I am running Mailwasher Pro 6.3 and have done for some years.

My golf course recently adopted new software which includes the ability to send emails to members advising competition results, course closure because of adverse weather etc. It goes without saying that the emails are only sent to members who have provided their email addresses. The emails are sent from the software company's server. Mailwasher tells me that the server is blacklisted by "*rbl SpamCop". I reported this to the software company who advised that they checked their IP address against the SpamCop blocking list and it comes up clean as follows - "87.106.144.131 not listed in bl.spamcop.net". I checked and got the same result. This is a BT IP address I think.

This is all very frustrating and I don't know where to go next. Presumably Mailwasher picks up the SpamCop information in real time, but even if there was a slight delay this has been going on for a couple of weeks. Is this the correct forum or should I try the Mailwasher forum? I've searched without success on both of them for similar queries. Any suggestions gratefully received.

Not only is that IP address not listed on the SCBL it is not listed on any other BL that I can see (an important point because sometimes SC is nominated as the 'cause' when it is actually some other BL). I don't think the server you checked goes with that IP address - or there is something wrong with the mailwasher lookup.

That server is lx5.abbottinternet.co.uk, owned by Schlund + Partner AG, according to robtex used by

abbottinternet.co.uk a 87.106.144.131
eclo.org a 87.106.144.131
fusionsrp.com a 87.106.144.131
lx5.abbottinternet.co.uk a 87.106.144.131
mail.abbottinternet.co.uk a 87.106.144.131
mail.eclo.org a 87.106.144.131
mail.jamester.net a 87.106.144.131
mail.mckinleyresource.com a 87.106.144.131
mail.thewarwickshire.net a 87.106.144.131
mail.universalvehiclesolutions.com a 87.106.144.131
mckinleyresource.com a 87.106.144.131
ns.eclo.org a 87.106.144.131
ns.fusionsrp.com a 87.106.144.131
thewarwickshire.net a 87.106.144.131
universalvehiclesolutions.com a 87.106.144.131

This blocking business all sounds like a mailwasher 'artifact' to me, maybe the MW forum can help you, as you suppose or maybe someone else 'here' is familiar with the beast.

Perhaps it's time to ditch Mailwasher pro then and get a SpamCop account at $30 p.a.?

Not only is that not listed, there is no history of it's having been listed recently

The IronPort 'reputation' for it is Good. I see you are from the UK so you will know what I mean when I say that Mailwasher seems to be 'talking out of its arse'

Having to note lack of details, lack of a specific IP Address for example, no Domain, etc.

How and when? What does the actual 'message' state? Again, looking to ensure that this Dicussion is actually about the correct data.

In these same general terms or did you give them something more specific?

Nothing here that offers the warm fuzzy feeling that the full facts are presented. This IP Address might be thei 'web-server' address ... nothing thus far presented or discussed actually states that the e-mail in question actually comes from that same IP Address, as Farelf has already suggested.

And this seems to be another possible clue that the 'problem' and the assumed situation may not be talking about the same data, specifically, the correct IP Address.

Please send me the exact wording of the entire error message you're getting, and I'll try to help. A screenshot will work if that's what you have to do.

Please send it to me directly at service[at]admin.spamcop.net

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -
.

Sounds like there might be some concurrence going on there ..???

Not like no one else has tried. However, working with bad or incomplete data serves to help no one in the long run short of serving as another bad example.

Also have to note the info: Last Active 20th February 2009 - 04:02 AM ..... Logged-in Registered Topic Starter has yet to make a follow-up visit to see any of the responses thus far, mich less provide any additional or corrected data. Worst case, it is the week-end, perhaps won't be seen for another couple of days ...????

YIKES!! You're right! I completely missed that when I read your post outlining the user's various failures in providing the necessary data!

- Don -
.

Although your response may have been sarcastic (I can't be sure), the OP did indeed leave out some rather important information. As others have pointed out, it's possible the IP given above isn't correct, and having the domain name might also be helpful.

DT