Dave,
I did overlook 2 messages you had sent outside our regular delist
process, but the one single such message that was sent to me within the
last month didn't have a subject line - unfortunately, we get a lot of
noise that we have to dig through, so that one single message you sent
within the last month not having a subject line didn't help.
So your most recent message to me that I had overlooked (the one without
a subject line), inquired about 185.105.64.91-99
HOWEVER - what is a bit frustrating about you taking this complaint
public - is that the FIRST and ONLY delist request for that range
(91-99) - I think EVER - certainly for as many months as we keep records
- that went through our online delist request system, following all of
the instructions, didn't happen until the past 24 hours - and that only
followed the instructions for one single IP - and that one single IP was
delisted by our automated system within an hour of the request being
submitted. So our system worked! Had you done the same for your other 7
IPs, they would have likewise received the same fast attention. (but,
nevertheless, I think that one delist request triggered a chain-reaction
that delisted those others anyways because...)
when I first just saw your message on MailOp about this morning - and
then I checked your IPs (185.105.64.91-99) - NONE of them were
blacklisted. I strongly suspect that they were ALL already delisted at
the time you posted your rant to MailOp! (and I was able to
scientifically determine that at least 6 of those IPs were no longer
listed after that one delist request - but I think all of them were -
and, again, none of them were listed at the time I check on them when I
first saw your message)
The only IP on that /24 block that is currently listed by invaluement is
185.105.64.73 - and we have ZERO delist requests on file for
185.105.64.73 - And I'm pretty sure that this has been the situation
for at least the past several hours.
THEN - looking at your other message I had overlooked from over a month
ago (this one was my bad - I should have seen it) - that message
inquired about a large range for your "colleague's" IP space
(185.105.64.2-99) - that overlaps with your IPs - I'm not sure what that
means exactly - or why you would would later ask more specifically about
a more narrow range - so while we were not seeing any delist requests
from 185.105.64.91-99 until yesterday (just your one single out-of-band
no-subject-line message I had overlooked) - in contrast, there have been
multiple delist requests for the first part of that range
185.105.64.2-90 - and all I can say is that our system was extremely
responsive to those - the vast majority of the time, they were delisted
within 1 hour - HOWEVER: those were listed for cause - we have had a
significant amount of unsolicited "cold sales call" messages from that
range (for 2-90) - that were causing those listings in the first place.
ALSO: keep in mind that these two sets of IPs on that /24 block are from
the SAME company - all in the same IP whois record (without ipwhois
sub-delegations) - and ALL with PTR records ending in
"[.]instillerhq[.]com - so it is a bit disingenuous to argue "don't
preemptively list my IPs for someone else's spam" - when that "someone
else" - is actually YOU
Sorry everyone for all the noise - but please come through our front
door before ranting about us not answering our back door! I know we were
not perfect in this situation - but we sure do look a lot better when
the rest of the story is revealed!
Rob McEwen, invaluement.com
On 6/27/2019 4:17 AM, Dave Holmes via mailop wrote:
Hi Guys,
I've tried reaching out to Rob directly with no response.
Are there any other people on list from Invalument on list? We seem to
have increasing problems with their pre-emptive block list. All of our
email is sent from a single class 24 in a contiguous block of 150 IP's
shared amongst many clients.
All email is GDPR EU compliant and is a mix of business to business
and high volume consumer emails. I could understand some IP's getting
listed on the SIP but the escalation to a /24 block is affecting all
our clients.
Hopefully this statement on the website stands "invaluement does this
while keeping false positives at industry-leading extremely low levels."
Cheers
--
Instiller Logo <https://www.instiller.co.uk>
Dave Holmes
Technical Director
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
T 0333 939 0013 | M 07966 013 309
1 Park Farm Barns | Packington Lane | Stonebridge | CV7 7TL
Instiller is a trademark of Instiller Limited, registered in England
5053657.
This email contains proprietary information, some of which may be
legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only.
If an addressing or transmission in error has misdirected this email,
please notify the author by replying to this email.
If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose,
distribute, copy, print or rely on this email.
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
--
Rob McEwen
https://www.invaluement.com
+1 (478) 475-9032
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
