Re: [mailop] Removing a JMRP complaint feed from a previous IP owner

2016-04-19 Thread Michael Wise
/wimper Yeah, he’s a picture which should make it more clear. [cid:image002.png@01D19A4E.B53B3D20] Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." | Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool

Re: [mailop] Removing a JMRP complaint feed from a previous IP owner

2016-04-19 Thread Michael Wise
Yup. “Open A Ticket…” here: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=614866&clcid (Yes, you should probably bookmark that for all HotMail/JMRP/SNDS issues) T1 (the robot) won’t be able to deal with it, so when it replies, reply to that email and let T2 know what t

Re: [mailop] Removing a JMRP complaint feed from a previous IP owner

2016-04-19 Thread Michael Wise
Just a heads-up that I am trying to get some clarification on this. Will let y’all know when I have something to share. ☺ Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." | Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool

Re: [mailop] "Spammer TLDs" and IP addresses without a reverse?

2016-04-19 Thread Franck Martin via mailop
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Michael Peddemors wrote: > On 16-04-19 11:53 AM, Michael Wise wrote: > >> ... unless it's coming from your localnet. >> Local clients in the IP space "You Own" should get a bit more slack. >> IMHO. >> >> Aloha, >> Michael. >> >> > Yeah, only for MTA->MTA traffic,

Re: [mailop] "Spammer TLDs" and IP addresses without a reverse?

2016-04-19 Thread Michael Peddemors
On 16-04-19 11:53 AM, Michael Wise wrote: ... unless it's coming from your localnet. Local clients in the IP space "You Own" should get a bit more slack. IMHO. Aloha, Michael. Yeah, only for MTA->MTA traffic, not MTU->MTA, if that is what you mean.. -- "Catch the Magic of Linux..."

Re: [mailop] "Spammer TLDs" and IP addresses without a reverse?

2016-04-19 Thread Michael Wise
... unless it's coming from your localnet. Local clients in the IP space "You Own" should get a bit more slack. IMHO. Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." | Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ? -Original Message- From: ma

Re: [mailop] "Spammer TLDs" and IP addresses without a reverse?

2016-04-19 Thread Luis E. Muñoz
On 19 Apr 2016, at 1:23, Paul Smith wrote: On 19/04/2016 06:40, Dave Warren wrote: On 2016-04-18 10:38, Michael Peddemors wrote: Registrars paid a lot of money to be able to offer TLD's and they shouldn't really be punished just because they are cheaper than other domains. Personally, I'm

Re: [mailop] Removing a JMRP complaint feed from a previous IP owner

2016-04-19 Thread Syed Alam
Thanks for your input @Frechette. In your case, you were the owner of both(old and new) feeds. In our case, we are the new owner of IPs. We are unable to reach previous IP owner. Technically the previous IP owner rights should have revoked after the new verified IP owner. On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at

Re: [mailop] Removing a JMRP complaint feed from a previous IP owner

2016-04-19 Thread Al Iverson
Hmm, we should make a "workarounds FAQ" for SNDS/JMRP. Here's another one I ran into: I have one /24 where, if I add the /24 to JMRP, it looks like it works, then it vanishes by the next day. To get that one to work, I had to add each IP address in that range. And then it worked. No clue why. No o

Re: [mailop] Removing a JMRP complaint feed from a previous IP owner

2016-04-19 Thread Al Iverson
Can't you go into SNDS Access and re-request access confirmation for whoever else has access to that range? Seems like that would cut it off. Al -- Al Iverson www.aliverson.com (312)725-0130 On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Udeme Ukutt wrote: > I think there's a unique form for JMRP requests;

Re: [mailop] Removing a JMRP complaint feed from a previous IP owner

2016-04-19 Thread Mr. Frechette
You're not alone! We had 2 IPs that we needed to change the FBL email address. I would remove the IPs from the SNDS and JMRP on the original feed and attempt to add them under a new feed. Every time I would do that, it would appear to work and then on page refresh, revert back to the original setti

Re: [mailop] "Spammer TLDs" and IP addresses without a reverse?

2016-04-19 Thread Michael Peddemors
On 16-04-19 07:01 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: Any other problems like HELO/EHLO not being FQDN, not matching the host, not existing etc... I'll usually 4xx or ignore (e.g. ignore for not matching, 421 for not existing... etc.) Regards, Hey, stop telling them all our tricks :) Yes, we also re

Re: [mailop] Removing a JMRP complaint feed from a previous IP owner

2016-04-19 Thread Udeme Ukutt
I think there's a unique form for JMRP requests; is that what you tried? I've requested JMRP amendments in the past, with no problem. Thx, Udeme On Tuesday, April 19, 2016, Syed Alam wrote: > Does anyone have experience with removing a JMRP complaint feed from a > previous IP owner? Even though

[mailop] Removing a JMRP complaint feed from a previous IP owner

2016-04-19 Thread Syed Alam
Does anyone have experience with removing a JMRP complaint feed from a previous IP owner? Even though the old owner does not have access to the IPs, he is receiving all complaints. We see the old feed in SNDS, but are not allowed to manage it. We tried to contact Outlook.com support(many times), b

Re: [mailop] "Spammer TLDs" and IP addresses without a reverse?

2016-04-19 Thread Michelle Sullivan
Petar Bogdanovic wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:19:57AM +0200, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote: On 04/19/2016 09:15 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: As well... ;-) (and for those that don't get it... the host issued 'HELO [65.55.234.213]' or 'EHLO [65.55.234.213]' .. perfectly legal but something

Re: [mailop] "Spammer TLDs" and IP addresses without a reverse?

2016-04-19 Thread Lena
> > 'HELO [65.55.234.213]' or 'EHLO [65.55.234.213]' .. perfectly legal but > > something malware and bots do as well.. > > While HELOing like this that might be perfectly "legal", this is > something which is probably going to be blocked as well by many/most > servers. I selectively greylist in

Re: [mailop] "Spammer TLDs" and IP addresses without a reverse?

2016-04-19 Thread Tony Finch
Renaud Allard via mailop wrote: > On 04/19/2016 09:15 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > > > > As well... ;-) (and for those that don't get it... the host issued 'HELO > > [65.55.234.213]' or 'EHLO [65.55.234.213]' .. perfectly legal but > > something malware and bots do as well.. > > While HELOing li

Re: [mailop] "Spammer TLDs" and IP addresses without a reverse?

2016-04-19 Thread Petar Bogdanovic
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:19:57AM +0200, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote: > > On 04/19/2016 09:15 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > > > > As well... ;-) (and for those that don't get it... the host issued 'HELO > > [65.55.234.213]' or 'EHLO [65.55.234.213]' .. perfectly legal but > > something malwa

Re: [mailop] "Spammer TLDs" and IP addresses without a reverse?

2016-04-19 Thread Renaud Allard via mailop
On 04/19/2016 09:15 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Michael Wise wrote: >> It hasn't. >> I'm still trying to bring it to the attention of the responsible parties. >> >> Aloha, >> Michael. > > Perhaps the other thing they might consider changing ('changing' not > 'fixing', because it's perfectly l

Re: [mailop] "Spammer TLDs" and IP addresses without a reverse?

2016-04-19 Thread Paul Smith
On 19/04/2016 06:40, Dave Warren wrote: On 2016-04-18 10:38, Michael Peddemors wrote: Registrars paid a lot of money to be able to offer TLD's and they shouldn't really be punished just because they are cheaper than other domains. Personally, I'm going to start adding points to any TLD that

Re: [mailop] "Spammer TLDs" and IP addresses without a reverse?

2016-04-19 Thread Michelle Sullivan
Michael Wise wrote: It hasn't. I'm still trying to bring it to the attention of the responsible parties. Aloha, Michael. Perhaps the other thing they might consider changing ('changing' not 'fixing', because it's perfectly legal): Hello [65.55.234.213], pleased... As well... ;-) (and for