uceprotect.net
moch...@gmail.com
Service.
It is not a static IP. From what we can tell, that seems to be the
issue Uceprotect.net has with the IP address. I am not an IT
professional, however, I did have Time Warner look at the messages
and the Uceprotect site and that is all they could figure out. I
tried to contact Uceprotect using their contact form to ask so that we
could address the situation, only to find that Uceprotect hides behind
its software -- they make no effort to answer legitimate questions.
They direct us here.
So do I pay a fee for something I can't control? I am not in charge
of whether the Time/Warner email server is static or not. What am I
supposed to do?
Uceprotect, you are hurting my business by not allowing my emails to
get through to a key client and allowing us to conduct our business in
a timely manner.
The client's email administrator and his consultant claims they do not
use Uceprotect's services. He thought Time Warner was sending the mail
through your server. We would all like to resolve the issue.
May I have an answer please?
--
Comments posted to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
are solely the responsibility of their author. Please
read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at
http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
Matthias Leisi
moch...@gmail.com schrieb:
> So do I pay a fee for something I can't control? I am not in charge
> of whether the Time/Warner email server is static or not. What am I
> supposed to do?
Use the mailserver of your provider to send out emails.
> The client's email administrator and his consultant claims they do not
> use Uceprotect's services. He thought Time Warner was sending the mail
> through your server. We would all like to resolve the issue.
Can you show us the exact error notification you get from your client?
-- Matthias
axlq
<moch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As a small business owner, I use Time Warner's Roadrunner
>Service.
>It is not a static IP. From what we can tell, that seems to be the
>issue Uceprotect.net has with the IP address.
Ask your ISP to teach you how to route all your email through your
ISP's mail server, instead of trying to send it directly from your
dynamic IP address.
>[UCEProtect] make no effort to answer legitimate questions.
>They direct us here.
You are not their customer.
>So do I pay a fee for something I can't control? I am not in charge
>of whether the Time/Warner email server is static or not. What am I
>supposed to do?
See my first comment above.
>Uceprotect, you are hurting my business by not allowing my emails to
>get through to a key client and allowing us to conduct our business in
>a timely manner.
UCEPROTECT is not blocking your mail. They provide a listing service.
Your client is blocking your mail.
>The client's email administrator and his consultant claims they do not
>use Uceprotect's services.
That's either a lie, or they are ignorant of their own practices, or
their ISP uses UCEPROTECT's lists. Tell them to check again. They
may be using mail server software already configured to check
incoming SMTP connections against UCEPROTECT's lists.
-A
moch...@gmail.com
> In article <1f7a48b4-acf2-4d3c-a822-e0fe07609...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
To use their static server, I would need to significantly up The
problem with using a static web address through Time Warner is that I
would need to pay 4 times what I now pay.
I am forwarding all your suggestions to them and to the customer.
Claus v. Wolfhausen
moch...@gmail.com says...
>
>As a small business owner, I use Time Warner's Roadrunner
>Service.
>It is not a static IP. From what we can tell, that seems to be the
>issue Uceprotect.net has with the IP address. I am not an IT
>professional, however, I did have Time Warner look at the messages
>and the Uceprotect site and that is all they could figure out. I
>tried to contact Uceprotect using their contact form to ask so that we
>could address the situation, only to find that Uceprotect hides behind
>its software -- they make no effort to answer legitimate questions.
>They direct us here.
We don't hide behind our software, we check messages people try to send to us
by an ai webform, so we don't have to answer the same questions again and again
and again.
I investigated what you did write into that contact form and what you got
answered.
You asked:
<question>
My client and I have a question regarding the message from your company (see
below). I do hope that you are not going blacklist me for asking :-)
In the last 2 months, emails my partner and I send to one client cannot get
through. He would like to get our emails. My client runs his own email server.
He says he does not subscribe to UCEPROTECT and does not understand why our
emails are being blocked. I checked with my email host: Time Warner
(Roadrunner). I am on their Business Email Server which serves thousands of
email accounts. Neither our client nor Roadrunner understand why the emails are
going through your company. Neither of them understood why their is "Unknown
Address error" in the message.
Would you explain how your software works and what it is doing? My client would
like to know so he could stop it from blocking our emails so that we can work
more efficiently.
<detailed errormessage snipped to protect identity of your recipient>
</question>
The webform analyzed your writings and answered:
<answer>
We DON'T BLOCK anything. We are listing IP's, networks and providers, which we
do no longer accept mail from. Blockings are done by the recipients of your
emails which have freely chosen to use our service. That's the whole story
</answer>
I wouldn't call this a bullseye but it is in fact correct and it should have
given you the necessary hint who is blocking your mail.
I've also checked the details snipped above and in fact the mailserver of your
recipients is using our lists.
>So do I pay a fee for something I can't control? I am not in charge
>of whether the Time/Warner email server is static or not. What am I
>supposed to do?
Get a static IP and an individual PTR for your mailserver?
Telling TimeWarner/Roadrunner they should better watch out and kick spammers in
a timely manner next time?
Your recipient might set you on his whitelist?
Indeed it would be a bad idea to pay for something you have no control over.
>Uceprotect, you are hurting my business by not allowing my emails to
>get through to a key client and allowing us to conduct our business in
>a timely manner.
That's simply wrong. See above.
>The client's email administrator and his consultant claims they do not
>use Uceprotect's services. He thought Time Warner was sending the mail
>through your server.
With UCEPROTECT it is like the Fastfood restaurant with the big golden M.
If asked most people would claim they wouldn't go there for lunch.
But have you ever tried to get a seat there at 12 pm?
--
Claus von Wolfhausen
UCEPROTECT-Projektleitung
http://www.uceprotect.net
AntiSpam
moch...@gmail.com <moch...@gmail.com> looked something like:
> As a small business owner, I use Time Warner's Roadrunner
> Service.
> It is not a static IP. From what we can tell, that seems to be the
> issue Uceprotect.net has with the IP address.
That's pretty much the issue a lot of providers will have with the IP
address. Dynamic IPs have no business running mail servers on them.
> So do I pay a fee for something I can't control? I am not in charge
> of whether the Time/Warner email server is static or not. What am I
> supposed to do?
Get a static IP, get proper PTR records for that IP - and most of your
problems are solved.
Alternatively, use a Road Runner MX server to send your email - or sign your
domain up on Gmail's MX service. There are many options available to you.
> Uceprotect, you are hurting my business by not allowing my emails to
> get through to a key client and allowing us to conduct our business in
> a timely manner.
Uceprotect is not hurting your business. Your decisions to operate your mail
server within dynamic IP space is what's hurting your business.
I absolutely guarantee you that UCEPROTECT is not the only ones who are
bit-bucketing your email based solely upon the dynamic IP you're
(apparently) sending from.
--
Current Peeve: The mindset that the Internet is some sort of school for
novice sysadmins and that everyone -not- doing stupid dangerous things
should act like patient teachers with the ones who are. -- Bill Cole, NANAE
Fred Mobach
> On Jul 18, 9:56 am, a...@spamcop.net (axlq) wrote:
>> In article
>> <1f7a48b4-acf2-4d3c-a822-e0fe07609...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> <moche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The client's email administrator and his consultant claims they do
>> >not use Uceprotect's services.
>>
>> That's either a lie, or they are ignorant of their own practices, or
>> their ISP uses UCEPROTECT's lists. Tell them to check again. They
>> may be using mail server software already configured to check
>> incoming SMTP connections against UCEPROTECT's lists.
>
> To use their static server, I would need to significantly up The
> problem with using a static web address through Time Warner is that I
> would need to pay 4 times what I now pay.
You might search for a reliable mail service provider to route your
e-mail via their servers.
But please do not expect us (tinu) to bear the burden of the spam coming
from your ISP.
--
Fred Mobach - fr...@mobach.nl
website : http://fred.mobach.nl
.... In God we trust ....
.. The rest we monitor ..
Stephen Satchell
moch...@gmail.com wrote:
> As a small business owner, I use Time Warner's Roadrunner
> Service.
> It is not a static IP.
Why are you not submitting your mail to RoadRunner's mail servers for
delivery? Mail admins around the world have had such bad experiences
with junk mail coming from not-static addresses that we work very hard
to block mail from such addresses from being processed by our servers.
UCEPROTECT is one way for us sysadmins to enforce that policy. Why are
you shooting yourself in the foot by persisting?
> From what we can tell, that seems to be the
> issue Uceprotect.net has with the IP address. I am not an IT
> professional, however, I did have Time Warner look at the messages
> and the Uceprotect site and that is all they could figure out. I
> tried to contact Uceprotect using their contact form to ask so that we
> could address the situation, only to find that Uceprotect hides behind
> its software -- they make no effort to answer legitimate questions.
> They direct us here.
You are directed to a public forum because UCEPROTECT doesn't receive
money from senders of mail. (I'm not sure who pays them, if anyone.)
So they have no money to provide you technical support. You admit that
you are not an "IT professional". Did you hire someone who *is* an
expert on managing mail servers, even part-time or on a contract basis?
Most ISPs have enough problems just taking care of their own mail
servers to spend much time on customer mail servers.
> So do I pay a fee for something I can't control? I am not in charge
> of whether the Time/Warner email server is static or not. What am I
> supposed to do?
You are buying service from Time-Warner. Part of that service is your
access to a mail server (which should have a static IP address, and
proper DNS entries including PTR records, and a published abuse@ address
for the domain) to send mail, and most likely to receive mail.
> Uceprotect, you are hurting my business by not allowing my emails to
> get through to a key client and allowing us to conduct our business in
> a timely manner.
Actually, all UCEPROTECT does is publish information about IP addresses,
to anyone who wants to look it up. It's up to individual mail admins to
decide what to do with that published information. It's the mail admin
controlling the mail server for your key client who is blocking your mail.
There is a procedure called "whitelisting" that you can request of the
mail admin for your key client, to let your mail to that client through
without delay. (Your client may need to make the request to his
provider for whitelisting your mail.)
To the point about UCEPROTECT blocking your mail: It's like a business
using a credit reporting agency to decide whether to extend credit to a
new customer: it's the individual business operator making the
decisions, all the credit bureau does is provide historical information.
A rejected customer has recourse against the credit bureau only if the
information is wrong or grossly outdated.
> The client's email administrator and his consultant claims they do not
> use Uceprotect's services. He thought Time Warner was sending the mail
> through your server. We would all like to resolve the issue.
I suggest you hire an expert on Internet Mail Service to help you
resolve this problem. As far as I know, no one "send mail through
[UCEPROTECT's] server" -- everyone sends mail through a mail server they
are authorized to access. If you received a message saying that your
mail was blocked by someone using UCEPROTECT's information, you need to
contact that mail server operator.
The expert you hire should be able to figure out the correct contact
within seconds of seeing the bounce message.
> May I have an answer please?
Here is an answer. God speed.
lart...@yahoo.com
> As a small business owner, I use Time Warner's Roadrunner
> Service.
> It is not a static IP. From what we can tell, that seems to be the
> issue Uceprotect.net has with the IP address. I am not an IT
> professional, however, I did have Time Warner look at the messages
> and the Uceprotect site and that is all they could figure out. I
> tried to contact Uceprotect using their contact form to ask so that we
> could address the situation, only to find that Uceprotect hides behind
> its software -- they make no effort to answer legitimate questions.
> They direct us here.
>
> So do I pay a fee for something I can't control? I am not in charge
> of whether the Time/Warner email server is static or not. What am I
> supposed to do?
>
> Uceprotect, you are hurting my business by not allowing my emails to
> get through to a key client and allowing us to conduct our business in
> a timely manner.
> The client's email administrator and his consultant claims they do not
> use Uceprotect's services. He thought Time Warner was sending the mail
> through your server. We would all like to resolve the issue.
If your client says they do not use UCEPROTECT, what makes you think
the UCEPROTECT listing is the reason your email is not getting
through?
Are you getting a rejection message that mentions UCEPROTECT? If so,
then clearly your client is using that service whether they know it or
not.
There are other advisory lists out there that list dynamic IP space,
maybe your client (or their ISP) is using one of those instead. Or
maybe the dynamic nature of the IP is triggering something in some
filtering tool like Spamassassin (people could help you diagnose if
you told us the IPs in question). In this day and age, sending email
from a dynamic IP is a pretty sure recipe for having delivery
problems, independent of any UCEPROTECT listing.
Tim Boyer
>To use their static server, I would need to significantly up The
>problem with using a static web address through Time Warner is that I
>would need to pay 4 times what I now pay.
>
>I am forwarding all your suggestions to them and to the customer.
That's... odd. When I was using them at home, it was an extra $5 a month for a
static IP.
I'm not sure how much that would help you, anyway - I don't know how well TW
segregates their static and dynamic IP addresses. You could end up paying 4
times as much, and still be in the middle of what uceprotect regards as a
dynamic IP.
But from a business standpoint, you don't want to be using a dynamic IP to
send out email anyway. Any number of things could happen - AOL could decide to
start blocking that netspace; Time-Warner could start blocking port 25
outbound; you could end up on Spamhaus's PBL. All of those would be, I
suspect, much, much worse for your connectivity than uceprotect.
Short-term solution - tell your client to stop blocking you. Whether they
realize it or not, they - or someone upstream from them - are blocking you.
Long-term solution - you should probably be sending your email out through
Time-Warner's email servers. I'm not sure why you're not doing that now,
anyway.
--
tim boyer
t...@denmantire.com
phil-new...@ipal.net
| As a small business owner, I use Time Warner's Roadrunner
| Service.
| It is not a static IP. From what we can tell, that seems to be the
| issue Uceprotect.net has with the IP address. I am not an IT
| professional, however, I did have Time Warner look at the messages
| and the Uceprotect site and that is all they could figure out. I
| tried to contact Uceprotect using their contact form to ask so that we
| could address the situation, only to find that Uceprotect hides behind
| its software -- they make no effort to answer legitimate questions.
| They direct us here.
|
| So do I pay a fee for something I can't control? I am not in charge
| of whether the Time/Warner email server is static or not. What am I
| supposed to do?
|
| Uceprotect, you are hurting my business by not allowing my emails to
| get through to a key client and allowing us to conduct our business in
| a timely manner.
| The client's email administrator and his consultant claims they do not
| use Uceprotect's services. He thought Time Warner was sending the mail
| through your server. We would all like to resolve the issue.
|
| May I have an answer please?
Yes, you may have answers. Here are mine.
I use UCEPROTECT and others specifically because I want to quickly identify
which SMTP connections come from networks where spam exceeds legitimate
email, or where the management of those networks are not competent enough,
or don't have the proper attitudes, to limit spam coming from their network.
I choose to block email from such networks with the exception of mail with
specific recipient addresses (for example "abuse" and "postmaster" addresses)
or specific sender addresses, or from specific hosts. UCEPROTECT does not
force me to do this. Nor does any other spam source information provider.
I am in full control of my (and my clients') servers.
I could have chosen to do something else with email from source listed on one
of these lists. For example, I could have marked it to quarantine the mail.
However, because I cannot send new email back about non-delivery due to the
fact that the return addresses on virtually all spam are forged and usually
someone else's address, I decided that it is best to at least make sure any
legitimate mail that failed to distibguish itself from spammers would at least
be rejected immediately giving the sender a chance to know it didn't make it
to the recipient.
I do not see your IP address or hostname, so I cannot see if your mail would
be blocked here, or not. I'll assume it is.
If one of your key clients happens to be one of my network administration
clients, then I can tell you that the reason your email is not reaching its
intended recipient is because you have failed to raise that email to a level
of distinction above spam that allows it to be recognized as non-spam. One
of the ways necessary to do that is to transmit your email from a static IP
address in a network that does not have a history of leaking spam. In your
case, circumstantial evidence (based on what you posted) is that your address
is not static (you said so) and your provider has this history (you said what
provider it is, and it matches known history).
The solutions are going to cost you money. There is no way around that.
One solution is to arrange with all your clients to have their mail servers
specifically allow (whitelist) email from you. This will take time and effort
on your part to arrange. You may even have to pay your clients for the time
their administrators have to spend figure out how to accomplish this. And that
is if they even have a real network administrator. If they have to hire an
outside consultant to do it (I charge $150/hr for Unix based servers and $500/hr
for Windows based servers), it could cost a lot. If they are one of my clients,
it only costs them the time to send email to me to arrange it.
Another solution is to change the services used by your provider. Either route
the mail through their central mail servers (this gets past the dynamic address
issue, but does not address the issue of them not stopping other customers of
theirs from spamming), or get a static IP address (even with this, you could be
subject to network wide listings if the other static IP addresses in the same
network are spewing out spam.
I can tell you this. My own listings of spam sources are based on domain name
and hostname. If you get a static IP address and have the reverse DNS name
set up with your own domain on it, my own blocking list won't affect it unless
you establish your own history of spamming (which we'll assume you won't do).
However, I do use other lists and they list by IP addresses, and often more
than a single IP address. So even with a static IP address and proper reverse
DNS, you can still find yourself blocked if your provider runs a spammy network.
Other options include signing up with an email sending service (but you need
to make sure you pick one that is strongly anti-spam and does not operate in
a spammy network). You can usually feed email to them via a secure connection
(don't do if it isn't secure). And in most cases they will charge you a price
per piece of mail, and possibly also by email size above a certain level. I
was once considering starting such a business and was going to charge 2 cents
per message plus 2 cents per MB (so one tiny email would be 4 cents). But I
decided running such a service would take too much of my time for the little
money it would make.
You could also set up your own colocated or dedicated hosting mail server at
a colocation or hosting provider that permits sending email (most do, though
some hosting providers block outgoing email on web servers). Since you do
admit you are not an IT/networking technical professional, this is probably
not a workable option for you. If you were, it might be the lowest cost way.
Note that if you were a clever networking engineer, you could set up your own
mail server you have now to try the first sending directly as it does now and
switch over to an email provider service only if the first delivery is blocked.
That would minimize your extended costs.
But, like I said earlier, this is going to cost you. Put the blame on spammers
for this cost. No one is getting rich off all this, except maybe spammers.
The extended costs generally represent actual costs of doing things.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
Herb Oxley
> As a small business owner, I use Time Warner's Roadrunner
> Service.
> It is not a static IP. From what we can tell, that seems to be the
> issue Uceprotect.net has with the IP address.
>From what I understand about UCEPROTECT, their Level 1 listings represent
IP addresses which have sent spam to their spamtrap servers.
An address they consider "Dialup" (non-static) needs 5 spam delivery
attempts; static addresses need 50 hits to be listed.
However sending from a non-static IP address is going to cause you far
more problems with getting your outgoing mail accepted than any block
list.
You need to post a sample reject message to the group.
> I am not an IT
> professional, however, I did have Time Warner look at the messages
> and the Uceprotect site and that is all they could figure out.
At this stage you may have to engage the services of an "IT Professional"
if email acceptance is vital to your business.
> So do I pay a fee for something I can't control? I am not in charge
> of whether the Time/Warner email server is static or not. What am I
> supposed to do?
If you're using a TW/RR server as a "smart host" to forward emails from
your private network and the TW server is listed
by UCEPROTECT there is not much you can do except getting people who want
mail from you to "Whitelist" that server, which they may or may not do.
Long term solution is to find an email service provider who knows how to
minimize output of spam from their servers so their servers and customers
don't get blacklisted as spam sources.
> Uceprotect, you are hurting my business by not allowing my emails to
> get through to a key client and allowing us to conduct our business in
> a timely manner.
UCEPROTECT and other public block lists only provide their opinion of the
likelyhood of an IP address or block of addresses being spam sources based
on criteria such as:
o spam received from those addresses,
o addresses registered to known professional spammers,
o addresses assigned to a residential dialup, cable or DSL modem
o addresses assigned to a service provider the list maintainer(s)
consider deficient or negligent in stopping abuse from their customers.
It's up to the operator of the mail server using the block list to decide
what to do with the information it provides.
Actions include:
o rejecting SMTP sessions from listed addresses
o accepting then later silently discarding or quarantining these emails
o accepting but delivering email from listed addresses to a SPAM, BULK or
JUNK folder
o using the listing as part of a "scoring" system to determine after
SMTP whether the email is spam or not.
--
Herb Oxley (not speaking for UCEPROTECT or other blocklists)
moch...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:41:09 GMT moche...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> | As a small business owner, I use Time Warner's Roadrunner
> | Service.
> | It is not a static IP. From what we can tell, that seems to be the
> | professional, however, I did have Time Warner look at the messages
> | tried to contactUceprotectusing their contact form to ask so that we
> | could address the situation, only to find thatUceprotecthides behind
> | its software -- they make no effort to answer legitimate questions.
> | They direct us here.
> |
> | So do I pay a fee for something I can't control? I am not in charge
> | of whether the Time/Warner email server is static or not. What am I
> | supposed to do?
> |
> |Uceprotect, you are hurting my business by not allowing my emails to
> | get through to a key client and allowing us to conduct our business in
> | a timely manner.
> | The client's email administrator and his consultant claims they do not
> | through your server. We would all like to resolve the issue.
> |
> | May I have an answer please?
>
> Yes, you may have answers. Here are mine.
>
> which SMTP connections come from networks where spam exceeds legitimate
> email, or where the management of those networks are not competent enough,
> or don't have the proper attitudes, to limit spam coming from their network.
>
> I choose to block email from such networks with the exception of mail with
> specific recipient addresses (for example "abuse" and "postmaster" addresses)
Thank you and to the others who have replied for all your answers and
suggestions. One more question.
Can you or anyone out there give me lists of reliable email providers?
phil-new...@ipal.net
| Thank you and to the others who have replied for all your answers and
| suggestions. One more question.
|
| Can you or anyone out there give me lists of reliable email providers?
A reasonable question. However, I haven't needed one, so I never too the time
to collect a list. Actually I was planning to start such a business, but my
research indicated there would be little or no market for the way I wanted to
do it. So I explored other business options unrelated to providing email.