Am 08.02.23 um 02:44 schrieb Michael Peddemors via mailop:
On 2023-02-07 14:00, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
Another thing is that it should go absolutely without question that
as the hoster will not divulge the identity of their customers to
abuse reporters,
Okay, going to start a fl
On 2023-02-07 14:00, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
Another thing is that it should go absolutely without question that as
the hoster will not divulge the identity of their customers to abuse
reporters,
Okay, going to start a flame war with this
Huh?
Anyone who wants to run an emai
Am 07.02.23 um 13:31 schrieb Ralph Seichter via mailop:
When a
third party X complains that Hetzner customer Y is a spammer, I consider
it only appropriate that Hetzner passes the complaint along and asks Y
for a statement, and does not simply impose restrictions on Y based on
X's say-so.
Ther
> what is your data that shows hetzner being worse than others in this field?
What is the point you are trying to make by trying to turn this into
a race where it wasn't one previously? We are discussing Hetzner
specifically, prompted by the original post from Lena, last I checked.
> hetzner has
Hehehe. They aren't Digital Ocean or OVH bad..
But the bigger they are, the bigger budget they have to address abuse.
Economy of scale..
The bigger you get, the less sympathy you should expect.
Be interesting asking questions like.. What percentage of revenue do you
allocate to dealing with ab
On 07/02/2023 16:08, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> Yes, the spammers are picking up on the Hetzner networks again..
> Maybe a priority abuse line is needed for those in the threat detection
> industry..
Maybe when people like Return Path stop sending in false abuse reports?
I've had two
Atro and everyone else blaming Hetzner for their abuse handling:
what is your data that shows hetzner being worse than others in this field?
does this data put in relation the size of the provider (number of
IPs/servers/customers) ?
hetzner has grown big and in absolute numbers it's clear that
On 2/7/23 04:31, Ralph Seichter via mailop wrote:
* Hetzner Blacklist via mailop:
I’m not seeing anything offensive or insulting in our response.
Neither do I. The response simply describes what is happening. When a
third party X complains that Hetzner customer Y is a spammer, I consider
it o
Yes, the spammers are picking up on the Hetzner networks again..
Maybe a priority abuse line is needed for those in the threat detection
industry.. Of course, like all large hosting companies, the
responsibility is on you for what leaves your networks.
#itsnotthathard
The real players in the
> Ever been on the receiving end of a retaliatory abuse complaint?
Yup, that too.
> As a Hetzner customer I expect some trust in the company I pay money
> to,
As do I, as a Hetzner customer.
> that they'll give me a chance to face my accuser and fix the
> problem if there is one, or give a resp
Ever been on the receiving end of a retaliatory abuse complaint? As a
Hetzner customer I expect some trust in the company I pay money to, that
they'll give me a chance to face my accuser and fix the problem if there
is one, or give a response as to why I shouldn't have to if there isn't
a probl
> If we were passing them on verbatim we wouldn’t have to manually
> process them.
Suppose it is so, then.
> As for the spammers comment, you know that the vast majority of spam
> leaving our network is from compromised servers.
You would know that beyond any doubt. I don't have comprehensive
st
I am referring to the fact that the wording of the autoreply suggests
that Hetzner is simply passing complaints verbatim to the spammers
themselves and not dealing with it yourselves.
If we were passing them on verbatim we wouldn’t have to manually process
them. The whole point is not to simply
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 13:19, Atro Tossavainen via mailop
wrote:
> > Neither do I. The response simply describes what is happening. When a
> > third party X complains that Hetzner customer Y is a spammer, I consider
> > it only appropriate that Hetzner passes the complaint along and asks Y
> > for
> Neither do I. The response simply describes what is happening. When a
> third party X complains that Hetzner customer Y is a spammer, I consider
> it only appropriate that Hetzner passes the complaint along and asks Y
> for a statement, and does not simply impose restrictions on Y based on
> X's
* Hetzner Blacklist via mailop:
> I’m not seeing anything offensive or insulting in our response.
Neither do I. The response simply describes what is happening. When a
third party X complains that Hetzner customer Y is a spammer, I consider
it only appropriate that Hetzner passes the complaint al
Thanks Bastiaan for picking up the red courtesy phone so fast.
> I’m not seeing anything offensive or insulting in our response.
I am referring to the fact that the wording of the autoreply suggests
that Hetzner is simply passing complaints verbatim to the spammers
themselves and not dealing with
> 20 days (!) later I received a reply [AbuseID:BEA948:23]:
That’s too long of a delay, I agree.
We’re currently in the middle of a restructuring in our abuse
department, where a number of processes are also being updated.
For example, we’re no longer immediately referring to our abuse form
wh
> My conclusion is that Hetzner is a heaven for spammers.
Bastiaan is on this list. Is there anything you can do, Bastiaan,
to make the offensive responses to abuse@ go away permanently and
for the company to stop insulting complainants?
--
Atro Tossavainen, Chairman of the Board
Infinite Mho Oy
I emailed abuse()hetzner.com:
=
Your user at 136.243.150.82 hosts malware to exploit vulnerability in
mail (SMTP) servers. In the log of my Exim:
2023-01-17 00:33:40 +0200 SMTP call from newcloud.thevinylspectrum.com (x)
[104.200.146.132] dropped: too many syntax or protocol errors (last co
Usually, but if we get pissed off with constant complaints in a very
short period of time... you will earn a temp penalty box stay for a
day after which youll be sitting it out for a week, then month, then
permban (unless thry have a very responsive abuse@).. like OVH, they
just ended a month l
Nope, no one is too big to block. The big guys just hope that you block
based on percentage of bad traffic, and not absolute numbers.
Luckily, mail receivers typically want that as well.
And, of course, no one has to accept mail from anyone else.
Brandon
*From: *Noel Butler via mailop
*Date:
nobody is too big to be blocked, despite the thinkings of such beasts
On 16/05/2019 02:30, Yiorgos [George] Adamopoulos via mailop wrote:
> I just tried to reply to a Hetzner support request from our GSuite account
> and got back this:
>
> 550 Unfortunately we cannot currently accept your e-m
On 2019/05/15 19:30, Yiorgos [George] Adamopoulos via mailop wrote:
> I just tried to reply to a Hetzner support request from our GSuite
> account and got back this:
>
> 550 Unfortunately we cannot currently accept your e-mail due to the
> amount of spam we are receiving from your server. Please c
I just tried to reply to a Hetzner support request from our GSuite account
and got back this:
550 Unfortunately we cannot currently accept your e-mail due to the amount
of spam we are receiving from your server. Please check
https://rbl.your-server.de/?ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::136 for further details
Hi guys,
thank you very much for all the input. Seems like SMTP proxies/smarthosts +
port 25 blocks/connection counting might be good for something.
However I really hope that breaking up TLS connections will never get a
routine practice. I mean we are fighting this for years now with all these
s
In article <1499809822.14353.11.ca...@ns.five-ten-sg.com> you write:
>> Doesn't matter -- the "transparent" filters force all of the
>> connections to the provider's filtering host, so if there's a TLS
>> connection, it terminates at the filtering host.
>
>That sort of proxy will break some of your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 19:50 +, John Levine wrote:
> Doesn't matter -- the "transparent" filters force all of the
> connections to the provider's filtering host, so if there's a TLS
> connection, it terminates at the filtering host.
That sort of
In article <9cdac510-4000-56f3-f919-8c5f1edaf...@schwarz.eu> you write:
>
>Am 10.07.2017 um 21:45 schrieb John Levine:
>> Many other hosting companies manage to control their spam. The usual
>> approach is to filter the mail their customers send, either with
>> "transparent" filters hijacking port
29 matches
Mail list logo
