last week i became unable to send mail to verizon users:
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host relay.verizon.net[206.46.232.11] said:
550 You are not allowed to send mail:sv18pub.verizon.net
(in reply to MAIL FROM command)
(the above was from me trying to ask postmaster@verizon.net about it)
i'd hate to think that i've simply sent too many why-are-you-spamming-me
complaints and have been blacklisted.
last week i became unable to send mail to verizon users:
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host relay.verizon.net[206.46.232.11] said:
550 You are not allowed to send mail:sv18pub.verizon.net
(in reply to MAIL FROM command)(the above was from me trying to ask postmaster@verizon.net about it)
i'd hate to think that i've simply sent too many why-are-you-spamming-me
complaints and have been blacklisted.
Probably a better question on SPAM-L. Since it's been suggested that
we help with this problem of using NANOG as a personal paging
service:
http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi?ispname=Verizon
Now, can someone forward this to Paul? I am pleasantly residening
in his killfile, according to his last response to my email.
YMMV.
-M<
i'd hate to think that i've simply sent too many why-are-you-spamming-me
complaints and have been blacklisted.Now, can someone forward this to Paul? I am pleasantly residening
in his killfile, according to his last response to my email.
are you suggesting that paul might be hoist by his own petard?
goose, gander, and all that?
randy
First, I'm not on the mail team, so I can't help you directly.
Second, your best bet is to attempt contact thru the following web form:
www.verizon.net/whitelist
- Wayne
No, but I have forwaded this to the abuse team I used to work in. Some of
them are also on Z.
Normally this is because the MAIL FROM: failed or rejected sender
verfication.
-Dennis
Second, your best bet is to attempt contact thru the
following web form:
www.verizon.net/whitelist
Good one Wayne! Wasn't that only for all those who were blocked
last Christmas even other than ARIN IP space? 
I sent an email to the mail team and CC'd Paul.
Good to see you bud!
-Dennis
Which probably means Paul is blocking whatever server Verizon is using
for its sender verification
Or he hasn't "paid his fair share" to ride our pipes! 
<ducks>
- Wayne
Which probably means Paul is blocking whatever server Verizon is using
for its
sender verification
Something I've seen before is a lot of mail servers will wait 10-45 seconds
before presenting an SMTP prompt to remote hosts; spambots typically won't
wait that long and give up. But since Verizon's sender verification (as of a
couple months ago; haven't checked recently) times out after 30 seconds,
that technique can have the side effect of making Verizon customers
unreachable.
Dave Pooser wrote:
Which probably means Paul is blocking whatever server Verizon is using
for its
sender verification
Something I've seen before is a lot of mail servers will wait 10-45 seconds
before presenting an SMTP prompt to remote hosts; spambots typically won't
wait that long and give up. But since Verizon's sender verification (as of a
couple months ago; haven't checked recently) times out after 30 seconds,
that technique can have the side effect of making Verizon customers
unreachable.
What about sender verification of validity discourages spammers?
The only reason it works is that they are too lazy to actualy use some random VALID forged return-path.
I for one would not like to force spammers to start using valid return-paths. I dont need that blowback load. That would affect my ability to read NANOG, hence its on-topicness.
IOW why isnt this technique (not pionered by verizon, afaik the milter-sender was first I saw of it) short sighted and dangerous in the long run?
And yes, put this together with sender-id/domainkeys/spf whathaveyou and then its valuable. However thats not the world we live in now.
Joe
Dave Pooser wrote:
> Something I've seen before is a lot of mail servers will wait 10-45 seconds
> before presenting an SMTP prompt to remote hosts; spambots typically won't
> wait that long and give up. But since Verizon's sender verification (as of a
What about sender verification of validity discourages spammers?
The only reason it works is that they are too lazy to actualy use some
random VALID forged return-path.
Viruses, virus generated spam - both often hijack a guy's outlook and
pump email through it. With his VALID from in the return path.
Lots and lots of spammers register valid domains. Thousands of them.
And send out email with randomized addresses at that domain in the
from, all of which do exist (in that theres a smtpsink instance
running on that domains MX to accept and bitbucket all email)
IOW why isnt this technique (not pionered by verizon, afaik the
milter-sender was first I saw of it) short sighted and dangerous in the
long run?
It has interesting side effects when you combine it with graylisting
as Dave pointed out. And the sender verification stuff has other
consequences too - see this nanog thread with Randy getting ... upset
... with verizon.
http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0312/0009.html
And yes, put this together with sender-id/domainkeys/spf whathaveyou and
then its valuable. However thats not the world we live in now.
No. All you get is a Dibbler sausage. Lots of weird shit mixed
together and forced into a sausage skin (or into a 1U pizzabox
spamfilter appliance)
message 2 on that page is interesting: (and apropos to previous threads)
Oh Yes.
And I do know that uab.edu (U.Alabama at Birmingham) has had some smtp
redirection stuff that they've been doing for a while - or were doing
a few years ago, when I last discussed it with their postmaster, to
stop rootkitted *nix workstations and infected windows boxes spamming
out their network.
What they did struck me as quite interesting - still strikes me as
interesting from what I remember of it now 5 yrs later. If someone
from uab is reading this and can describe it to nanog that'd be great.
As for broadband ISPs I think charter has been putting a walled garden
in place even though they, unlike aol, dont control the user client
etc. Saw a preso about this at MAAWG in san diego last year.