As far as #2, because users of said servers often want to send email.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017, at 12:05, Tim Starr wrote: > An overall admirable response, keep up the good work. Just 2 questions:> > 1) Why not put TLDR at top? > 2) Why allow email to be sent at all from "unmanaged servers"? > > -Tim > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Hetzner Blacklist <blackl...@hetzner.de> > wrote:>> I just got back from a 2 week holiday and have been reading this > thread>> with a lot of interest. I thought I would respond and try to > explain the>> situation from our perspective. I could write an entire essay > on this,>> but I have tried to be as concise as possible, though it is still > a wall>> of text. >> >> Am 11.07.2017 um 13:00 schrieb Felix Schwarz: >> > If I'm not mistaken also Hetzner's mail admins are reading this list>> >> so maybe >> > they can convice their management to do something about the bad >> reputation. >> >> Management was convinced over a year ago. Our internal abuse processing>> >> and handling was reviewed, and made stricter. I will admit that we used>> >> to be too lenient in that regard, but that is no longer the case (at>> >> least not intentionally). >> >> The results have been very encouraging. The leading blacklist and >> reputation providers that have easy network/ASN lookups show a decrease>> >> of at least 60% in “bad” IPs within our network within the last year.>> >> This applies to Spamhaus, SpamCop, SORBS, UCEPROTECT, Senderbase (now>> >> Talos Intelligence) and the Microsoft SNDS. The amount of abuse >> complaints we get has also decreased substantially. All of this, even>> >> though we are continually growing. >> >> I’ve been in contact with a number of people this past year and many of>> >> them have acknowledged that our network no longer deserves a bad >> reputation. However, I can fully understand that not everybody will>> >> agree, and I believe there are 3 main reasons for that. >> >> 1) Historical. I wil be the first to admit that in the past we were too>> >> lenient with spam-handling, and there was more spam leaving our network>> >> than there should have been. This can mean that if somebody gets spam>> >> from our network today, they think "great, Hetzner hosting another >> spammer", even though the message was due to a compromised account (see>> >> point 2), and the overall amount of spam is much lower than it was >> historically. >> >> 2) Constant spam. Due to the nature of our business (IAAS provider), the>> >> fact is that there will always be a certain level of spam leaving our>> >> network. Brandon actually mentioned exactly this. >> >> Am 10.07.2017 um 21:37 schrieb Brandon Long: >> > They may not even be renting directly to spammers, but their users are>> >> > getting compromised and sending spam and other crap from their >> servers. We >> > see clickbot and other fraud farming from those IP ranges as well.>> > >> > It is an unfortunate situation, and challenging, no doubt. >> >> We have over a million IP addresses, and the vast majority of those are>> >> allocated to unmanaged servers. Short of blocking all email >> communication from our network, there are always going to be customers>> >> sending emails, and thus there will always be some who send spam. Our>> job >> is to minimize that as much as possible. Anybody who has worked an>> abuse >> desk will know how hard that is, especially at an IAAS provider>> like >> ourselves. >> >> We don’t intentionally harbor any spammers, and any that manage to get>> >> through our checks (we block dozens of new orders a day) and start >> sending spam, are soon terminated. We have a few email marketers, but>> >> the vast majority of the spam leaving our network is from compromised>> >> accounts, for which we can do very little. >> >> 3) Perspective. As with so many things in life, what you think of >> something depends greatly on your point of view, and the assumptions and>> >> expections you (sometimes subconsciously) bring along. If somebody >> assumes that there should be zero spam leaving our network, they will>> >> always be disappointed. >> >> I believe a perfect example of these different perspectives is found>> >> within this thread. >> >> Am 11.07.2017 um 09:11 schrieb John Levine: >> > Hetzner gushes spam, and I've had most of their >> > IP ranges totally blocked for years. >> >> Am 13.07.2017 um 20:15 schrieb John Levine: >> > Look for yourself: >> > >> > http://www.taugh.com/sp.php?c=&i=78.47.0.0&j=78.47.255.255&k=puavppaxru>> >> First of all, thank you for that link John, I appreciate you sharing>> >> that information. It’s always good to have additional information about>> >> our network, and I will be checking that link regularly. >> >> I have no idea what assumptions John has, but the comment about >> “gushing” spam made me believe that the evidence would show a list of>> >> hundreds, if not thousands of IPs, sending spam every few days over the>> >> course of many months/years. >> >> What I see instead is almost exactly the opposite. This year (2017),>> >> there have been a total of 89 spam messages, from a mere 44 IPs (which>> >> currently belong to 44 separate customers of ours). These 44 IPs >> represent 0.00067% of the IPs in the /16 range (65,536 IPs total). None>> >> of the IPs sent spam regularly, and all of them stopped within a few>> >> days. 99.99933% of IPs did not send spam. >> >> To me, this is a clear sign that we are doing a good job. Yes, there is>> >> a “trickle” of spam, and I would dearly love to completely cut that out,>> >> but as mentioned above, that is unrealistic. We are trying to minimize>> >> the amount of spam, and I believe this shows we are doing exactly that.>> >> Now, I’m biased, and I’m obviously going to defend the company I work>> >> for, but I truly believe we are on the right path. There is still a lot>> >> that can be done, and is in the process of being done, but the results>> >> from the past year show that we are serious about this. This is a >> never-ending process and we are far from perfect, but we are working on>> >> it. Anybody can check our network (and compare it to those of our >> competitors) and come to their own conclusions. >> >> If anybody has complaints or information about our network we have a>> >> functioning abuse department with real humans. If something isn’t being>> >> handled satisfactorily, you can request it to be escalated, or you can>> >> contact me directly. >> >> TL;DR We care about spam and believe that the evidence shows that. >> >> Kind regards >> Bastiaan van den Berg >> -------------- >> Hetzner Online >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mailop mailing list >> mailop@mailop.org >> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > _________________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
