Oh, come now; like calling Comcast is going to get you anywhere. Per: http://www.spamresource.com/2009/10/top-five-tips-for-dealing-with.html
I've had success with Comcast. Been good to me. Generic Abuse: http://postmaster.comcast.net/ Personally, I'd fill out Comcast's form at: http://www.comcastsupport.com/rbl Then bill your customer. Regards, Jared Hall General Telecom, LLC. Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: >>> Daniel J McDonald wrote: >>> >>> ...omissis... >>> >>> How can I? From what I know about razor-revoke, it's the recipients >>> who are using razor and who get messages that razor tags as spam who >>> are the ones that run this. >>> >>> Their recipients who are saying that their messages are being marked >>> spam are comcast e-mail users. We aren't marking them as spam, we >>> don't use Razor, and after learning about what's happened to them, >>> it's doubtful that we ever will. >>> >>> Ted >> >> For what I know, Razor works on message hashes (more or less like DCC >> and IXHash do). So, the Cloudmark site doesn't supply any delisting >> tool because it is not the source IP to get listed, but the spammy >> messages hashes. > > Wikipedia has a decent enough explanation of how it works. > >> >> I don't even know details about how razor hashes the message, so it >> *may* eventually be that some piece of message (like, in example, an >> automatic foot sign, or an automatic logo image) triggers the razor >> plugin. I would suggest to manage with the recipient to attempt >> razor-revoking the FP messages. >> > > Well, I don't think this is possible since Cloudmark wraps the Razor > system in a blanket, the ISP that buys Cloudmark is never told that > Razor is behind it, and Comcast further wraps whatever Cloudmark > gives them, so that their own users don't know what it is that > Comcast uses for spam filtering (Comcast probably rebrands Cloudmark > as "comcast spam filter" or some such.) > > I would presume, knowing Comcast, and knowing the average ability > of the typical Comcast e-mail user, that the razor-report and > rezor-revoke is being done silently, automatically, behind the > scenes. Perhaps when a user pulls a message out of their junk > mail folder, it razor-revokes it. > > The customer already called Comcast and complained, they were told > essentially to do nothing and the system will fix itself eventually. > >> You could also attempt to get help at the Vipul's Razor list: >> razor-us...@lists.sourceforge.net . >> > > It's not really my problem, to be honest. In this scenaro we are > only assisting our customer with running their -own- mailserver, > the customer -isn't- using -our- mailserver. If they were, this > never would have happened. > > The situation is your typical small-company-mentality of well we > have 15 employees here and Exchange is so superior that we are gonna > spend 10 thousand dollars on it, on a server for it, and on paying > someone (our ISP in this case) to put it together for us since we > don't know how it goes together - instead of merely paying our ISP > a nominal fee per year per mailbox hosted on a UNIX system. You > cannot argue with this logic, which is why we decided a long time ago we > wouldn't, and got into the on-site support business as well as the > ISP. > > In actuality, in this situation it technically wasn't the mailserver > that actually got compromised, it was a desktop PC - but since the > desktops and exchange server are both behind a NAT, from the outside > world they are considered the same device. > > Our role is that of a consultant - and we have to play ball by > their rules, not ours. Meaning that once the helpful people on this > list pointed me in the right direction so that I could figure out > what we were dealing with, the ball is now in our customers court. > They don't want to pay our labor to sit for hours on the phone with > Comcast tech support, and I can't blame them, I wouldn't either. > > Ted > >> Regards, >> >> Giampaolo >> >> > >
