I'm a sysadmin for EngineYard. We have no dynamic IPs of any kind, and we immediately disable all spammer accounts; we in no way help or support spammers.
Oooops 65.74.185.26 is currently listed in APEWS :-( Entry matching your Query: E-361935 65.74.128.0/18CASE: C-1403 Dynamic IP space, generic DNS/rDNS, no PTR Direct connections to MX not permitted, you need to use your ISP servers or smarthostSpecial Reason: Dynamic IP, generic DNS, missing rDNS/PTR not permitted for direct email connection. You must use correctly configured [with registered working abuse contact] static IP / ISP mail servers / smarthost serviceHistory: Entry created 2008-07-19
It is not a dynamic IP. It has a valid PTR. I have no idea what "generic DNS" means.
> I'm a sysadmin for EngineYard. We have no dynamic IPs of any kind, > and we immediately disable all spammer accounts; we in no way help or > support spammers.
> Oooops 65.74.185.26 is currently listed in APEWS :-( > Entry matching your Query: E-361935 > 65.74.128.0/18CASE: C-1403 > Dynamic IP space, generic DNS/rDNS, no PTR > Direct connections to MX not permitted, you > need to use your ISP servers or smarthostSpecial Reason: > Dynamic IP, generic DNS, missing rDNS/PTR not permitted for direct > email connection. You must use correctly configured [with registered > working abuse contact] static IP / ISP mail servers / smarthost > serviceHistory: > Entry created 2008-07-19
> It is not a dynamic IP. It has a valid PTR. I have no idea what > "generic DNS" means.
> We've got a legitimate customer (zendesk is a bug tracking tool), > sending legitimate mail, blocked by APEWS. Is there anything we can > do?
The APEWS listing makes it looks like they don't trust your ISP, Herakles.
HOWEVER, conventional wisdom says it is *very* unlikely that anybody is blocking your customer's email based on an APEWS listing. The denizens of this group would love to see the rejection message showing this alleged blocking due to APEWS; it would be a rare sighting. So the first thing you can do is post that -- if as is probably the case this is not an APEWS issue at all then people can point you in the correct direction for the real reason for deliverability problems.
If there really is some nut out there using APEWS to block email, you can contact them and get them to either whitelist you or stop using APEWS. If they really want to receive your mail, they should be able to do so.
On Nov 12, 1:53 pm, LP <lartpu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> HOWEVER, conventional wisdom says it is *very* unlikely that anybody > is blocking your customer's email based on an APEWS listing. The > denizens of this group would love to see the rejection message showing > this alleged blocking due to APEWS; it would be a rare sighting. So > the first thing you can do is post that -- if as is probably the case > this is not an APEWS issue at all then people can point you in the > correct direction for the real reason for deliverability problems.
I'm not aware of any actual blocking having occurred; the customer expressed concerned about being on the list, that's all.
That does make me wonder, though, what the point is of such a list if no-one blocks based on it? I guess it's used as a partial test in things like Spamassassin?
On Nov 12, 6:14 pm, rlpowell <rpow...@engineyard.com> wrote: <snip>
> I'm not aware of any actual blocking having occurred; the customer > expressed concerned about being on the list, that's all.
> That does make me wonder, though, what the point is of such a list if > no-one blocks based on it? I guess it's used as a partial test in > things like Spamassassin?
> -Robin
Presumably the major purpose of the list is to be an ego boost for the list's maintainers. We have no evidence of any other purpose.
-- I sense a disturbance in the farce. TOASTEDspam.com
On Nov 12, 3:12 pm, rlpowell <rpow...@engineyard.com> wrote:
> I'm a sysadmin for EngineYard. We have no dynamic IPs of any kind, > and we immediately disable all spammer accounts; we in no way help or > support spammers.
> Oooops 65.74.185.26 is currently listed in APEWS :-( > Entry matching your Query: E-361935 > 65.74.128.0/18CASE: C-1403 > Dynamic IP space, generic DNS/rDNS, no PTR > Direct connections to MX not permitted, you > need to use your ISP servers or smarthostSpecial Reason: > Dynamic IP, generic DNS, missing rDNS/PTR not permitted for direct > email connection. You must use correctly configured [with registered > working abuse contact] static IP / ISP mail servers / smarthost > serviceHistory: > Entry created 2008-07-19
APEWS is a star chamber. Their standards are unpublished, as are their names. The result is that reasonable people, like yourself, find it difficult to respond to their accusations. There may be uses for such a group: by keeping their standards secret, they make it tougher for spammers to game their system. They may also find it possible to be particularly harsh, or lenient, based on past history: this is very handy when blocking spammers who hop from throwaway domain to throwaway domain, and to be harsh to large domain services that are lawsuit happy but demonstrably spam friendly.
That's the potentially good part of it. Sadly, it seems to be a place where ego-filled people can go "Neener-neener-neener, you're on my blacklist, I fixed you! Now fetch my slippers and lick between my toes to be be able to send your email, neener-neener-neener! See how l33t I am! Now can I date your avatar?"
TOASTEDspam.com wrote: > On Nov 12, 6:14 pm, rlpowell <rpow...@engineyard.com> wrote: > <snip> >> I'm not aware of any actual blocking having occurred; the customer >> expressed concerned about being on the list, that's all.
>> That does make me wonder, though, what the point is of such a list if >> no-one blocks based on it? I guess it's used as a partial test in >> things like Spamassassin?
>> -Robin
> Presumably the major purpose of the list is to be an ego boost for the > list's maintainers. We have no evidence of any other purpose.
To create ruction? -- Regards Lemat The Internet does not need law enforcement, it only needs few good sysadmins with cojones.
> TOASTEDspam.com wrote: > > On Nov 12, 6:14 pm, rlpowell <rpow...@engineyard.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >> I'm not aware of any actual blocking having occurred; the customer > >> expressed concerned about being on the list, that's all.
> >> That does make me wonder, though, what the point is of such a list if > >> no-one blocks based on it? I guess it's used as a partial test in > >> things like Spamassassin?
> >> -Robin
> > Presumably the major purpose of the list is to be an ego boost for the > > list's maintainers. We have no evidence of any other purpose.
> To create ruction? > -- > Regards > Lemat > The Internet does not need law enforcement, it only needs few > good sysadmins with cojones.
Thank you for teaching me a new word, and a good one at that! :)
On Nov 12, 5:28 pm, "TOASTEDspam.com" <goo...@toastedspam.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 6:14 pm, rlpowell <rpow...@engineyard.com> wrote: > <snip>
> > I'm not aware of any actual blocking having occurred; the customer > > expressed concerned about being on the list, that's all.
> > That does make me wonder, though, what the point is of such a list if > > no-one blocks based on it? I guess it's used as a partial test in > > things like Spamassassin?
> Presumably the major purpose of the list is to be an ego boost for the > list's maintainers. We have no evidence of any other purpose.
I'm finding the whole discussion completely fascinating. :) Unfortunately, it turns out mail *is* getting blocked:
host smtp1.msp.securence.com [216.17.3.48]: 550 Unable to add XX...@msrltd.com because host 65.74.185.26 is listed on RBL l2.apews.org
In article <d85c559f-81aa-4791-93fa-1b887e4c2...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
rlpowell <rpow...@engineyard.com> wrote: >host smtp1.msp.securence.com [216.17.3.48]: 550 Unable to add >XX...@msrltd.com because host 65.74.185.26 is listed on RBL >l2.apews.org
As someone with his own anti-spam scheme, the favorite saying of an IETF old hand and NANOG contributor comes to mind. It goes something like "I encourage my competitors" to reject mail based on the *PEWS* DNSBLs http://www.google.com/search?q=%22I+encourage+my+competitors%22
Robin Powell should do what anyone with an IP listed by any DNSBL entry should do: 1. Check that no unsolicited bulk email is being sent, including ensuring that no Windows boxes have been subverted and that all bulk email subscription confirmation machinery is working correctly.
2. Contact correspondents using the DNSBL to suggest that they whitelist the mail. If the DNSBL is sufficiently kooky, skip this step and fire the correspondent as hopeless and unprofitable.
3. Stop sending mail to correspondents that prove that they don't want it by continuing to use the DNSBL without whitelisting necessary to get your mail.
4. don't worry and be happy
That list is based on the cardinal rule that every target of your mail must be eager to spend some effort to get it. You should avoid sending mail to indifferent recipients, and NEVER send anything to anyone who gives any sign of not wanting it.
Notice that "Contact the DNSBL's operators" is NOT in that list, regardless of what you might find on the DNSBL's web pages. Contacting DNSBL operators about their bad entries should be done with the some of the time you devote to other public services such as telling DNS server operators about lame delegations, informing web server operators about broken links, and telling ISPs about the spam they've been spewing for more than 10 years.
|
