On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com
wrote:
The problem is... you aren't doing the work. You aren't stopping the
offenders. That's the goal. Automation should be a tool to help
you do the
job better, not avoid doing the job at all.
On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:00
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
That's a great theory. Would you be willing to post an update to this list
if and when your technology and automation actually get to the point of
actually shutting down a spammer?
I am not sure that'd be a very
And yes indeed, its a way for us to automate termination of spammers,
and to discover other patterns (in signup methods / spam content etc)
that we can use to update our filters.
That's a great theory. Would you be willing to post an update to this
list if and when your technology and
:23 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com
wrote:
The problem is... you aren't doing the work. You aren't stopping the
offenders. That's the goal. Automation
On 25 Mar 2009 11:52:20 -
John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
And yes indeed, its a way for us to automate termination of
spammers, and to discover other patterns (in signup methods / spam
content etc) that we can use to update our filters.
That's a great theory. Would you be
On Feb 27, 2009, at 7:10 AM, Ken A wrote:
I agree that aol could do a better job of filtering the outbound,
but I don't think it's a useless system. We get a few dozen from aol
a day unless we have a real problem.
I see the mother-daughter conversations (worst), the subscribed lazy
user
Sheesh. I thought I was replying to another mailing list, until I
cleaned up the recipient list.
Jo Rhett wrote:
NOTE: for a small mail sending provider who controls every mail server
and customer in their netblock, it probably is useful. It's just
useless for colocation providers and
The recipient obviously didn't think they wanted the email. For
mailing lists/broadcasters, this means it's an opt out request.
That would be fine, we could auto process them and remove those
addresses from any lists they've joined (might be a few false
unsubscribes but after they've
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:18:16 CDT, Jack Bates said:
It's not a false spam report? The recipient obviously didn't think they
wanted the email.
I've seen people subscribe to a list, then *reply* to the subscription
confirmation - and then hit spam not 5 minutes later when something
gets posted
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:18:16 CDT, Jack Bates said:
It's not a false spam report? The recipient obviously didn't think they
wanted the email.
I've seen people subscribe to a list, then *reply* to the subscription
confirmation - and then hit spam not 5 minutes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Michael!
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Michael Thomas wrote:
I've seen people subscribe to a list, then *reply* to the subscription
confirmation - and then hit spam not 5 minutes later when something
gets posted to the list. Did they change their
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Sean Figgins s...@labrats.us wrote:
something as spam? There are SO many that it's a significant load on our
mail server. Our Exchange server could never have hoped to keep up. And
our abuse department has no chance to keep up.
I'll have to look into abacus
Suresh, in theory I like what you say but this caught my eye:
On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
though several sites do seem to be consuming it just fine, and we send
high volume feedback loops to hotmail/yahoo/aol etc, and they to us,
without my team having to do
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
Yes, you've automated your report processing to the point you don't actually
have to do any work.
The problem is... you aren't doing the work. You aren't stopping the
offenders. That's the goal. Automation should be
]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:26 PM
To: Ray Corbin
Cc: Richey; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On Feb 25, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Ray Corbin wrote:
It depends on your environment. I've seen where it is helpful and
where it is overwhelming. If you are a smaller company
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Feb 25, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Ray Corbin wrote:
It depends on your environment. I've seen where it is helpful and
where it is overwhelming. If you are a smaller company and want to
know why you keep getting blocked then those should help. If you are a
larger company and get a
This discussion is probably *much* more appropriate on the mailop list.
(It's been mentioned there and on other MTA/spam-related lists, as
apparently whatever Yahoo's doing is having widespread impact.)
---Rsk
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, John Levine wrote:
AOL sends its spam button feedback in industry standard ARF format. It
took me about 20 minutes to write a perl script that picks out the
relevant bits from AOL and Hotmail feedback messages and sends unsub
commands to my list manager.
Yes, but you're
AOL sends its spam button feedback in industry standard ARF format. It
took me about 20 minutes to write a perl script that picks out the
relevant bits from AOL and Hotmail feedback messages and sends unsub
commands to my list manager.
Yes, but you're using qmail and ezmlm which send separate
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, John R. Levine wrote:
Sounds like it might be time to reconsider your mailing list config. A decade
ago, bandwidth was really expensive and it made sense to try to load up lots
of recipients per delivery. These days it's essentially free, and any saving
in bandwidth is
AOL's ARF redaction also causes problems identifying problem .forwarders.
I don't understand what they are trying to defend against.
Oh, I went around with them a few times and finally got a reasonable
explanation. They're concerned about disclosing the recipient of a
message to someone who
I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be
avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from
the same source before firing it back as spam.
Perhaps, but different people have different heuristics. There's
nothing keeping you from writing your own
Nor should they. Anyone who actually researches this stuff knows that
the vast majority of unsub links simply confirm you as a live target
who will click on random links sent to them through e-mail.
That's the conventional wisdom, not confirmed by research. The FTC
tried it in 2002 and
On Feb 26, 2009, at 6:59 AM, John Levine wrote:
Nor should they. Anyone who actually researches this stuff knows
that
the vast majority of unsub links simply confirm you as a live
target
who will click on random links sent to them through e-mail.
That's the conventional wisdom, not
This also pre-dates organized crime becoming heavily involved, and pre-dates
the obsession with browser exploits. Back then a lot of spam was sent by
semi-legitimate marketers from the US. These days all the bad guys are out
to get you to click on a single link.
Right. Back in the 90s
on Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:17:14PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:44:13 PST, JC Dill said:
Universities are often major sources of spam. Spam is sent directly
from virus-infected student computers,
Got any numbers to back up the claim that virus-infected
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
This also pre-dates organized crime becoming heavily involved, and
pre-dates the obsession with browser exploits. Back then a lot of spam was
sent by semi-legitimate marketers from the US. These days all the bad guys
are
On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com
wrote:
This also pre-dates organized crime becoming heavily involved, and
pre-dates the obsession with browser exploits. Back then a lot of
spam was
sent by
On Feb 26, 2009, at 8:28 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
This also pre-dates organized crime becoming heavily involved, and
pre-dates the obsession with browser exploits. Back then a lot of
spam was sent by semi-legitimate marketers from the US. These days
all the bad guys are out to get you
You're that confident people know the difference between a real communication
from a party they conversed with before and a phish designed to look like the
same thing?
If it's a bank, probably not. If it's a random online store, there's
about a 99.9% chance it's actual junk mail and .01%
$0.02 within
-Original Message-
From: Barry Shein [mailto:b...@world.std.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:29 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On February 26, 2009 at 06:55 ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh
On Feb 26, 2009, at 2:00 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
You're that confident people know the difference between a real
communication from a party they conversed with before and a phish
designed to look like the same thing?
What I worry about is when software is used to scrape lists such as
Brian Keefer wrote:
The other options is to stuff all the spam messages in a folder and
expose them to the user, taking up a huge amount of storage space for
something the vast majority of users are never going to look at any way.
Which is, in fact, what Yahoo! does by default. Users have
very old news.
their filter restrictions have some very absurd rules
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Micheal Patterson
mich...@spmedicalgroup.com wrote:
This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some time. At
any rate, is anyone else having issues with Yahoo blocking /
Barry Shein wrote:
I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be
avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from
the same source before firing it back as spam.
I've developed systems for ISPs to handle inbound complaints from AOL
such, and that's
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:45 AM, J.D. Falk
jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org wrote:
Many recipients of complaint feedback actually /want/ to receive every
complaint, because -- like John Levine -- they treat those complaints as
unsubscribe requests.
That's ONE use case. But we are not senders,
On Feb 26, 2009, at 5:08 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
Blocking an entire site just because one John Doe user clicked a
button
they don't even understand just does not make sense.
You're right -- but Yahoo! has a sufficiently large userbase that
they can count multiple complaints before blocking
On Feb 25, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Ray Corbin wrote:
It depends on your environment. I've seen where it is helpful and
where it is overwhelming. If you are a smaller company and want to
know why you keep getting blocked then those should help. If you are
a larger company and get a several hundred
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Niall Donegan ni...@blacknight.com wrote:
Another interesting side effect of that is email forwarder accounts.
Take a user who gets a domain on our shared hosting setup and forwards
the email for certain users to a Yahoo account. If those mails are
marked as
and their mail filters..
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Niall Donegan ni...@blacknight.com wrote:
Another interesting side effect of that is email forwarder accounts.
Take a user who gets a domain on our shared hosting setup and forwards
the email for certain users to a Yahoo account
To: Joe Abley; Micheal Patterson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Ditto. They appear to use some strange form of greylisting combined with
blocking. What seems to help is SPF and PTRs that match the EHLO your MTAs will
send. We didn't implement Domain Keys / DKIM
[mailto:rcor...@traffiq.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:27 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Niall Donegan
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Funny we were just having similar conversation on mailop.org :) . Suresh is
right about the feedback loops (you also should
@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Feedback loops often aren't that useful either. We're on the AOL Scomp
feedback loop, and we've often got fairly personal email sent to our
abuse desk because the users simply press spam rather than delete.
AOL's Scomp is spam it's self
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Richey wrote:
AOL's Scomp is spam it's self. If I read though 100 messages maybe one
message is really spam. The other 99 are jokes, regular emails, maybe a
news letter from their church, etc. Most people are lazy and would rather
click on the Spam button instead of
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Christ .. Yahoo did say complaints. And it can take a very low
level of complaints before a block goes into place - especially for
low volume (corporate etc) mailservers.
I don't think this is Yahoo reacting to spam complaints because a
Seth Mattinen wrote:
In a perfect world, the spam button would only affect delivery to that
user, not everyone. Especially when they go all rabid click crazy on the
spam button for personal correspondence from their mom.
I accuse postini of having exactly this vulnerabillity - that one
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, mike wrote:
I accuse postini of having exactly this vulnerabillity - that one user
classing mail as spam automatically means it marks all other mail from that
user to everyone else. There really outta be some transparency here so that
everyone understands the how and the
-
From: mike [mailto:mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:26 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Seth Mattinen wrote:
In a perfect world, the spam button would only affect delivery to that
user, not everyone. Especially when they go
Micheal Patterson wrote:
This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some time.
At any rate, is anyone else having issues with Yahoo blocking /
deferring legitimate emails?
My situation is that I host our corporate mx'ers on my network, one of
the companies that we recently
On February 25, 2009 at 04:26 ste...@csudsu.com (Stefan Molnar) wrote:
For our userbase with yahoo/hotmail/aol accouts they hit the spam button
more often than delete. Then complain they do not get emails anymore from
us, then want discounts on a bill of sale they missed. It is a never
to forward
their accounts to yahoo, aol, hotmail, etc. Too much of a headache.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Micheal Patterson [mailto:mich...@spmedicalgroup.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 7:28 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Yahoo and their mail filters..
This may be old news
- Original Message -
From: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com
To: ste...@csudsu.com
Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.li...@gmail.com; Micheal Patterson
mich...@spmedicalgroup.com; nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters
Barry Shein wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much
better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the
spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked
the same sender (I know, forged sender etc but something like
Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Christ .. Yahoo did say complaints. And it can take a very low
level of complaints before a block goes into place - especially for
low volume (corporate etc) mailservers.
I don't think this is Yahoo reacting to spam
- Original Message -
From: Chuck Schick cha...@warp8.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
We found this issue to be associated usually with users forwarding
email to
a Yahoo account. If spam slips by our
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:44:13 PST, JC Dill said:
Universities are often major sources of spam. Spam is sent directly
from virus-infected student computers,
Got any numbers to back up the claim that virus-infected student computers
are anywhere near the problem that virus-infected
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Peter Beckman beck...@angryox.com wrote:
Why the hell can't AOL integrate the standard listserv commands integrated
into many subscription emails into a friggin' button in their email
client, right next to
On Feb 24, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Micheal Patterson wrote:
This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some
time. At any rate, is anyone else having issues with Yahoo
blocking / deferring legitimate emails?
My situation is that I host our corporate mx'ers on my network, one
Why the hell can't AOL integrate the standard listserv commands
integrated into many subscription emails into a friggin' button in
their email client, right next to Spam (or even in place of it)
that says Unsubscribe?
AOL sends its spam button feedback in industry standard ARF format. It
forwarded mail to a separate ip address is really, I think, the
best way to handel forwarded mail.
-r
-Original Message-
From: Brian Keefer [mailto:ch...@smtps.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:48 PM
To: Micheal Patterson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, John Levine wrote:
Why the hell can't AOL integrate the standard listserv commands
integrated into many subscription emails into a friggin' button in
their email client, right next to Spam (or even in place of it)
that says Unsubscribe?
AOL sends its spam button
...@gmail.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:28:46 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Peter Beckman beck...@angryox.com wrote:
Why the hell can't
Brian Keefer wrote:
Regarding taking automatic action based on luser feedback, that is
ridiculous in my opinion.
It is that i.e., non-standard, but no more than many other things at Y!
Many of their internal mailing lists, for internal use only, get more spam
than actual mail.
Just another
that could occur when
a. student machines are botted (for institutions not blocking outbound
port 25)
b. student and alumni accounts are compromised by phishers
(both of these just for the purposes of sending spam from well
connected, reputable institutions.)
and then consumers really do
On Feb 25, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
There is also the issue of weather the user trusts the opt out link,
I have been in discussions where data shows that most users don't
generally trust it.
Zaid
Nor should they. Anyone who actually researches this stuff knows that
the vast
@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
We found this issue to be associated usually with users forwarding email
to
a Yahoo account. If spam slips by our spam filters and gets forwarded
where
the enduser reports it as spam not realizing the impact on their
actions.
In the last couple
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much
better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the
spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked
the same
On February 26, 2009 at 06:55 ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much
better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
We get a steady stream of spam complaints from the AOL feedback loop
which is virtually all either (we assume) unsubscriptions from
legitimate mailing lists or random misfires, it was nice seeing you
and dad last week From
On Feb 25, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com
wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how
much
better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored
the
spam button
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Paul M. Moriarty p...@igtc.com wrote:
Whenever I see the words best practice I find my self wondering, Best for
who?
For us, email hosting / mailbox providers, its kind of a shared best
practice evolved in MAAWG meetings and elsewhere.
What works for us may
On February 26, 2009 at 09:14 ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
wrote:
Well... If you think theres no value in the AOL or other feedback
loops and your network is clean enough without that, well then, dont
sign up to it and then bitch when all you get for your boutique
On 2/25/09, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
On February 26, 2009 at 09:14 ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
wrote:
Well... If you think theres no value in the AOL or other feedback
loops and your network is clean enough without that, well then, dont
sign up to it
This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some time. At
any rate, is anyone else having issues with Yahoo blocking / deferring
legitimate emails?
My situation is that I host our corporate mx'ers on my network, one of the
companies that we recently purchased has Yahoo
On 24 Feb 2009, at 21:27, Micheal Patterson wrote:
This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some
time. At any rate, is anyone else having issues with Yahoo
blocking / deferring legitimate emails?
Yes. Everybody else.
Joe
: 650.246.8900
F: 650.246.8901
E: carlos ['at'] race.com
-Original Message-
From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:41 PM
To: Micheal Patterson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On 24 Feb 2009, at 21:27, Micheal Patterson wrote
[jab...@hopcount.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:41 PM
To: Micheal Patterson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On 24 Feb 2009, at 21:27, Micheal Patterson wrote:
This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some
time. At any rate, is anyone else
They are accepting them by the 250 code, but never endup on the user mailbox.
This was just within the last week.
Fun Fun
--Original Message--
From: Micheal Patterson
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Sent: Feb 24, 2009 6:27 PM
This may be old news, but I've
- Original Message -
From: Erik (Caneris) erik_l...@caneris.com
To: Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca; Micheal Patterson
mich...@spmedicalgroup.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:11 PM
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Ditto. They appear to use some
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Micheal Patterson
mich...@spmedicalgroup.com wrote:
SPF records aren't being recognized, I've been running them for some time
now so it would seem that they're not honoring them.
Christ .. Yahoo did say complaints. And it can take a very low
level of
To: Micheal Patterson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Sent: Feb 24, 2009 7:59 PM
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Micheal Patterson
mich...@spmedicalgroup.com wrote:
SPF records aren't being recognized, I've been running them for some time
now so it would seem
81 matches
Mail list logo
