251–260 of 430 posts
Makes you wonder if email will someday become so unusable we'll go back to using the post.
I'm dealing with this right now. Both my personal domain and rsync.net are on a distinct subnet, but that subnet is smaller than a /24 and someone on a different subnet has, apparently, behaved badly. Enter "abusix" ... One of my engineers had an enlightening webchat with one of their engineers where we were shown the "offending" IP and it was explained that they have no ability to distinguish subnets (and no interes…
I'm the Abusix engineer in question (and actually the architect of the system in question), and you're being somewhat "economical" with what actually happened here. Here's the actual chain of events in question: - You recently switched ISPs and that meant you moved to a new IP block. - The IP block in question is owned by Hurricane Internet and unfortunately contains a host which persistently sends out a lot of junk…
The comment about "lifetime prepayment option" is exactly something that MUST have an unsubscribe option to it. I understand everyone is trying to increase business, but this is something @rsync missed mentioning, insisting you don't need one.
Bollocks.
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…
>Get your legal department involved. We have repeatedly been taken off various public and private blacklists by having lawyers do their job. What's the particular law that makes those curators of blacklists pay attention to your company's lawyers? Do you have example text of those legal requests?
The easiest way to close a ticket is a quick wontfix. The easiest way to avoid a possible six-figure minimum legal issue is to spend 15 minutes figuring out what they want and giving it to them. The law is almost entirely irrelevant; the cost-benefit analysis doesn't change enough when comparing a frivolous vs meritorious lawsuit.
I'm dealing with this right now. Both my personal domain and rsync.net are on a distinct subnet, but that subnet is smaller than a /24 and someone on a different subnet has, apparently, behaved badly. Enter "abusix" ... One of my engineers had an enlightening webchat with one of their engineers where we were shown the "offending" IP and it was explained that they have no ability to distinguish subnets (and no interes…
I'm the Abusix engineer in question (and actually the architect of the system in question), and you're being somewhat "economical" with what actually happened here. Here's the actual chain of events in question: - You recently switched ISPs and that meant you moved to a new IP block. - The IP block in question is owned by Hurricane Internet and unfortunately contains a host which persistently sends out a lot of junk…
> - Don't send to addresses where you have not contacted them or had any interaction at all for > 1 year. If you haven't kept in touch with your customers, then that is on you.
That seems odd though. "Keeping in touch" in regular intervals is exactly the kind of thing customers may want to unsubscribe from, so a working unsubscribe function means there are customers where I cannot keep in touch. How is that on me? That means I can't send e.g. a password reset email to them if they try to log in two years later?
I'm dealing with this right now. Both my personal domain and rsync.net are on a distinct subnet, but that subnet is smaller than a /24 and someone on a different subnet has, apparently, behaved badly. Enter "abusix" ... One of my engineers had an enlightening webchat with one of their engineers where we were shown the "offending" IP and it was explained that they have no ability to distinguish subnets (and no interes…
Those unsubscribe links should be there, for several reasons. - The service-based economy means that entities (individuals and businesses) have numerous relationships. For the typical individual the number of password-based accounts crossed the 100 threshold years ago, at a doubling rate of every 2--3 years. - Responsibilities can be transferred. The person who signed up for your service 5 years ago may no longer be…
I had one email address that for some reason often ended up being mistakenly used for other people, and ended up enormously frustrated by the usual combinations of no unsubscribe links, no-reply senders, and notes that any changes should be made by logging in. In the worst case, the US Department of Education, for several years, sent the address private personal and financial details about a complete stranger at a university with student loans. There was no way for me to unsubscribe, and no monitored address to reply to: in their view, they were important emails for the recipient, and they were, but I was not the intended recipient at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just guessing, but maybe threatening to sue for damages might work?
But the companies aren't obligated to accept your email are they? What grounds do you have to ask for damages?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those unsubscribe links should be there, for several reasons. - The service-based economy means that entities (individuals and businesses) have numerous relationships. For the typical individual the number of password-based accounts crossed the 100 threshold years ago, at a doubling rate of every 2--3 years. - Responsibilities can be transferred. The person who signed up for your service 5 years ago may no longer be…
Everything you've said makes perfect sense - for a contact management function. We have that. You can change contact info, set owner/technical/emergency contacts, alert thresholds, etc. But unsubscribe means something totally different: When I click on unsubscribe I want it to be the end of all communications. Period. In this case, that makes no sense. Ceasing communications for all purposes implies service cancellat…
People should have every right to unsubscribe themselves from that, and thus should have some sort of feedback loop attached to the email being sent (to the detriment of your bottom line I fully understand and sympathize with).
If this was indeed a marketing email, then I don't think it matters if it comes from a "legitimate, paid service" - the receiver still should be able to choose if they want to receive sales related emails wouldn't you agree?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"
IANAL. But you don't have a contract with the receiver for the receiver to receive your mail. You send mail from an IP on a subnet you control to AT&T. ATT has previously received spam from this subnet (maybe before you acquired the subnet), and they've marked it in a spam list. You're not _paying_ ATT to deliver your mail; that's when you can invoke a lawyer and say that ATT is not doing what you're paying them to d…
TOS are gonna TOS, but if the small print reserves the right to block spam, or traffic from spammers, then proof of not being a spammer, or at least proof of a legitimate use, might create an obligation ATT has to its users to not block those addresses, even if there's no obligation to the 3rd party making the request.
The knowledge affects ATT's obligations to others, not the requestor.
Idk where that gets you in a practical sense, but its at least a line of reasoning that's beyond "ATT can block whatever it wants".
When a very big company blocks nearly all email from another company that they compete with in hosting services I think it should be investigated as a possible abuse of market power by the EU and DOJ. I think there are important questions to be asked about the damage this does to competition and consumer choice.
I wouldn't worry about UCEPROTECT listing. They have an option to pay to remove IPs which to me looks like a protection racket. If anyone blocks solely on the basis of those lists instead of taking signals from more respectable block lists they are only hurting their own customers by blocking legitimate email.
I have multiple servers at multiple providers for various things so it is relatively trivial for me to add a rule to a transport map and have my server securely login into another machine to relay the email to a misbehaving receiver. But that requires slightly more than minimal knowledge and many people are pushed towards a small number of gatekeepers who will ultimately be purchased by a cartel of mega companies and nobody will know how to run a mail server anymore. Which is a shame because it really isn't very hard or very technical. What makes it tedious is the behaviour of some companies. The technical workaround to a block is as easy as routing email via another IP and takes a few minutes.
But then there is the process of getting the original IP unblocked, sometimes via multiple processes in businesses with a single owner, seemingly none of them knowing what the others or even their own tech people are doing. And/or swapping out the IP for one in a clean block.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I am happy for you that you have found a solution, the solution you found is symptomatic of a very dangerous situation: it is increasingly impossible for individuals or SMEs to use essential online facilities like sending messages or transferring money reliably unless they use a broker service as an intermediary. We are allowing small numbers of tech firms to take control of vital functionality that should be u…
The open internet is dead. Spammers, fraudsters, and abusers have killed it. I can see how you might hate me, but I only speak the truth. Once upon a time the Internet consisted of a bunch of anonymous university students and u.s. government, Bell, IBM, etc. employees doing unfettered research. Today the Internet consists of anonymous grifters trying to squeeze a buck out of you any way they can.
I don't accept that. Nothing about defending against those threats requires the kind of guilt-by-association spam blocking we have been discussing.
There will always be bad people in the world but that doesn't mean we allow some random big business to tell us where we may go, what we may do or who we may talk to because it is in that business's interests and (coincidentally or otherwise) it might make us safer.