusely for this... we (fairly) recently switched our colo and while everything was running as it should have been when we set up, it wasn't until Chris contacted us directly that we were aware that this issue had raised its head. To the best of my knowledge this has been fixed - *please* let me know if it has not (or, indeed, if anyone ever has any other problems, or even just questions!) To address another question, we do not distinguish between queries from static versus dynamic IPs in terms of who can query our zones. As for whether the ISIPP rules should remain in the default ruleset: When we first designed our service - which despite that senders are our customers, was created *for receivers* (remember that I came from MAPS - we *love* taking down spammers), we took great pains to ensure that our data response codes in our zones were easy for SA to use - in fact Craig Hughes and I sat down together and architected it specifically with SA in mind. I knew that our design would be copied (and indeed it was by the other email sender certification company) and we didn't really care that it would be copied, because it meant more spam being able to be caught, with fewer false positives, which, at the end of the day, is what everybody (other than spammers) wants. Obviously I think it would be a shame if a system that was specifically designed with SA in mind was no longer included in the default SA rules; if there is tweaking that needs to be done - new codes created, or heck, even a new SA-specific zone created, we'd be more than happy to do that - that's *always* been how we do things - whatever makes it easiest for the *receiving* community, with whom, at the end of the day, our allegiance lays. ;-) Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP) Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cyber Committee Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
what happened to DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 ??
Hi, DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 was taken out since 3.2.x. Why?? What happens with spam between 48 and 96 hours in the past? thanks. Anne
Re: optimization failing--fixed
Anne Ramey wrote: I'm installed SA 3.1 with Amavisd-new and postfix 2.2.5 on fedora core 3 and am having serious mail slowdowns, as much as and hour. I've figure out it's SA because the SA check as taking 8-12 seconds, which was about 75%+ of the processing. I've been trying to sort through my rulesets to see which one might be causing the problem with no luck. I went ahead and removed all the custom rulesets and now it's soo much worse. Now the SA check is taking 45 seconds (99%)! please help. Why would it take longer with fewer rulesets? The machine load is back down, but I think this will slow mail down further. I'm at a loss. What else can I do to optimize the performace? Thanks Put /var/amavis/tmp and /var/amavis/.spamassassin on tmpfs. All better now. Thanks, Anne
Re: optimization failing
Anne Ramey wrote: Loren Wilton wrote: Basically only two possibilities: you're thrashing the poor box to death by running out of memory, or network tests are taking an age. Or maybe both. ok, I had a pyzor test timing out, but I've removed that, and it's still taking 6-15 seconds for the SA check. I'm quite sure it's not the fault of the network tests, or at least not only that. Here are the results from time spamassassin on the same message (all 4 times): without network checks: real0m5.968s user0m1.400s sys 0m0.170s real0m32.084s user0m1.431s sys 0m0.183s Whith network checks: real0m11.509s user0m1.481s sys 0m0.214s real0m21.296s user0m1.527s sys 0m0.201s How many children? I've tried 8, 10, and 12 children with no noticable difference. What load average? load stays around 10 How much memory on the machine? How much free memory? my memory looks like this: # free -m total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 2007 1807200 0 23292 -/+ buffers/cache: 1491516 Swap: 2000 17 1982 ` Do you have a local caching DNS for the various RBL checks? not yet, the DNS server is just one hop. Anne Loren
Re: optimization failing
Loren Wilton wrote: Basically only two possibilities: you're thrashing the poor box to death by running out of memory, or network tests are taking an age. Or maybe both. ok, I had a pyzor test timing out, but I've removed that, and it's still taking 6-15 seconds for the SA check. How many children? I've tried 8, 10, and 12 children with no noticable difference. What load average? load stays around 10 How much memory on the machine? How much free memory? my memory looks like this: # free -m total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 2007 1807200 0 23292 -/+ buffers/cache: 1491516 Swap: 2000 17 1982 ` Do you have a local caching DNS for the various RBL checks? not yet, the DNS server is just one hop. Anne Loren
optimization failing
I'm installed SA 3.1 with Amavisd-new and postfix 2.2.5 on fedora core 3 and am having serious mail slowdowns, as much as and hour. I've figure out it's SA because the SA check as taking 8-12 seconds, which was about 75%+ of the processing. I've been trying to sort through my rulesets to see which one might be causing the problem with no luck. I went ahead and removed all the custom rulesets and now it's soo much worse. Now the SA check is taking 45 seconds (99%)! please help. Why would it take longer with fewer rulesets? The machine load is back down, but I think this will slow mail down further. I'm at a loss. What else can I do to optimize the performace? Thanks -- Anne
