no longer able to forward spam to SpamCop, Verizon issue Options

[fcsdave]

For months I have been reporting spam to SpamCop by forwarding the spam e-mails from my Outlook Express account. But beginning yesterday, every time I try to forward a spam e-mail, I receive the error message:

An unknown error has occurred. Account: 'mail.xxxxxxxxxxxx.com', Server: 'outgoing.verizon.net', Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: '550 5.7.1 The message you attempted to send was determined to be spam. Please visit http://www.verizon.net/spamfaq for more information.', Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 550, Error Number: 0x800CCC69

Well of course the message is spam. That's why I'm sending it to SpamCop. I have contacted verizon.net, and after a long time trying to explain my problem to a technician, he was unable to resolve anything. Before yesterday, I had no problems whatsoever. Has anyone else encountered this? Thank you for your help.

[agsteele]

Well of course the message is spam. That's why I'm sending it to SpamCop. I have contacted verizon.net, and after a long time trying to explain my problem to a technician, he was unable to resolve anything. Before yesterday, I had no problems whatsoever. Has anyone else encountered this?

Not personally, but a number of ISPs have implemented outbound filtering in an attempt to stop spam being distributed via their systems. I cannot say if Verizon has done this recently but it is possible. Perhaps Verizon tech support can help you with that if you specifically ask 'Have you recently started filtering outbound Email if it appears to be spam?'

Andrew

[Wazoo]

For months I have been reporting spam to SpamCop by forwarding the spam e-mails from my Outlook Express account.

Outlook Express is an e-mail client .. your actual "account" is defined as something else entirely, i.e., your e-mail account with Verizon in this case.

But beginning yesterday, every time I try to forward a spam e-mail, I receive the error message:

An unknown error has occurred. Account: 'mail.xxxxxxxxxxxx.com', Server: 'outgoing.verizon.net', Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: '550 5.7.1 The message you attempted to send was determined to be spam. Please visit http://www.verizon.net/spamfaq for more information.', Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 550, Error Number: 0x800CCC69

For starters, the SpamCop FAQ as found here includes a section that looks like this;

E-mail Submittal Problems / Issues
E-Mail spam submittals blocked by your ISP? Updated!
Emailed spam Submissions Disappearing? No Confirmation e-mails?

Did you look at those entries?

Looking at the offered FAQ from your folks, one runs immediately into a page where one must select from the following options;

Verizon|Yahoo!®
Verizon|AOL®
Verizon|LiveTM
Verizon with MSN premium®
Verizon Online

But you didn't specify your type of connection. As stated on that age, when in doubt, use the last entry ...

OK, then had to 'allow' scripts to run to even think about getting to the next page ....

Although I don't see a date anywhere on that page, the message seems pretty clear ...

Verizon adds additional security and protection to subscriber accounts by taking measures both to prevent spam from being sent to our customers and to safeguard our network from being used by spammers. These measures include scanning all incoming and outgoing e-mail so that spam can be captured and contained before it reaches our customers or before it can be sent from our network. The FAQs you see below provide information related to our efforts to reduce spam and what to do if you receive a message that your outgoing mail contains spam.

Updated the SpamCop FAQ entry here based on the above data.

[MisterBill]

Added Verizon to the list based n the research/results seen at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10100

Yes, I am also getting this. I don't suppose that Verizon will be cooperative and open up a hole for those of us who want to continue to report spam and do something good.

[Farelf]

...I don't suppose that Verizon will be cooperative and open up a hole for those of us who want to continue to report spam and do something good.

I guess you have seen in http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5849 that Don had success with RoadRunner. Experience with my own provider might indicate that ordinary customers don't hold much sway in these matters - it's like talking to a wall. Yet if RR can do it maybe others should get on board. How would the case be put to them?

• UBE/UCE/spam leaking out of networks contributes to
  • much of the message traffic on the internet
  • pointless consumption of bandwidth
  • financial, physical and psychological health risks to the unwary and the gullible
  • pushing up the cost overheads of e-mail services
• In some cases it may also have negative legal and security implications
• SC reporting serves the unique function of providing early, reliable notification of such leakage
• Even if you block spam outgoing from your smarthost or authorized servers it can be injected direct to the internet from your netspace through
  - trojaned machines
  - AUP/TOS/CRA violators
  - internet connection hijacking
  • affecting your reputation
  • annoying the rest of the internet
  • You want to know about that as soon as it happens
• Submissions of spam to SpamCop clearly are not spam distributions
• Most of the spam reported to SC by your customers is, anyway, from sources external to your network, spamming your network
  • it is in your interests to assist SC in stemming this imposition
  • curtailing the moderation of the flood previously supported by SC reporters operating on your network is not in your interests
• At least one major provider (RoadRunner), which also generally filters outwards mail, provides a direct route for SC reporting
• Providers prepared to do likewise have a competitive advantage in the eyes of SC reporters

How does that sound? Just looking for the most effective case that any of us (or SC staff) might use in dealing with these e-mail service providers. I guess the technical detail/clues on just how such holes can be made through the filtering systems would help to sell the case. In some (maybe many) cases IronPort systems are used and it would be nice to think some assistance could be given.

This post has been edited by Farelf: Feb 22 2009, 10:16 AM

[Farelf]

...Yet if RR can do it maybe others should get on board. How would the case be put to them?...

Well, that was a great conversation stopper wasn't it? Or, as we say hereabouts (the refined should look away), it "died in the arse." Pity, I thought the development of it might have some merit ...

[AlphaCentauri]

Knujon has been having the same problem and is trying to negotiate with Verizon management. Given the fact that this ought to be a no-brainer, it's not encouraging that this wasn't resolved with a five minute phone call. I mean, Verizon had to let the spam in for their subscribers to have it in the first place. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Farelf]

Knujon has been having the same problem and is trying to negotiate with Verizon management. Given the fact that this ought to be a no-brainer, it's not encouraging that this wasn't resolved with a five minute phone call. I mean, Verizon had to let the spam in for their subscribers to have it in the first place. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Yeah, seems quite incongruous but maybe not, depending on just what tools are used in the filtering, whether there's a learning-adaptive component (so timing between receipt and forwarding can cause different results) and so-on. My own ISP uses IronPort-SenderBase and allows inwards filtering to be turned off in the user accounts. But never outwards. That's their reputation at risk. Not sure if there is such a thing as outwards whitelisting available to my ISP within the configuration but if there was it would be not available to the CSRs who understand very little about these aspects (or, maybe, are instructed to deflect discussion even if they do understand). The (claimed) 99.9% effectiveness of IronPort in spam elimination (regardless of volume) comes with more than one associated cost and the bypassing of 'the personal touch' and tools to suit would be one. The success Don had with RR involved discussion at the top level of that provider (don't know what systems they use). Not sure if any of this applies to Verizon but ... maybe.

[AlphaCentauri]

I can't help but think some of it is spam filtering services sniping at one another -- they see it as to their advantage that people using other services get more spam. So whichever service filters for Verizon doesn't want Ironport to get spam reports and won't whitelist emails sent to their address. A similar issue came up with phish takedown services being asked to cooperate rather than have the person reporting the phish have to track down the correct place to report phish spoofing each particular brand. Ironically, it was Cyveillance complaining, when they used to benefit from our volunteer reporting efforts submitting spam to spamcop.

It's too bad, since they could view it as an opportunity. Rather than refusing to whitelist outgoing mail addressed to other spam reporting services, they could use the fact that someone is reporting them as evidence to include those signatures in their own databases, especially given the fact that they were missed on the way in.

[Farelf]

...It's too bad, since they could view it as an opportunity. Rather than refusing to whitelist outgoing mail addressed to other spam reporting services, they could use the fact that someone is reporting them as evidence to include those signatures in their own databases, especially given the fact that they were missed on the way in.

Though not always a matter of missed signatures, as above, in the case of my ISP and sending to SC (ISP is evidently unaware/uncaring of the 'irony' in using IronPort to block to SpamCop - well, their main outgoing servers all include 'irony' in their name, like "outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out1.iinet.net.au" but that was the case even before they started using IronPort to block SC submissions). What REALLY gets me is that most/many e-mailed submissions are bulk, contain a number of spam as attachments, and 'look' very little like an actual spam. Which indicates a way to evade filtering, make the bulk of the e-mail look even less like spam, throw in a largish non-spam as the first attachment. What a waste of bandwidth, if only they would inform themselves instead.

[agsteele]

Knujon has been having the same problem and is trying to negotiate with Verizon management. Given the fact that this ought to be a no-brainer, it's not encouraging that this wasn't resolved with a five minute phone call. I mean, Verizon had to let the spam in for their subscribers to have it in the first place. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

But, of course, allowing spam 'in' may have little significant impact upon them as a company whereas letting the stuff back 'out' again could end up with their UPs listed in many block lists which would be a more significant issue.

I don't blame the companies giving outgoing spam a much higher priority (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Andrew