Hi, >From my experience, only UCE Protect LVL1 listings mean something and in rare cases Level 2 listings. UCE Lvl 1 shows which specific IP reached their spamtraps. Elevated listings like Level 2 or Level 3 are just too broad and often block legitimate email. As for impact I have seen some small scale impact, mostly related to EU recipients (German in particular as UCE Protect is German based). I also remember that back in a day similar issue was related to Sendgrid and their IP space - that was also discussed on Word to the Wise blog - they stated that the impact was super small.
Regards, Andrzej Korytkowski Email Delivery Expert Elastic Email On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:01 PM <mailop-requ...@mailop.org> wrote: > Send mailop mailing list submissions to > mailop@mailop.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > mailop-requ...@mailop.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > mailop-ow...@mailop.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of mailop digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Is it something to worry about? (Jaroslaw Rafa) > 2. Re: Is it something to worry about? (Hans-Martin Mosner) > 3. Re: Is it something to worry about? (Renaud Allard) > 4. Re: Is it something to worry about? (Jim Popovitch) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:40:57 +0100 > From: Jaroslaw Rafa <r...@rafa.eu.org> > To: mailop@mailop.org > Subject: [mailop] Is it something to worry about? > Message-ID: <20210120094057.ga23...@rafa.eu.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hello, > just got an information from MxToolbox that my IP (actually not my IP in > particular, but the ASN it belongs to) has been blacklisted at UCEPROTECT > level 3. Checking of my IP (217.182.79.147) at > http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php gives the info that it has been > listed because there were 1868 spamming IPs from within this ASN last 7 > days while their threshold for level 3 listing is 717. > > My question is: how widely is this BL (UCEPROTECT level 3) used? Do I have > to worry about deliverability? Their page tells me to ask my provider to > fix > the issue, which I will do, but... it's OVH, so you know... > > I also find it quite impudent that the people who run UCEPROTECT offer > the whitelisting option (ips.whitelisted.org), but request payment for > it... > If you provide access to blacklist for free, you should whitelist for free > as well. > -- > Regards, > Jaroslaw Rafa > r...@rafa.eu.org > -- > "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there > was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub." > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:10:42 +0100 > From: Hans-Martin Mosner <h...@heeg.de> > To: mailop@mailop.org > Subject: Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about? > Message-ID: <b3ab5407-ff46-0c2c-7f94-33ef9ac51...@heeg.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Am 20.01.21 um 10:40 schrieb Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop: > > Hello, > > just got an information from MxToolbox that my IP (actually not my IP in > > particular, but the ASN it belongs to) has been blacklisted at UCEPROTECT > > level 3. Checking of my IP (217.182.79.147) at > > http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php gives the info that it has > been > > listed because there were 1868 spamming IPs from within this ASN last 7 > > days while their threshold for level 3 listing is 717. > > > > My question is: how widely is this BL (UCEPROTECT level 3) used? Do I > have > > to worry about deliverability? Their page tells me to ask my provider to > fix > > the issue, which I will do, but... it's OVH, so you know... > > > > I also find it quite impudent that the people who run UCEPROTECT offer > > the whitelisting option (ips.whitelisted.org), but request payment for > it... > > If you provide access to blacklist for free, you should whitelist for > free > > as well. > > On one hand, UCEPROTECT is relatively aggressive, and their unlisting > policy is at least questionable. However, running > a blacklist incurs costs in terms of server time and admin time, so if > they provide access for free, how should they > recover their costs? > > On the other hand - this is OVH! They are huge, and they don't seem to > have a working abuse desk (at least I never got > any reaction to abuse reports I sent there, and I've most likely send > hundreds). This means they are an attractive > spammer haven, and the number of persistent spammers in their network is > significant. > > In light of this, UCEPROTECT taking whitelisting fees from users of cheap > providers that cut their costs by not paying > an abuse team or by making a profit from spammer hosting looks not so > unreasonable after all. I do not condone their > practice, though. On the mail systems that I run, mails from this AS would > be rejected with a temporary error code until > I see sufficient reason to whitelist the IP, which may take a day or more. > > There's a saying in german "Billig muss man sich leisten können" - "You > have to be able to afford buying cheaply". > > Cheers, > Hans-Martin > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:21:43 +0100 > From: Renaud Allard <ren...@allard.it> > To: mailop@mailop.org > Subject: Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about? > Message-ID: <d761d232-b234-9136-9e2c-6d9574db6...@allard.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > > > On 1/20/21 11:10 AM, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: > > Am 20.01.21 um 10:40 schrieb Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop: > >> Hello, > >> just got an information from MxToolbox that my IP (actually not my IP in > >> particular, but the ASN it belongs to) has been blacklisted at > UCEPROTECT > >> level 3. Checking of my IP (217.182.79.147) at > >> http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php gives the info that it has > been > >> listed because there were 1868 spamming IPs from within this ASN last 7 > >> days while their threshold for level 3 listing is 717. > >> > >> My question is: how widely is this BL (UCEPROTECT level 3) used? Do I > have > >> to worry about deliverability? Their page tells me to ask my provider > to fix > >> the issue, which I will do, but... it's OVH, so you know... > >> > >> I also find it quite impudent that the people who run UCEPROTECT offer > >> the whitelisting option (ips.whitelisted.org), but request payment for > it... > >> If you provide access to blacklist for free, you should whitelist for > free > >> as well. > > > > On one hand, UCEPROTECT is relatively aggressive, and their unlisting > policy is at least questionable. However, running > > a blacklist incurs costs in terms of server time and admin time, so if > they provide access for free, how should they > > recover their costs? > > > > On the other hand - this is OVH! They are huge, and they don't seem to > have a working abuse desk (at least I never got > > any reaction to abuse reports I sent there, and I've most likely send > hundreds). This means they are an attractive > > spammer haven, and the number of persistent spammers in their network is > significant. > > > > In light of this, UCEPROTECT taking whitelisting fees from users of > cheap providers that cut their costs by not paying > > an abuse team or by making a profit from spammer hosting looks not so > unreasonable after all. I do not condone their > > practice, though. On the mail systems that I run, mails from this AS > would be rejected with a temporary error code until > > I see sufficient reason to whitelist the IP, which may take a day or > more. > > > > There's a saying in german "Billig muss man sich leisten können" - "You > have to be able to afford buying cheaply". > > > > I agree with what you said. That said, those who use UCEPROTECT above > level 1 to unconditionally block mails deserve to lose mails. > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: smime.p7s > Type: application/pkcs7-signature > Size: 4484 bytes > Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature > URL: < > https://list.mailop.org/private/mailop/attachments/20210120/dc27b11a/attachment-0001.bin > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 05:45:25 -0500 > From: Jim Popovitch <jim...@domainmail.org> > To: mailop@mailop.org > Subject: Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about? > Message-ID: > <51f43a1515c1963f10b24705aef9c88e33ae9e19.ca...@domainmail.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 11:21 +0100, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote: > > > > I agree with what you said. That said, those who use UCEPROTECT above > > level 1 to unconditionally block mails deserve to lose mails. > > > > For me, it's "appreciate never seeing those emails". I outright block > level 2 and level 3, and high score level 1. I've been doing that for > years now and have never seen a reject log message that wasn't already > listed in Zen, Sorbs, or Psbl. > > - -Jim P. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE3RmV4WutJ2KyCS2zPcxbabkKGJ8FAmAICcUACgkQPcxbabkK > GJ9TyxAAoyrSMOuuEOss2Rmv37XdCV1ptlVs/gSevk2Fipdrla50K3AH5onnHFmI > Bv7F/RYIsI6ubJcKrOqk5deKUumK9TpOBgucRRjvVMDovL/DNBzUVl8gBbR+HVLe > rIliqVd1v/cK0QGC/D5c/SRjLIimKmYeVxwUo1gt9y1g3yQNwnNrjRG3b9kEU/bS > /yFwaHNN5HMBszhl/W1op4900KMlemnMOEAiUIZznFyWHKJgRk1XvHhU1UDGkZAQ > xnomauf/TwR7XY7NkRNoJsYLdI7oPJGhOIZujOeA9/KAKyDMee4YWfaIYZn3IpQq > mKmQRtT4QuT1JNwKPjiE7kAwgqnkdxpYbVwKkbBJd3TkK0H2NO+gn4VNkteeRicy > zeM2dVjGCV4JNoiW+em+IKGYPTGUt/BaAnFrGFcAd7hN8RlXzUO4rscF6cBaoQdA > CxfgE/G+5AzbBRlgnMW9DXzVyEwxq/wZYqD+j6XMzWYjNANhQMKp6JTmn7eDeV/x > iGHXk+iQu7YWhmMeVSlcgOxfN4r3GEC14w0m7slF9sqxRfq7kJHhj0bEEaITFWo0 > sZh0PYsl5WsPYYw42RdNCotztcWDEB91AWuTyxhONXFQVURmxWdlR+pE1+MwfEHc > D9glzzfaCnXO8tFaLG1dYlFYwdiJcBGsBLttN5d01f9uI5XhvuY= > =mcMZ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > > > ------------------------------ > > End of mailop Digest, Vol 6, Issue 27 > ************************************* >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
