Re: all incoming mail is being blocked
- From: "Gregg Hill" <bogus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:04:53 -0800
Chris,
I just had friend call yesterday with one of his clients no longer able to
receive mail from any Hotmail account, and a few other domains. He had an
emergency with a server down, so I looked at it. It turned out that removing
the "dnsbl.sorbs.net" entry from list of lookup servers took care of it. I
think SORBS has freaked out.
I will be removing that one from all of my clients.
Anyone know of a RELIABLE few RBL servers to use?
Gregg Hill
"cmjkeegan" <cmjkeegan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:277E25B1-A717-4DBA-AB96-8EB091F83F4F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Greg..
You seem to have got the gist of it.
It would seem, through my conversations with BT, that SORBS have
incorrectly
listed the addresses.
Although it would seem that SORBS have listed them incorrectly I have been
unable to ascertain who's fault it is.
It could be SORBS for listing Static IP's as Dynamic
It could be BT for releasing an inncorrect list.
My assumption is that it is SORBS fault, but they are unlikely to admit
this as so many UK businesses are getting blocked by mail servers using
this
list they would be at risk of legal action...if anyone could prove it
along
with a wealth of other factors.
I am going to look into it though because it is a ridiculous situation
that
is still happening and I'm getting sick of phonecalls.
To BTs credit they can't do anything but ask SORBS to update thier lists,
but a BT technician said and I quote "They [SORBS] acted like a scolded
child
when told their list was wrong."
The only thing I can press is that any admin out there remove
SORBS/SpamBlaze from SPAM filters.
Chris
--
IT & Network Coordinator
"Gregg Hill" wrote:
Alan,
Well, based solely on the semantics of that post, it is you who needs to
re-read it.
He did not say what you claim, i.e., "My ISP _and_ SORBS."
What he said was "My ISP ***is*** BT (British Telecom) and SORBS
accidently
put their entire range...." The first half of the sentence is merely
informing us who he has for an ISP, "My ISP ***is*** BT (British
Telecom)."
The second half, "and SORBS accidently put their entire range" indicates
that it was SORBS alone who listed them accidentally.
The poster further clarified the above by stating "BT have been on to
them
but they are being unforgivably slow, removing one or two IPs a day when
there are hundreds that THEY have incorrectly listed."
Now, I do not know who provided that list of IP addresses that got
blocked,
but from the information provided by the poster, it appears that SORBS
was
not given the list, but acquired it by other means. Can you prove that
British Telecom gave those IP addresses to SORBS and said "block these
addresses"? I was basing my statements upon the information provided by
Chris, the "cmjkeegan" poster.
My Terms Of Use contract with Road Runner Business Class allows me to run
any kind of server on my dynamic IP addresses. I run a mail server and a
web
server, I use www.zoneedit.com for my DNS, and I have no problems with
it.
It was Chris' statement that "I just find it unbelievable that they could
so
easily block so many UK companies from sending mail" that prompted my
response regarding suing. This has nothing to do with DNS propagation.
Their
list is not something that takes propagation to undo. It has to do with
inconsiderate people at SORBS not taking immediate action to rectify
their
own mistake that is affecting mail to the British Telecom customers. The
SORBS group listed the static IP addresses of British Telecom on
accident.
Hey, that happens. My response was in Chris' reference to them not taking
IMMEDIATE action to undo THEIR (SORBS) mistake. Listing someone and
stopping
their business from receiving mail is one thing. Refusing to immediately
rectify their own mistake is inexcusable.
Saying "let's sue the anti-spam establishment" is a little foolish. My
reference to suing was made in response to SORBS not taking immediate
action
to rectify their own mistake that is affecting mail to all the British
Telecom customers. I would love to see all spammers get hung from trees
along the road, but if an anti-spam group accidentally lists legitimate
addresses, they should immediately respond when notified and unlist those
addresses. They should not lazily sit back and do a few a day. SORBS has
the
**responsibility** to immediately correct THEIR mistake.
"(No offense, Mr. Vice President.)" Sweet!!!
Gregg Hill
"ALeghart" <aleghart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140020171.492558.58720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Re-read the post:
"My ISP is BT (British Telecom) and SORBS accidently put their entire
range
of static IP addresses on the dynamic list... "
My ISP _and_ SORBS.
The ISP that provides the list. If RoadRunner is allowing SMTP
outbound traffic from certain of it's dynamic pool, then the ISP
(RoadRunner) should exclude it from the list of prohibited addresses.
The pool addresses provided by the ISPs are for IP addresses that are
prohibited (by their TOU) from sending outbound SMTP traffic.
It has nothing to do with addresses being dynamic. It has to do with
your Terms Of Use contract with your ISP.
Again, if the ISP incorrectly listed "allowed" addresses as
"prohibited", blame the ISP. It is a mistake that will affect users
for several days. So will an incorrect MX record in DNS. I don't hear
anybody threatening to sue for incorrect DNS entries.
Write your complaint to your ISP...whining on the phone or bomarding
support with the same e-mail complaint will not help. They are already
working at the blazing speed of DNS propagation. Letters of complaint
will not make the process any faster, but will emphasize to the ISP
that this is a serious issue that affects businesses operations.
Maintenance activities are prioritized by impact, speed of
implementation, and potential for disruption. Tell your ISP that you
are unhappy with their dropping the ball.
Going into a public discussion forum, such as this, and saying "let's
sue the anti-spam establishment" is a little foolish. Next week, you'll
be posting somewhere else, "why isn't anyone trying to stop all of this
spam?".
There's no easy fix. Some of us have been debating for years on the
responsibilities and methods. The debate goes on...however so does the
prattle about RBLs "blocking my e-mail". Some people will never
understand. Some people choose to shoot before fully understanding how
the system works. (No offense, Mr. Vice President.)
Regards,
Alan
.
- References:
- Re: all incoming mail is being blocked
- From: cmjkeegan
- Re: all incoming mail is being blocked
- From: Gregg Hill
- Re: all incoming mail is being blocked
- From: ALeghart
- Re: all incoming mail is being blocked
- From: Gregg Hill
- Re: all incoming mail is being blocked
- From: ALeghart
- Re: all incoming mail is being blocked
- From: Gregg Hill
- Re: all incoming mail is being blocked
- From: cmjkeegan
- Re: all incoming mail is being blocked
- Prev by Date: RE: CEICW KEEPS GIVING ERRORS
- Next by Date: SMTP POP3 Server
- Previous by thread: Re: all incoming mail is being blocked
- Next by thread: Re: all incoming mail is being blocked
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
