> Am 08.09.26 um 17:32 schrieb Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop: > > ... many good and valid points ... > > If your internet provider is blacklisted and your eMail is being > > rejected because of DNSBL matches, then you need to have a > > conversation with your provider that encourages them to resolve the > > network abuse problems emanating from their systems, because not > > resolving that problem (e.g., by securing systems and terminating > > spammer accounts) will almost certainly not result in de-listings. > > The problem with the big providers such as OVH (in Jaroslaw's case) or > HostPapa/Hostwinds (in Jude's case), or Google > together with many other cloud providers is that they refuse to engange in > conversation and/or refuse to take > appropriate measures.
Yeah, we see mostly spam coming from the first three providers that you mentioned, and as I vaguely recall some portions of OVH and HostPapa are in our block-and-forget lists for hosting multiple spam sewers and/or trying to hack into our production systems and honeypots (including, in particular, dictionary attacks over SSH that can only ever reach the latter). (There are other providers that also earned a free club membershp in our block-and-forget list for the same reasons, which is not an easy accolade to earn.) An exception is Google, which handles massive quantities of legitimate mail. This makes IP-based DNSBLs unuseful for blocking purposes against Google's outbound SMTP servers, and domain-name-based DNSBLs when the domain name is "gmail.com." Google also acts in response to some abuse reports, but I think they should work harder at this, and especially with their size I think this could actually help in the fight against spam while also maintaining a good-will reputation for their brands. > Voting with your feet works, not because it makes your provider re-think > their attitude (you're likely much too small to > matter) but because it gets you out of their cesspool. I agree. The pressure point becomes effective when a spam-friendly provider starts losing a lot of customers, which comes with early warning signals like increasing volumes of customer complaints about eMail being blocked due to blacklisting. (Providers who hide such rejection notices from their users are already aware of the problem, and, to their own detriment, have chosen the wrong solution.) > Yes, it may be more expensive to host with another provider. If you stay, > your "cheap" hosting is partially paid for > indirectly by the thousands of spam recipients who need to invest time and > resources to deal with the spam (not even > counting the financial losses of scam victims) because your provider cuts > costs by not dealing with it. I don't think "cheap" is a reliable criteria for consistently determining whether a provider takes network abuse seriously since it's a matter of ethics, which doesn't correlate with wealth, strolls the landscapes of all walks of life. Providers who, as you noted, "refuse to take appropriate measures" is what I look at, and this also seems to be what most DNSBL operators are looking at in various ways. > That said, I'm all for granting individual blocklist exemptions for > identifiable good senders. But that's a courtesy, > not a right you can claim. Yes, and making exemptions is something I've done on multiple occasions because these exceptions are not causing any problems and are not involved in network abuse. Most have since rectified the problem by changing providers and/or getting their own netblocks, and no longer need exemptions. The few that remain have limited options for various reasons. -- Postmaster - [email protected] Randolf Richardson, CNA - [email protected] Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc. Vancouver, Beautiful British Columbia, Canada https://www.inter-corporate.com/ _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
