On 25 Mar 2009 11:52:20 -
John Levine wrote:
> >> And yes indeed, its a way for us to automate termination of
> >> spammers, and to discover other patterns (in signup methods / spam
> >> content etc) that we can use to update our filters.
> >
> >That's a great theory. Would you be willing
...@netconsonance.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:23 AM
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
>
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Jo Rhett
> > wrote:
> >> The problem is... you aren't doing
>> And yes indeed, its a way for us to automate termination of spammers,
>> and to discover other patterns (in signup methods / spam content etc)
>> that we can use to update our filters.
>
>That's a great theory. Would you be willing to post an update to this
>list if and when your technology a
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> That's a great theory. Would you be willing to post an update to this list
> if and when your technology and automation actually get to the point of
> actually shutting down a spammer?
I am not sure that'd be a very productive use of my time se
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Jo Rhett
wrote:
The problem is... you aren't doing the work. You aren't stopping the
offenders. That's the goal. Automation should be a tool to help
you do the
job better, not avoid doing the job at all.
On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramania
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Yes, you've automated your report processing to the point you don't actually
> have to do any work.
>
> The problem is... you aren't doing the work. You aren't stopping the
> offenders. That's the goal. Automation should be a tool to help you d
Suresh, in theory I like what you say but this caught my eye:
On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
though several sites do seem to be consuming it just fine, and we send
high volume feedback loops to hotmail/yahoo/aol etc, and they to us,
without my team having to do anythi
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Sean Figgins wrote:
> something as spam? There are SO many that it's a significant load on our
> mail server. Our Exchange server could never have hoped to keep up. And
> our abuse department has no chance to keep up.
>
> I'll have to look into abacus to see if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Michael!
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Michael Thomas wrote:
> > I've seen people subscribe to a list, then *reply* to the subscription
> > confirmation - and then hit "spam" not 5 minutes later when something
> > gets posted to the list. Did they change
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:18:16 CDT, Jack Bates said:
It's not a false spam report? The recipient obviously didn't think they
wanted the email.
I've seen people subscribe to a list, then *reply* to the subscription
confirmation - and then hit "spam" not 5 minutes l
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:18:16 CDT, Jack Bates said:
> It's not a false spam report? The recipient obviously didn't think they
> wanted the email.
I've seen people subscribe to a list, then *reply* to the subscription
confirmation - and then hit "spam" not 5 minutes later when something
gets poste
Jack Bates wrote:
It works fine for large ISPs and colocation providers; especially those
who run abacus to process large volumes of reports and keep their time
well spent. If you spend 2 hours on a feedback loop without any actions
having to be taken, you're definitely doing something wrong.
> The recipient obviously didn't think they wanted the email. For
> mailing lists/broadcasters, this means it's an opt out request.
That would be fine, we could auto process them and remove those
addresses from any lists they've joined (might be a few false
unsubscribes but after they've resubscri
Sheesh. I thought I was replying to another mailing list, until I
cleaned up the recipient list.
Jo Rhett wrote:
NOTE: for a small mail sending provider who controls every mail server
and customer in their netblock, it probably is useful. It's just
useless for colocation providers and generic
On Feb 27, 2009, at 7:10 AM, Ken A wrote:
I agree that aol could do a better job of filtering the outbound,
but I don't think it's a useless system. We get a few dozen from aol
a day unless we have a real problem.
I see the mother-daughter conversations (worst), the subscribed lazy
user emai
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Feb 25, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Ray Corbin wrote:
It depends on your environment. I've seen where it is helpful and
where it is overwhelming. If you are a smaller company and want to
know why you keep getting blocked then those should help. If you are a
larger company and get a se
..@netconsonance.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:26 PM
To: Ray Corbin
Cc: Richey; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On Feb 25, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Ray Corbin wrote:
> It depends on your environment. I've seen where it is helpful and
> where it is ove
On Feb 25, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Ray Corbin wrote:
It depends on your environment. I've seen where it is helpful and
where it is overwhelming. If you are a smaller company and want to
know why you keep getting blocked then those should help. If you are
a larger company and get a several hundred
On Feb 26, 2009, at 5:08 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
Blocking an entire site just because one John Doe user clicked a
button
they don't even understand just does not make sense.
You're right -- but Yahoo! has a sufficiently large userbase that
they can count multiple complaints before blocking an
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:45 AM, J.D. Falk
wrote:
> Many recipients of complaint feedback actually /want/ to receive every
> complaint, because -- like John Levine -- they treat those complaints as
> unsubscribe requests.
That's ONE use case. But we are not senders, and we do use a feedback
loop
Barry Shein wrote:
I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be
avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from
the same source before firing it back as spam.
I've developed systems for ISPs to handle inbound complaints from AOL &
such, and that's ex
very old news.
their filter restrictions have some very absurd rules
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Micheal Patterson <
mich...@spmedicalgroup.com> wrote:
> This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some time. At
> any rate, is anyone else having issues with Yahoo blocking
Brian Keefer wrote:
The other options is to stuff all the spam messages in a folder and
expose them to the user, taking up a huge amount of storage space for
something the vast majority of users are never going to look at any way.
Which is, in fact, what Yahoo! does by default. Users have the
On Feb 26, 2009, at 2:00 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
You're that confident people know the difference between a real
communication from a party they conversed with before and a phish
designed to look like the same thing?
What I worry about is when software is used to scrape lists such as
$0.02 within
> -Original Message-
> From: Barry Shein [mailto:b...@world.std.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:29 PM
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
>
>
> On February 26, 2009 a
You're that confident people know the difference between a real communication
from a party they conversed with before and a phish designed to look like the
same thing?
If it's a bank, probably not. If it's a random online store, there's
about a 99.9% chance it's actual junk mail and .01% that
On Feb 26, 2009, at 8:28 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
This also pre-dates organized crime becoming heavily involved, and
pre-dates the obsession with browser exploits. Back then a lot of
spam was sent by semi-legitimate marketers from the US. These days
all the bad guys are out to get you to
On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM, John R. Levine
wrote:
This also pre-dates organized crime becoming heavily involved, and
pre-dates the obsession with browser exploits. Back then a lot of
spam was
sent by semi-legitimate marketers
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> This also pre-dates organized crime becoming heavily involved, and
>> pre-dates the obsession with browser exploits. Back then a lot of spam was
>> sent by semi-legitimate marketers from the US. These days all the bad guys
>> are out to g
on Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:17:14PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:44:13 PST, JC Dill said:
>
> > Universities are often major sources of spam. Spam is sent directly
> > from virus-infected student computers,
>
> Got any numbers to back up the claim that virus-in
This also pre-dates organized crime becoming heavily involved, and pre-dates
the obsession with browser exploits. Back then a lot of spam was sent by
semi-legitimate marketers from the US. These days all the bad guys are out
to get you to click on a single link.
Right. Back in the 90s spamm
On Feb 26, 2009, at 6:59 AM, John Levine wrote:
Nor should they. Anyone who actually researches this stuff knows
that
the vast majority of "unsub" links simply confirm you as a live
target
who will click on random links sent to them through e-mail.
That's the conventional wisdom, not con
>Nor should they. Anyone who actually researches this stuff knows that
>the vast majority of "unsub" links simply confirm you as a live target
>who will click on random links sent to them through e-mail.
That's the conventional wisdom, not confirmed by research. The FTC
tried it in 2002 a
>I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be
>avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from
>the same source before firing it back as spam.
Perhaps, but different people have different heuristics. There's
nothing keeping you from writing your own de-d
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Mailman's bounce parser is clever enough that there's no manualarity.
>
> AOL's ARF redaction also causes problems identifying problem .forwarders.
> I don't understand what they are trying to defend against.
If you want to enable verp with mai
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, John R. Levine wrote:
>
> Sounds like it might be time to reconsider your mailing list config. A decade
> ago, bandwidth was really expensive and it made sense to try to load up lots
> of recipients per delivery. These days it's essentially free, and any saving
> in bandwidth
AOL sends its spam button feedback in industry standard ARF format. It
took me about 20 minutes to write a perl script that picks out the
relevant bits from AOL and Hotmail feedback messages and sends unsub
commands to my list manager.
Yes, but you're using qmail and ezmlm which send separate co
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, John Levine wrote:
>
> AOL sends its spam button feedback in industry standard ARF format. It
> took me about 20 minutes to write a perl script that picks out the
> relevant bits from AOL and Hotmail feedback messages and sends unsub
> commands to my list manager.
Yes, but you
This discussion is probably *much* more appropriate on the mailop list.
(It's been mentioned there and on other MTA/spam-related lists, as
apparently whatever Yahoo's doing is having widespread impact.)
---Rsk
On 2/25/09, Barry Shein wrote:
> On February 26, 2009 at 09:14 ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
> wrote:
> > Well... If you think theres no value in the AOL or other feedback
> > loops and your network is clean enough without that, well then, dont
> > sign up to it and then bit
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
> I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be
> avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from
> the same source before firing it back as spam.
And the trouble is - that can and will be gamed by "hori
On February 26, 2009 at 09:14 ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
wrote:
>
> Well... If you think theres no value in the AOL or other feedback
> loops and your network is clean enough without that, well then, dont
> sign up to it and then bitch when all you get for your boutique
>
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Paul M. Moriarty wrote:
>
> Whenever I see the words "best practice" I find my self wondering, "Best for
> who?"
>
For us, email hosting / mailbox providers, its kind of a shared best
practice evolved in MAAWG meetings and elsewhere.
What works for us may or may
On Feb 25, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein
wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how
much
better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored
the
spam button unless two (to pick
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
> We get a steady stream of "spam" complaints from the AOL feedback loop
> which is virtually all either (we assume) unsubscriptions from
> legitimate mailing lists or random misfires, "it was nice seeing you
> and dad last week" From joe blow, T
On February 26, 2009 at 06:55 ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> > I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much
> > better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the
>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much
> better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the
> spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked
> the same sender (I know,
@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
We found this issue to be associated usually with users forwarding email
to
a Yahoo account. If spam slips by our spam filters and gets forwarded
where
the enduser reports it as spam not realizing the impact on their
actions.
In the last couple of
On Feb 25, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
There is also the issue of weather the user trusts the opt out link,
I have been in discussions where data shows that most users don't
generally trust it.
Zaid
Nor should they. Anyone who actually researches this stuff knows that
the vast m
that could occur when
a. student machines are botted (for institutions not blocking outbound
port 25)
b. student and alumni accounts are compromised by phishers
(both of these just for the purposes of sending spam from well
connected, reputable institutions.)
and then consumers really do
Brian Keefer wrote:
Regarding taking automatic action based on luser feedback, that is
ridiculous in my opinion.
It is that i.e., non-standard, but no more than many other things at Y!
Many of their internal mailing lists, for internal use only, get more spam
than actual mail.
Just another exa
"Suresh Ramasubramanian"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:28:46 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
>>
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, John Levine wrote:
Why the hell can't AOL integrate the standard listserv commands
integrated into many subscription emails into a friggin' button in
their email client, right next to "Spam" (or even in place of it)
that says "Unsubscribe?"
AOL sends its spam button fe
your forwarded mail to a separate ip address is really, I think, the
best way to handel forwarded mail.
-r
-Original Message-
From: Brian Keefer [mailto:ch...@smtps.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:48 PM
To: Micheal Patterson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their
> Why the hell can't AOL integrate the standard listserv commands
> integrated into many subscription emails into a friggin' button in
> their email client, right next to "Spam" (or even in place of it)
> that says "Unsubscribe?"
AOL sends its spam button feedback in industry standard ARF form
On Feb 24, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Micheal Patterson wrote:
This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some
time. At any rate, is anyone else having issues with Yahoo
blocking / deferring legitimate emails?
My situation is that I host our corporate mx'ers on my network, one
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
Why the hell can't AOL integrate the standard listserv commands integrated
into many subscription emails into a friggin' button in their email
client, right next to "Spam" (or even in p
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:44:13 PST, JC Dill said:
> Universities are often major sources of spam. Spam is sent directly
> from virus-infected student computers,
Got any numbers to back up the claim that virus-infected student computers
are anywhere near the problem that virus-infected student's-
- Original Message -
From: "Chuck Schick"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
We found this issue to be associated usually with users forwarding
email to
a Yahoo account. If spam slips by our spam filters and gets
Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Christ .. Yahoo did say "complaints". And it can take a very low
level of complaints before a block goes into place - especially for
low volume (corporate etc) mailservers.
I don't think this is Yahoo reacting to spa
Barry Shein wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much
better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the
spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked
the same sender (I know, forged sender etc but something like th
- Original Message -
From: "Barry Shein"
To:
Cc: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" ; "Micheal Patterson"
;
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On February 25, 2009 at 04:26 ste...@csudsu.com (Stefan Mol
We found this issue to be associated usually with users forwarding email to
a Yahoo account. If spam slips by our spam filters and gets forwarded where
the enduser reports it as spam not realizing the impact on their actions.
In the last couple of years we have been not allowing people to forward
On February 25, 2009 at 04:26 ste...@csudsu.com (Stefan Molnar) wrote:
> For our userbase with yahoo/hotmail/aol accouts they hit the spam button
> more often than delete. Then complain they do not get emails anymore from
> us, then want discounts on a bill of sale they missed. It is a never
Micheal Patterson wrote:
This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some time.
At any rate, is anyone else having issues with Yahoo blocking /
deferring legitimate emails?
My situation is that I host our corporate mx'ers on my network, one of
the companies that we recently
riginal Message-
From: mike [mailto:mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:26 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> In a perfect world, the spam button would only affect delivery to that
> user, not everyo
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, mike wrote:
>
> I accuse postini of having exactly this vulnerabillity - that one user
> classing mail as spam automatically means it marks all other mail from that
> user to everyone else. There really outta be some transparency here so that
> everyone understands the how and
Seth Mattinen wrote:
In a perfect world, the spam button would only affect delivery to that
user, not everyone. Especially when they go all rabid click crazy on the
spam button for personal correspondence from their mom.
I accuse postini of having exactly this vulnerabillity - that one
Peter Beckman wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Richey wrote:
>
>> AOL's Scomp is spam it's self. If I read though 100 messages maybe one
>> message is really spam. The other 99 are jokes, regular emails, maybe a
>> news letter from their church, etc. Most people are lazy and would
>> rather
>>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
> Why the hell can't AOL integrate the standard listserv commands integrated
> into many subscription emails into a friggin' button in their email
> client, right next to "Spam" (or even in place of it) that says
> "Unsubscribe?"
Because
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> Christ .. Yahoo did say "complaints". And it can take a very low
> level of complaints before a block goes into place - especially for
> low volume (corporate etc) mailservers.
I don't think this is Yahoo reacting to spam complaints because a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Richey wrote:
AOL's Scomp is spam it's self. If I read though 100 messages maybe one
message is really spam. The other 99 are jokes, regular emails, maybe a
news letter from their church, etc. Most people are lazy and would rather
click on the Spam button instead of un
On 2/25/09 9:05 AM, Richey wrote:
AOL's Scomp is spam it's self. If I read though 100 messages maybe one
message is really spam. The other 99 are jokes, regular emails, maybe a
news letter from their church, etc. Most people are lazy and would rather
click on the Spam button instead of unsu
ry 25, 2009 11:06 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
> Feedback loops often aren't that useful either. We're on the AOL Scomp
> feedback loop, and we've often got fairly personal email sent to our
> abuse desk because the users simply press s
inal Message-
From: Ray Corbin [mailto:rcor...@traffiq.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:27 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Niall Donegan
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Funny we were just having similar conversation on mailop.org :) . Suresh is
right about t
ls setup to forward to their s...@yahoo.com account, those simply got notified that it was removed.
-r
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:42 AM
To: Niall Donegan
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo an
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:11 PM
To: Joe Abley; Micheal Patterson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Ditto. They appear to use some strange form of greylisting combined with
blocking. What seems to help is SPF and PTRs that match the EHLO your MTAs will
send. We
Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Niall Donegan wrote:
>
> Another interesting side effect of that is email forwarder accounts.
> Take a user who gets a domain on our shared hosting setup and forwards
> the email for certain users to a Yahoo accou
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Niall Donegan wrote:
>
> Another interesting side effect of that is email forwarder accounts.
> Take a user who gets a domain on our shared hosting setup and forwards
> the email for certain users to a Yahoo account. If those mails are
> marked as spam, it seems to
hey missed. It is a never ending story.
>
>
> --Original Message--
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> To: Micheal Patterson
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
> Sent: Feb 24, 2009 7:59 PM
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Mic
: Micheal Patterson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Sent: Feb 24, 2009 7:59 PM
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Micheal Patterson
wrote:
>
> SPF records aren't being recognized, I've been running them for some time
> now so it would seem that they&#
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Micheal Patterson
wrote:
>
> SPF records aren't being recognized, I've been running them for some time
> now so it would seem that they're not honoring them.
>
Christ .. Yahoo did say "complaints". And it can take a very low
level of complaints before a block goe
- Original Message -
From: "Erik (Caneris)"
To: "Joe Abley" ; "Micheal Patterson"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:11 PM
Subject: RE: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Ditto. They appear to use some strange form of greylisting combined with
block
They are accepting them by the 250 code, but never endup on the user mailbox.
This was just within the last week.
Fun Fun
--Original Message--
From: Micheal Patterson
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Yahoo and their mail filters..
Sent: Feb 24, 2009 6:27 PM
This may be old news, but I've
From: Joe Abley [jab...@hopcount.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:41 PM
To: Micheal Patterson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On 24 Feb 2009, at 21:27, Micheal Patterson wrote:
> This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some
&g
: 650.246.8900
F: 650.246.8901
E: carlos ['at'] race.com
-Original Message-
From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:41 PM
To: Micheal Patterson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On 24 Feb 2009, at 21:27, Micheal Patte
On 24 Feb 2009, at 21:27, Micheal Patterson wrote:
This may be old news, but I've not been in the list for quite some
time. At any rate, is anyone else having issues with Yahoo
blocking / deferring legitimate emails?
Yes. Everybody else.
Joe
87 matches
Mail list logo
