True Emailserver Listed At Spamcops

[h90]

see below: that means that a lot of emails will not get to there destination and some without bouncing, so you'll not even know it. For example if I write an email to my american emailadress, it simply will be deleted....

I could not find an english feedbackform for true, if someone know, please let me know!

203.144.222.230 listed in bl.spamcop.net (127.0.0.2)

If there are no reports of ongoing objectionable email from this system it will be delisted automatically in approximately 5 hours.

Causes of listing

* System has sent mail to SpamCop spam traps in the past week (spam traps are secret, no reports or evidence are provided by SpamCop)

* It appears this listing is caused by misdirected bounces. We have a FAQ which covers this topic: Why auto-responses are bad (Misdirected bounces). Please read this FAQ and heed the advice contained in it.

Automatic delisting

If you are the administrator of mail2.asianet.co.th and you are sure it will not be the subject of any more reports of spam, you may cause the system to be delisted without waiting for us to review the issue.

You may only do this once per IP! So please be sure that the problem is really and truly resolved. If you delist your system and we get more spam reports about it, you will not be allowed to expedite delisting again. Delisting normally occurs 24 hours after spam reports have ceased.

You must be able to receive mail at one of the addresses below. Until you have received and confirmed your request, it will not take effect.

Looking for potential administrative email addresses for 203.144.222.230:

cannot find an mx for mail2.asianet.co.th

203.144.222.203 is an mx ( 10 ) for asianet.co.th

[lopburi3]

I have all but given up on Asianet email and have many missing messages inbound also. One site has received the following bounce a number of times:

203.144.222.203 failed after I sent the message.

Remote host said: 553 sorry, your mail was denied. Date not exists (#5.7.1)

[yeti]

Hi h90,

Had the same problem many times already, sent few mails to [email protected]

The message I had (and forwarded to True) from SpamCop was saying that the proxy at the IP was not secure. But it seems the True support didn't understand the word "proxy"

[Abandon]

Spamcop is a real <deleted> *****. If they receive a report of spam from a user, they block the entire server that it came from! So no genuine users posting from that address can send an email out to any server that has spamcop installed.

The real ****** is that no one has any choice - if their isp uses Spamcop - then ALL their emails will be blocked from servers listed by spamcop as containing spam addresses. The receiver is NOT notified that email has been blocked, but the sender is notified by - their own email company - not from Spamcop.

Note that it is the receiver's ISP that uses Spamcop, not TRUE, and not the end user. I use go.com email and could often not send to anyone whose ISP uses Spamcop. I sent 20 or so emails to Spamcop about it and no replies. Eventually I flamed them in a fit of rage. After that, I have never once been able to send to an ISP that uses Spamcop.

I am absolutely sure that this is illegal - to block entire email servers because some of the addresses are used by spammers. Go.com put in a spam controller where you had to type in a code to show you were a human user (well, almost human in H90's case ) but it would still get listed.

How they can block the entire email server is beyond me - this means that NO ONE can send an email from go.com to any ISP that uses Spamcop, and the receiver will never be notified My friend in Japan has an isp that uses spamcop and has 4 or 5 people who cannot send him emails. Telling his isp, and Spamcop, got not response. The only thing I can do is send from a different address (I have to use gmail to send to him).

Edited March 6, 2005 by pandit35

[bkk_mike]

Personally - I'm with spamcop.

But then I'd put spammers in jail for a long time (along with virus writers).

Something simple - like a minute in jail for every email sent where the return address isn't really the address of the person sending the email. That way the student who sends a prank mail to a classmate spoofed as the school principal isn't treated the same as the piece of scum who sends out a million spams. (but advertising, where the return address is genuine, isn't punishable by time in jail...)

Anyway, 24 hours after the last spam from go.com, go.com's email would be enabled again. - i.e. go.com isn't doing sufficient work in stopping spammers (You say yourself that gmail's not blocked).

i.e. If go had put in decent spam filters of their own, and stopped users doing mass mailings - they wouldn't be blocked. I assume they've got anti-spam clauses in their user agreement, so if they actually blocked the spammers and sued them for the inconvenience caused to go, and to their other customers whose email is now blocked, suddenly they'd stop being a source of spam.

Blame the spammers, not spamcop.

[Abandon]

No, I blame Spamcop.

Go.com made a big effort with their anti spam device requiring human verification before you could send emails.

I can NEVER send emails from there now, even after 24 hours. I t used to be 24 hours, but after I flamed them I have never yet in 6 months been able to send to a Spamcop server. I do admit that go.com is a thoroughly lousy service though, it is owned by walt disney

I blame spamcop for a number of reasons.

1) they block the entire email address if they find one spam coming from it.i.e. NO ONE from go.com, or asianet can send emails if one spam has been detected from go.com or asianet under a different account name.

2) they do not notify the recipient that their mail has been blocked

3) they give no recourse for complaint or human verification proceedure to show you are genuine

4) Any spammer can set up a free account and send spam - it's not the email service providers fault.

5) There are other, better ways of blocking spam that give a choice to the receiver.

6) Why should the receiver be penalised without notification, recourse, or choice in using spamcop?

I hate spam too. I'm all for systems that limit it. But Spamcop is not a fair way to go about it, as no one has any choice about using it (except the receivers ISP), no way of opting out, no way to correct inproper blocking, no way of complaining. It is ludicrous to say the least.

Edited March 6, 2005 by pandit35

[sajal]

yeah....

if the entire IP is blocked for just one spam coming from the server its really sad....

my server(web hosting package from www.lypha.com) has an anti spam tool... which is really good.

it judges from the content and headers....almost 95% of the spams are detected and so far not even one genuine mail is cought.

once a spam is detected, they send me an email(original message attached) and add some flags in the header which i have set outlook to detech and move spams to my junk mail....

maybe its time everyone says bye to samcops....maybe then they would get the message....

below is the mail i get from my server once a spam is detected...

Spam detection software, running on the system "comet.dnsprotect.com", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: Tatiana Grigorieva passport control X Men in 2002 in

1823 Shopping [...]

Content analysis details: (23.3 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description

---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------

0.6 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but should

1.5 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO

2.2 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD 'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received' headers

1.4 DOMAIN_RATIO BODY: Message body mentions many internet domains

0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message

2.0 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08 BODY: HTML: images with 400-800 bytes of words

1.0 HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST BODY: HTML font color similar to background

1.2 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts

2.8 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org

[<http://dsbl.org/listing?221.160.228.167>]

1.8 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net

[blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?221.160.228.167>]

2.5 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL

[221.160.228.167 listed in sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org]

0.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist

[uRIs: mhfiejjkfd.com]

2.0 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist

[uRIs: mhfiejjkfd.com]

3.9 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist

[uRIs: mhfiejjkfd.com]

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

[Abandon]

Good point devil. Spam prevention can work in good ways.

Hotmail also blocks emails from my (admittedly lousy) go.com account. But the mail does go into the spam folder of the recipient, and also they have the option to list my address as 'safe', so they get the mail.

Trouble with Spamcop is it is installed at the isp server, so the recipient never even knows that anything was blocked, and has no recourse of action.

[h90]

pandit: you are telling many things which are not true.......

at spamcops it just need 1 single click to get unlisted (specialy at the first time)!

second they inform the emailservers admin, but guess who is reading these emails at companies like true.

the only way is to block the total server, because with an unsafe server you can use whichever emailadress you want to use.

It is the only way to reduce spam. My server is getting 20.000 Spam emails per day and with that things I can reduce it to 200 in my mailbox.

Normal Spam scanner, also do not kill one email because it is listed at spamcops, that would be a stupid setup. At mine it works something like that.

Listet at spamcops: +2 point

contains the word viagra: +2 points

contains unsubscribe :+1 point

sent with a fake emailadress: +3 points

is the email from pandit: +100 points

and so on....

is the total over a limit, the email get refused....

[Abandon]

Good points h90 - Glad to see spamcop gives me the weighting I deserve

With your business of course you will get a lot of spam - you probably have to advertise your address. If it's 20 000 a day you will certainly have to resort to drastic measures. Makes me realise why servers employ such a service.

But, not sure what your original question was about in that case.

For my part this is the message I receive when sending to a spamCop protected server (3 friends use such)

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at wmailmta05of.seamail.go.com.

I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.

This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<a********@tkm.att.ne.jp>:

165.76.***.***does not like recipient.

Remote host said: 554 Service unavailable; [199.181.134.42]blocked using bl.spamcop.net, reason: Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?199.181.134.42

Giving up on 165.76.**.***

My friends will not receive notification that my email has been blocked. Though from what you say, their server administration will. I have no way to unlist my address as safe i.e. no human verification proceedure. They have no way of asking that my emails be allowed through. Only the senders email server admin can request that their server be taken off the black list, but if another spam is detected from them, then they are back on it, and Spamcop will not remove it again.

they say:

Please do not file an appeal asking SpamCop to remove an IP address from the SCBL. All SCBL listings expire 48 hours from the time of the last reported email. If reports stop and an IP address owner does nothing else, the SCBL automatically removes the IP address within 48 hours.

But I have never in 6 months been able to send to a Spamcop server. I can understand why you need to use them. But for me, and my friends so 'protected' it is a royal pain in the sphincter, and an unasked for one at that.

[rossigee]

It's not SpamCop's fault. They have a fantastic system set up that can fairly accurately predict whether an IP address that is connecting to your mailserver has recently been to passing on spam (within the last 48hrs). It's the people running mailservers (like me) that chose whether or not to consider this data reliable enough to discard connections based on it. Most people that use the SpamCop database discard or reject mail from listed IP addresses. I currently have my mailserver send a 'temporary service failure', which means that the originating mailserver will try again later and once the ISP's sorted out their spam problem, the mail will flow as expected.

If yours is a good ISP, they will react to the SpamCop report that is automatically sent to their abuse address, disconnect the spammer, clear up any spam left in their queue, and respond to the Spamcop report to unlist their server (signal to noise has returned to acceptable levels). If yours is a bad ISP, they don't care if you're having e-mail problems as long as you're connecting with them and paying their subscription. Hopefully, as more people are starting to use the SpamCop (and other RBLs like it), ISP's will be forced into properly configuring and maintaining their outbound mail services, or risk losing customers. ISP's that don't respond to spam reports will basically face their mailserver being rendered useless.

So if you expect to be able to reliably send e-mail, and your ISP's mailserver always seems to be blacklisted somewhere, complain to your ISP, and if they can't or won't sort it, find yourself a better ISP (with a competent abuse-handling team).

Alternatively, you can use the ISP for your Internet connection, but use a seperate mail service provider (in particular, look for an authenticated SMTP service - e.g. using the standard 'SMTP AUTH' protocol, which works with any mail client, even for poor Outlook Express users).

[yeti]

You have some good points here.

Just a question about this:

So if you expect to be able to reliably send e-mail, and your ISP's mailserver always seems to be blacklisted somewhere, complain to your ISP, and if they can't or won't sort it, find yourself a better ISP (with a competent abuse-handling team).

Anybody knows of a competent ISP in Thailand ?