That hetzner.de (or whatever host owns the equipment) is leasing
hardware+connectivity in one bundle, and possibly the OS, leaving their
customer is fully in control of the machine and the host has no day to day
administrative duties or responsibilities.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017, at 16:52, Tim Sta
Then what does "unmanaged" mean in this context?
-Tim
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Dave Warren wrote:
> As far as #2, because users of said servers often want to send email.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017, at 12:05, Tim Starr wrote:
>
> An overall admirable response, keep up the good work. Just
I don't know how much of this is fictional or the order of exact
operations...
but you've admitted your server got hacked and then we blocked your mail.
A good percentage of the spam we receive is from hacked boxes, and these
boxes can send millions of messages in the minutes after being hacked.
ailop@mailop.org" , Tim Starr
Subject: Re: [mailop] btinternet.com blacklist
The Internet is what it is exactly because anyone is allowed to connect a
server to it and start doing what he wants, as long as he speaks the common
protocols. But this is going away, and you are increasingly being told th
> Il 17 luglio 2017 alle 21.05 Tim Starr ha scritto:
>
> 2) Why allow email to be sent at all from "unmanaged servers"?
>
I've been buying an "unmanaged server" from various European providers
(including OVH, and currently Contabo) for the last 15 years, to run my
personal website and em
[Discussing Hetzner]
> Keep reminding us of that by reducing the volume of spam leaving your
> network and responding promptly to abuse notifications. :)
I sent them a spam report recently. I got a prompt auto-ack.
ab...@hetzner.de said:
> Our office hours concerning abuse enquiries are Mond
On 2017-07-17 15:44:09 (+0200), Hetzner Blacklist wrote:
I just got back from a 2 week holiday and have been reading this thread
with a lot of interest. I thought I would respond and try to explain the
situation from our perspective.
Thank you for engaging with this community. I'm sure this m
As far as #2, because users of said servers often want to send email.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017, at 12:05, Tim Starr wrote:
> An overall admirable response, keep up the good work. Just 2 questions:>
> 1) Why not put TLDR at top?
> 2) Why allow email to be sent at all from "unmanaged servers"?
>
> -T
An overall admirable response, keep up the good work. Just 2 questions:
1) Why not put TLDR at top?
2) Why allow email to be sent at all from "unmanaged servers"?
-Tim
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Hetzner Blacklist
wrote:
> I just got back from a 2 week holiday and have been reading this t
> On 17 Jul 2017, at 14:44, Hetzner Blacklist wrote:
>
> I’ve been in contact with a number of people this past year and many of
> them have acknowledged that our network no longer deserves a bad
> reputation. However, I can fully understand that not everybody will
> agree, and I believe there a
I just got back from a 2 week holiday and have been reading this thread
with a lot of interest. I thought I would respond and try to explain the
situation from our perspective. I could write an entire essay on this,
but I have tried to be as concise as possible, though it is still a wall
of text.
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>
> Found a referral to rwhois.psychz.net:4321.
This particular outfit is block on sight for me. Back when I ran a managed
services company, blocking all of their IP address space took out s significant
amount of spam that had to be proc
On 17-07-14 12:05 PM, Karen Balle wrote:
It's less of a common practice than it used to be, I think. I don't
work for an abuse desk anymore, but antispam technology is much more
advanced now and blocking of entire networks by large ISPs has never
really been a common practice. You lose a lot
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Dom Latter wrote:
> On 13/07/17 02:58, John Levine wrote:
>
>> I get the impression that you vastly overestimate how much the rest of
>> the world cares whether they get your mail. (This is the general you,
>> not you personally.)
>>
>
> Our recipients care very
On 13 Jul 2017, at 18:39, Dom Latter wrote:
I do not know how plagued this list is with ignorant newbies such as
myself,
Not much, because it's not dedicated to any particular toolset and is
not widely publicized.
but perhaps an FAQ would be useful
Perhaps. From what I have seen in my re
On 13/07/17 18:30, Bill Cole wrote:
On 12 Jul 2017, at 18:57, Dom Latter wrote:
I do still find it baffling that guilt by association [1] is considered
reasonable - and I do not see the need to block ranges when single
IPs will do. Although perhaps there are technical reasons for this
that I a
On 13/07/17 02:58, John Levine wrote:
I get the impression that you vastly overestimate how much the rest of
the world cares whether they get your mail. (This is the general you,
not you personally.)
Our recipients care very much! They are literally paying for it.
I'd put it this way - btint
On 12 Jul 2017, at 18:57, Dom Latter wrote:
I do still find it baffling that guilt by association [1] is
considered
reasonable - and I do not see the need to block ranges when single
IPs will do. Although perhaps there are technical reasons for this
that I am unaware of.
Are you familiar wit
In article you write:
>For example the top 50 ips from 78.47.0.0/16 (by email volume) there were 34
>IPs with "good" reputation and 7 with "bad" reputation.
Some of us keep our own records of what arrives at our mail servers.
For the past couple of months from 78.47/16 I see one message from you
On 13/07/2017 03:06, steve wrote:
Depending on how it's carved up, there are at least 50k IP addresses
in a /16. One line, or...
From my experience, it's not so much that it's hard work blocking
individual IP addresses, it's that the spammers move around.
I don't know if the hosting compa
Am 13.07.2017 um 04:23 schrieb Jay Hennigan:
> If you live in a crime-ridden neighborhood by misfortune or choice, you learn
> not to leave valuable outgoing packages in your curbside mailbox for the
> postman to pick up. You take them to a secure facility operated by someone you
> trust. Same prin
On 7/12/17 7:06 PM, steve wrote:
Depending on how it's carved up, there are at least 50k IP addresses in
a /16. One line, or...
I have the misfortune of inheriting a server on this /16, and am using
my own smart host.
If you live in a crime-ridden neighborhood by misfortune or choice, you
On 13/07/17 13:58, John Levine wrote:
In article you write:
I do still find it baffling that guilt by association [1] is considered
reasonable - and I do not see the need to block ranges when single
IPs will do. Although perhaps there are technical reasons for this
that I am unaware of.
I g
In article you write:
>I do still find it baffling that guilt by association [1] is considered
>reasonable - and I do not see the need to block ranges when single
>IPs will do. Although perhaps there are technical reasons for this
>that I am unaware of.
I get the impression that you vastly overe
Thanks to all for the replies on this topic - it's been interesting
and informative. I may come back to some of the points raised
but in the meantime will 'cat' my replies here:
On 12/07/17 01:22, John Stephenson wrote:
I hope nobody gets hurt in this massive and sudden effort to dog pile on
to
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 10:31 AM
To: Michael Wise
Cc: John Stephenson ; Larry M. Smith
; mailop
Subject: Re: [mailop] btinternet.com blacklist
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:46:28 -, Michael Wise via mailop said:
> Youb
___
mailop mailing list
mailo
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:46:28 -, Michael Wise via mailop said:
> Youâd be surprised how many people think that their sincerity is flagged in
> the protocol somehowâ¦.
RFC3514 was written explicitly to add support for that.
pgpzmD8obTwjW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__
On 12/07/17 17:35, Laura Atkins wrote:
I have been known to tell clients, “There’s no place in the filter
mechanisms where they can flag ‘is a client of Laura’s’, the filters do
what they do and we can work with them but hiring me doesn’t change what
the filters are going to do with your mail
Reporting Tool
> <http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=18275> ?
>
> From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of John Stephenson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:23 PM
> To: Larry M. Smith
> Cc: mailop
> Subject: Re: [mailop] btinternet.com
n-us/download/details.aspx?id=18275> ?
From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of John Stephenson
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:23 PM
To: Larry M. Smith
Cc: mailop
Subject: Re: [mailop] btinternet.com blacklist
I hope nobody gets hurt in this massive and sudden effort to dog pile on
I hope nobody gets hurt in this massive and sudden effort to dog pile on
top of Dom for assuming that being a good sender was enough to avoid being
blocked. It was naive given the realities of the internet, but let's not
pretend we're all above being trapped in our own perspectives.
On Tue, Jul 1
Dom Latter wrote:
(snip)
> But it shouldn't matter. We are not spammers. [...]
.. And btinternet.com is supposed to automatically know this? How?
--
SgtChains
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis
On 17-07-11 09:09 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 7/11/17 02:19, Philip Paeps wrote:
Unfortunately, spammers have made the internet worse for everyone. In
the world of email today, "we are not spammers" is not a good enough
argument to get your email accepted by anyone.
"We're not spammers" i
On 7/11/17 11:43 AM, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
Let's not forget S.1618
And, "We're not the sender, our spammy customer is the sender."
--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and
n
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:10 AM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] btinternet.com blacklist
On 7/11/17 02:19, Philip Paeps wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, spammers have made the internet worse for everyone. In
> the world of email today, "we are not spammers" is not a g
On 7/11/17 02:19, Philip Paeps wrote:
Unfortunately, spammers have made the internet worse for everyone. In
the world of email today, "we are not spammers" is not a good enough
argument to get your email accepted by anyone.
"We're not spammers" is up there with "double confirmed opt-in" or
On 2017-07-10 12:53:55 (+0100), Dom Latter wrote:
On 10/07/17 11:22, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Back during the old nanae and spam-l days in the 90s and 2000s,
whenever this came up, and it did a lot even with filters a lot less
hair trigger than what we have today, the usual analogy wasn't
Am 10.07.2017 um 21:45 schrieb John Levine:
> Many other hosting companies manage to control their spam. The usual
> approach is to filter the mail their customers send, either with
> "transparent" filters hijacking port 25 traffic
From your experience: Are spammers relying on unencrypted SMTP?
On 10/07/2017 21:53, Dom Latter wrote:
> We have been in the Hetzner "neighbourhood" for years. This is our
> fourth server (and hence IP address) there and the first time we have
> had this issue. [1]
Consider yourself lucky, we have a large chunk of Hetzner blocked
> But it shouldn't matter.
Again, we are getting pretty off-topic.. but for the record..
inetnum:5.9.170.240 - 5.9.170.255
netname:HOS-201823
descr: HOS-201823
country:DE
admin-c:HOAC1-RIPE
tech-c: HOAC1-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: HOS-GUN
created:
On 7/10/17 04:53, Dom Latter wrote:
[1] We have relatively unusual requirements - we need *lots* of disk
space (we upload 2TB / year, and it's nice to have a few years worth)
but other than that a fairly modest server will suffice. It would be
nice to find a UK provider with, say, 4 x 4TB disk,
In article <6dc1c120-5c8d-3d83-fdfc-c520f5c05...@schwarz.eu> you write:
>What puzzles me most is that I'm not sure how providers like Hetzner are
>supposed to reduce their spam rate significantly.
Hetzner is an outlier, and not in a good way. Many other hosting
companies manage to control their
In article <34c9f2de-c6bf-69af-6570-f17b3f283...@latter.org> you write:
>We have been in the Hetzner "neighbourhood" for years. This is our
>fourth server (and hence IP address) there and the first time we have
>had this issue. [1]
Honestly, you're lucky. Hetzner gushes spam, and I've had most o
They may not even be renting directly to spammers, but their users are
getting compromised and sending spam and other crap from their servers. We
see clickbot and other fraud farming from those IP ranges as well.
It is an unfortunate situation, and challenging, no doubt.
Brandon
On Mon, Jul 10,
Am 10.07.2017 um 13:53 schrieb Dom Latter:
> But it shouldn't matter. We are not spammers. It is stupid to block
> a range of IP addresses on the behaviour of one. And there should be
> some sort of checker / delisting mechanism that is better than writing
> to postmaster@ and hoping for the be
On 10/07/2017 12:53, Dom Latter wrote:
[1] We have relatively unusual requirements - we need *lots* of disk
space (we upload 2TB / year, and it's nice to have a few years worth)
but other than that a fairly modest server will suffice. It would be
nice to find a UK provider with, say, 4 x 4TB di
On 10/07/2017 12:53, Dom Latter wrote:
but other than that a fairly modest server will suffice. It would be
nice to find a UK provider with, say, 4 x 4TB disk, for < 100USD / yr.
Do you really mean $100/yr?
That doesn't even cover the cost of 4 x 4TB disks, never mind the rest
of the server
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:53:55PM +0100, Dom Latter wrote:
> On 10/07/17 11:22, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > Back during the old nanae and spam-l days in the 90s and 2000s,
> > whenever this came up, and it did a lot even with filters a lot less
> > hair trigger than what we have today, the u
Hello,
On 07/10/2017 07:53 AM, Dom Latter wrote:
> On 10/07/17 11:22, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> Back during the old nanae and spam-l days in the 90s and 2000s,
>> whenever this came up, and it did a lot even with filters a lot less
>> hair trigger than what we have today, the usual analogy
On 10/07/17 11:22, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Back during the old nanae and spam-l days in the 90s and 2000s,
> whenever this came up, and it did a lot even with filters a lot less
> hair trigger than what we have today, the usual analogy wasn't people
> partying next door, it was usually com
Hello,
On 07/10/2017 06:11 AM, Dom Latter wrote:
> On 10/07/17 10:51, Noel Butler wrote:
>> On 10/07/2017 19:02, Dom Latter wrote:
>>
>>> "The IP address is owned by the hosting company Hetzner Online GmbH.
>>> Unfortunately we have seen many spam attacks from servers/IP addresses
>>> hosted by
On 10/07/2017 11:11, Dom Latter wrote:
And they are not saying they will blacklist it again if they get
spam from it. They are saying they might blacklist it again if
they get spam from a *different* IP address - which happens to be
in a similar range.
It's like I move into a house and find th
It's like I move into a house and find that I am banned from having
visitors because somebody once held a noisy party in the house next
door.
At least in England, before you buy a house, you get a solicitor (lawyer,
not street-walker) to do "searches". If they missed that ban you would
claim
Back during the old nanae and spam-l days in the 90s and 2000s, whenever this
came up, and it did a lot even with filters a lot less hair trigger than what
we have today, the usual analogy wasn't people partying next door, it was
usually compared to renting an apartment in a high crime area so c
On 10/07/17 10:51, Noel Butler wrote:
On 10/07/2017 19:02, Dom Latter wrote:
"The IP address is owned by the hosting company Hetzner Online GmbH.
Unfortunately we have seen many spam attacks from servers/IP addresses
hosted by this company and at times various groups of IP addresses have
bee
On 10/07/2017 19:02, Dom Latter wrote:
> So after replying from another domain I finally got a response from
> someone who explained:
>
> "The IP address is owned by the hosting company Hetzner Online GmbH.
> Unfortunately we have seen many spam attacks from servers/IP addresses
> hosted by this
Hello people,
first - thanks to andy @ bitfolk.com for pointing me at this list.
second - I thought I would post for the archives, sort of in response
to a post from February (appended below). We recently moved a site from
one Hetzner server to another. And found ourselves unable to send
emai
57 matches
Mail list logo
