Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spam blacklisting is out of control

blog.roastidio.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 430 posts

Re: Spam blacklisting is out of control

#151

Post by tyingq »

bo1024 wrote: post #141
noduerme wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I manage an outbound mail server for a mid-sized company. I happen to also use it for my own personal mail. We have had on and off deliverability issues for years (AT&T and Comcast being the worst). As head of IT it fell to me to post whitelisting requests and try to get mail delivering again. I decided after awhile that this really isn't my job, and made a suggestion to the CEO which he took to heart: There is anoth…

Do you know what the lawyers said beyond "I'm a lawyer and would like you to edit the blacklist" ? Are these companies doing something illegal by blacklisting you unfairly, or do you have grounds for some sort of civil suit (if so, what grounds)?

I would think "Tortious interference" is the most likely legal basis to complain about it.

"Tortious interference is a common law tort allowing a claim for damages against a defendant who wrongfully interferes with the plaintiff's contractual or business relationships"

Re: Spam blacklisting is out of control

#152

Post by vorpalhex »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #75
boopmaster wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the service is managed: customers should be able to manage notification preferences tailored to the severity of the issue, methinks.

That's not how unsubscribe links are supposed to work. Once the unsubscribe is activated -- and it's supposed to be very easy to activate -- then it's permanent. There's no "un-unsubscribe", "oops I clicked it again", "some other service glitched and clicked it for me". Further, there's a distinction made between "commercial" and "transactional" messages in both law and etiquette. The unsubscribe link is expected in…

You can always login and re-enable an email on the service. The service is allowed to request information needed to process the unsubscribe.

I get emails for some dude's Chevy when it needs servicing. I can't unsubscribe. I am stuck getting emails about a car I have never owned from some dealer in Pittsburg. I need an opt out that lets me communocate "hey, some dumbass fatfingered his email, stop spamming me."

Re: Spam blacklisting is out of control

#153

Post by vorpalhex »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #118
wl wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Further, there's a distinction made between "commercial" and "transactional" messages in both law and etiquette. The unsubscribe link is expected in commercial messages, not transactional ones. Most of the junk that gets through my spam filter are transactional or other "mandatory" messages intended for someone who fat fingered their email address. If those senders don't want to be marked as spam, they need to prov…

Email confirmations should be standard but that's not what we're talking about here (and I'd expect that ~rsync is handling that properly). Unsubscribing from transactional emails eventually causes the following support conversation: "Hi, uhh, rsync? Yeah, so, I'm having trouble logging in to my account and we really really need our backups, our intern just nuked a database. Yeah, it's uhh... cto@company.com. What do…

The service is not meant to cater to the lowest common denominator. If you unsubscribe from critical notifications and get screwed over.. that is on you.

It is not fair to the rest of us to be inundated with endless spam just so some screwup can be kept from doing something stupid.

Re: Spam blacklisting is out of control

#154

Post by amar0c »

No one sane is using UCEPROTECT.. I would not even care. If someone is using them as blacklist(s) they have more problems than my mail not reaching them. Spamhaus/Spamcop/truncate.gbudb.net/Barracuda with some "premiums" like Abusix is all anyone should need

Re: Spam blacklisting is out of control

#155

Post by pteraspidomorph »

gog wrote: post #117
basilgohar wrote: post #71

This has literally just recently (re-)become an issue for me because after a good year or so of not being blocked, several emails from my server started getting filtered as spam by both Google and then just being outright blocked by both Google and Microsoft. When I got through Microsoft's steps to unblock, after several days and steps, they send me the message that actually my IP is not blocked. Google's recent mess…

How did you contact Google and Microsoft regarding deliverability issues?

Microsoft:

1. Set up on https://sendersupport.olc.protection.outlook.com/snds/

2. Read everything at https://sendersupport.olc.protection.outlook.com/pm/

3. Make sure everything is fixed, then use the link to the form hidden under Troubleshooting > "Sender services, tools, and issue submission" (the link's label is "here") to contact support. Make sure all fields are provided, including a website. It may take a few days to get a response. You may have to try multiple times until someone actually helps you.

Google:

Pray

Re: Spam blacklisting is out of control

#156

Post by thaumaturgy »

vorpalhex wrote: post #152
thaumaturgy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how unsubscribe links are supposed to work. Once the unsubscribe is activated -- and it's supposed to be very easy to activate -- then it's permanent. There's no "un-unsubscribe", "oops I clicked it again", "some other service glitched and clicked it for me". Further, there's a distinction made between "commercial" and "transactional" messages in both law and etiquette. The unsubscribe link is expected in…

You can always login and re-enable an email on the service. The service is allowed to request information needed to process the unsubscribe. I get emails for some dude's Chevy when it needs servicing. I can't unsubscribe. I am stuck getting emails about a car I have never owned from some dealer in Pittsburg. I need an opt out that lets me communocate "hey, some dumbass fatfingered his email, stop spamming me."

Genuine question: your comment and a bunch of others make me wonder why people seem unable to filter email by sender. That used to be a pretty standard part of having an inbox. Are you using a mail client or service that doesn't have filtering built in? Do you find it difficult to set up a filter rule? Are you unfamiliar with filter rules? Do you use filters but just ideologically object to any unwanted email?

I'm honestly curious.

Re: Spam blacklisting is out of control

#158

Post by LinuxBender »

derekzhouzhen wrote: post #111
LinuxBender wrote: post #2

There is a typo in their title. If intentional please instead consider words like block reject and deny for the people that do not speak English as a first language. I've dealt with real time blocklists as long as they have existed. They are not going away any time soon. I agree that the paid exception lists are a bit shady but I also see the validity of their methods of temporarily punishing everyone on a hosts netw…

Thanks, I fixed the typo. Blocking outgoing port 25 unless going through an extra step is IMHO against the spirit of the internet, and would make operating a personal email server harder than necessary. The world of email is already too centralized as it is.

against the spirit of the internet

I completely agree. I believe the commonly used phrase is and this is why we can't have nice things. The open and decentralized internet is also open to people with ill intent. We can solve things with technical solutions, monetary solutions and/or legislative solutions. All of these are double edged swords and have varying degrees of effectiveness and unintended side effects in my opinion.

I don't really know what the right solution should have been that would have made everyone happy minus the people with ill intent.

Re: Spam blacklisting is out of control

#159

Post by CPLX »

walrus01 wrote: post #132
noduerme wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I manage an outbound mail server for a mid-sized company. I happen to also use it for my own personal mail. We have had on and off deliverability issues for years (AT&T and Comcast being the worst). As head of IT it fell to me to post whitelisting requests and try to get mail delivering again. I decided after awhile that this really isn't my job, and made a suggestion to the CEO which he took to heart: There is anoth…

Not everyone can spend $500 on lawyer billable hours per SMTP destination multiplied by N number of destinations. I also think that the likelihood of success in sending legal threats to somebody that demand they accept your SMTP traffic will not stand up in court, if you ever escalated it that far. As somebody who runs postfix MX on the receiving side of things, I can guarantee you that the day I receive a legal thre…

He didn’t say threaten them.

It’s pretty easy to envision a situation where a lawyer sends a quite friendly and factual email to a company, that is literally identical to the one the IT head would have sent, but because it’s coming from a lawyer the recipient uses completely different internal routing to process the request. So someone actually takes the request seriously.

Seems both plausible and a reasonable thing to do for a company large enough to have a legal department.

People pay attention to lawyer letters. You’ve pretty much confirmed as much by noting that letters from a lawyer are so concerning to you that the mere mention of one makes you assume it’s a threat.

If you got a letter from an attorney asking for something nicely, and it was a reasonable request you would automatically reply “SUE ME” just on principle? What’s the principle?

Post reply on HN