anybody here from verizon's e-mail department?
last week i became unable to send mail to verizon users: Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host relay.verizon.net[206.46.232.11] said: 550 You are not allowed to send mail:sv18pub.verizon.net (in reply to MAIL FROM command) (the above was from me trying to ask postmaster@verizon.net about it) i'd hate to think that i've simply sent too many why-are-you-spamming-me complaints and have been blacklisted.
last week i became unable to send mail to verizon users:
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host relay.verizon.net[206.46.232.11] said: 550 You are not allowed to send mail:sv18pub.verizon.net (in reply to MAIL FROM command)
(the above was from me trying to ask postmaster@verizon.net about it)
i'd hate to think that i've simply sent too many why-are-you-spamming-me complaints and have been blacklisted.
Probably a better question on SPAM-L. Since it's been suggested that we help with this problem of using NANOG as a personal paging service: http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?ispname=Verizon Now, can someone forward this to Paul? I am pleasantly residening in his killfile, according to his last response to my email. YMMV. -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of the Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com
i'd hate to think that i've simply sent too many why-are-you-spamming-me complaints and have been blacklisted. Now, can someone forward this to Paul? I am pleasantly residening in his killfile, according to his last response to my email.
are you suggesting that paul might be hoist by his own petard? goose, gander, and all that? randy
First, I'm not on the mail team, so I can't help you directly. Second, your best bet is to attempt contact thru the following web form: www.verizon.net/whitelist - Wayne ___________________________________________________________ Wayne Gustavus, CCIE #7426 IP Operations Support Verizon Internet Services ___________________________________________________________ "Can you ping me now? Good!"
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:58 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: anybody here from verizon's e-mail department?
last week i became unable to send mail to verizon users:
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host relay.verizon.net[206.46.232.11] said: 550 You are not allowed to send mail:sv18pub.verizon.net (in reply to MAIL FROM command)
(the above was from me trying to ask postmaster@verizon.net about it)
i'd hate to think that i've simply sent too many why-are-you-spamming-me complaints and have been blacklisted.
Second, your best bet is to attempt contact thru the following web form: www.verizon.net/whitelist
Good one Wayne! Wasn't that only for all those who were blocked last Christmas even other than ARIN IP space? ;) I sent an email to the mail team and CC'd Paul. Good to see you bud! -Dennis
No, but I have forwaded this to the abuse team I used to work in. Some of them are also on Z. Normally this is because the MAIL FROM: failed or rejected sender verfication. -Dennis
On 2/22/06, Dennis Dayman <dennis@thenose.net> wrote:
No, but I have forwaded this to the abuse team I used to work in. Some of them are also on Z.
Normally this is because the MAIL FROM: failed or rejected sender verfication.
Which probably means Paul is blocking whatever server Verizon is using for its sender verification -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Or he hasn't "paid his fair share" to ride our pipes! :-P <ducks> - Wayne
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:29 AM To: Dennis Dayman Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: anybody here from verizon's e-mail department?
On 2/22/06, Dennis Dayman <dennis@thenose.net> wrote:
No, but I have forwaded this to the abuse team I used to
work in. Some of
them are also on Z.
Normally this is because the MAIL FROM: failed or rejected sender verfication.
Which probably means Paul is blocking whatever server Verizon is using for its sender verification
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Which probably means Paul is blocking whatever server Verizon is using for its sender verification
Something I've seen before is a lot of mail servers will wait 10-45 seconds before presenting an SMTP prompt to remote hosts; spambots typically won't wait that long and give up. But since Verizon's sender verification (as of a couple months ago; haven't checked recently) times out after 30 seconds, that technique can have the side effect of making Verizon customers unreachable. -- Dave Pooser, ACSA, CCNA Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com
Dave Pooser wrote:
Which probably means Paul is blocking whatever server Verizon is using
for its
sender verification
Something I've seen before is a lot of mail servers will wait 10-45 seconds before presenting an SMTP prompt to remote hosts; spambots typically won't wait that long and give up. But since Verizon's sender verification (as of a couple months ago; haven't checked recently) times out after 30 seconds, that technique can have the side effect of making Verizon customers unreachable.
What about sender verification of validity discourages spammers? The only reason it works is that they are too lazy to actualy use some random VALID forged return-path. I for one would not like to force spammers to start using valid return-paths. I dont need that blowback load. That would affect my ability to read NANOG, hence its on-topicness. IOW why isnt this technique (not pionered by verizon, afaik the milter-sender was first I saw of it) short sighted and dangerous in the long run? And yes, put this together with sender-id/domainkeys/spf whathaveyou and then its valuable. However thats not the world we live in now. Joe
On 2/22/06, Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com> wrote:
Dave Pooser wrote:
Something I've seen before is a lot of mail servers will wait 10-45 seconds before presenting an SMTP prompt to remote hosts; spambots typically won't wait that long and give up. But since Verizon's sender verification (as of a
What about sender verification of validity discourages spammers? The only reason it works is that they are too lazy to actualy use some random VALID forged return-path.
Viruses, virus generated spam - both often hijack a guy's outlook and pump email through it. With his VALID from in the return path. Lots and lots of spammers register valid domains. Thousands of them. And send out email with randomized addresses at that domain in the from, all of which do exist (in that theres a smtpsink instance running on that domains MX to accept and bitbucket all email)
IOW why isnt this technique (not pionered by verizon, afaik the milter-sender was first I saw of it) short sighted and dangerous in the long run?
It has interesting side effects when you combine it with graylisting as Dave pointed out. And the sender verification stuff has other consequences too - see this nanog thread with Randy getting ... upset ... with verizon. http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0312/0009.html
And yes, put this together with sender-id/domainkeys/spf whathaveyou and then its valuable. However thats not the world we live in now.
No. All you get is a Dibbler sausage. Lots of weird shit mixed together and forced into a sausage skin (or into a 1U pizzabox spamfilter appliance) -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
message 2 on that page is interesting: (and apropos to previous threads) http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0312/0008.html
On 2/22/06, Christopher L. Morrow <christopher.morrow@verizonbusiness.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
message 2 on that page is interesting: (and apropos to previous threads) http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0312/0008.html
Oh Yes. And I do know that uab.edu (U.Alabama at Birmingham) has had some smtp redirection stuff that they've been doing for a while - or were doing a few years ago, when I last discussed it with their postmaster, to stop rootkitted *nix workstations and infected windows boxes spamming out their network. What they did struck me as quite interesting - still strikes me as interesting from what I remember of it now 5 yrs later. If someone from uab is reading this and can describe it to nanog that'd be great. As for broadband ISPs I think charter has been putting a walled garden in place even though they, unlike aol, dont control the user client etc. Saw a preso about this at MAAWG in san diego last year. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
participants (9)
-
Christopher L. Morrow -
Dave Pooser -
Dennis Dayman -
Joe Maimon -
Martin Hannigan -
Paul Vixie -
Randy Bush -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Wayne Gustavus (nanog)