Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nim

WTF is laposte.net blocked ?

Recommended Posts

Please unblock laposte.net - they're legit, backed by the french public postal service, use smtp-auth to identify users, and don't even add any adverts in the signatures of the mail they send.

As far as I can tell they are the cleanest free mail provider in France (went into electronic message delivery because they were in the paper message delivery business and never quite figured how to cash on it - as close to a charity as you can get). Listing them is pretty bad for a -lot- of people.

(now they can have some of their conf badly set-up but they're the kind of org that will fix everything if asked politely - they can be reached at http://www.laposte.net/cgi-bin/ecrire/ecrire.pl and on the usual abuse mail accounts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some evidence to show that there is spam coming from both MXes, only one is currently listed. Reports for the listed IP go to: abuse[at]oleane.net

smtp2.laposte.net internet address = 80.245.62.11

Statistics:

80.245.62.11 not listed in bl.spamcop.net but has a couple of reports

Reporting addresses:

abuse[at]lambdanet.fr

postmaster[at]lambdanet.fr

smtp1.laposte.net internet address = 81.255.54.11

Statistics:

81.255.54.11 listed in bl.spamcop.net (127.0.0.2)

Reports include:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:40:29 AM -0500:

=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Notification_d'=E9tat_de_la_distribution?=

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Thursday, March 10, 2005 8:08:55 AM -0500:

RAPPORT GRATUIT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 8:54:26 PM -0500:

=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Notification_d'=E9tat_de_la_distribution?=

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 8:16:13 PM -0500:

=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Notification_d'=E9tat_de_la_distribution?=

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: http://mailsc.spamcop.net/w3m?action=blcheck&ip=81.255.54.11

Causes of listing

System has sent mail to SpamCop spam traps in the past week (spam traps are secret, no reports or evidence are provided by SpamCop)

SpamCop users have reported system as a source of spam less than 10 times in the past week

It appears this listing is caused by misdirected bounces. We have a FAQ which covers this topic: Why auto-responses are bad (Misdirected bounces). Please read this FAQ and heed the advice contained in it.

Reporting addresses:

abuse[at]oleane.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please unblock laposte.net -

25274[/snapback]

No! they'll be delisted automatically when they stop spewing spam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here. I never sent spam and as a standard user of laposte.net (which does not relay more or less spam than anyone else BTW), I find myself blocked.

This is very frustrating as laposte.net is one of the state-of-the-art mail providers in France, and -as a state organization- we are sure it's not going belly up one of these days (happy taxpayers we are... :) ).

It hosts over 4 million accounts...

As a webmaster, I am doing what I can to have the mail services of my web hosting services stop using spamcop, but doubt they'd just do that for a single user...

:angry: Incidentally, I am surprised such a service exists. Not only is it extremely easy to get rid of spam with e-mail rueles or external tools (from Mailwasher to PopPeeper, etc.), but also in my case this is close to be tampering with my private mail. This is a breach of freedom on the internet, and really shocking as such... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a webmaster, I am doing what I can to have the mail services of my web hosting services stop using spamcop, but doubt they'd just do that for a single user...

You are wrong in many ways, but I only have time to make one suggestion. If your hosting company is actually blocking, rejecting, or deleting mail based upon ANY BL listings, they are the ones who are wrong. They should offer to either:

A. only "tag" suspected spam, and then deliver it to you, allowing you to sort/filter the tagged mail, or

B. place suspected spam in a "held mail" or "junk mail" zone where you could then check for false positives.

That's what good mail service providers do...they give the end users the power to accept what they want to accept.

DT

Edited by DavidT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:angry: Incidentally, I am surprised such a service exists. Not only is it extremely easy to get rid of spam with e-mail rueles or external tools (from Mailwasher to PopPeeper, etc.), but also in my case this is close to be tampering with my private mail. This is a breach of freedom on the internet, and really shocking as such...  :ph34r:

25631[/snapback]

No one is tampering with your email! If you are blocked you are being blocked by the person you are sending your email to or their ISP or email administrator who has made the decision of what and how they want to block.

What are you talking about breach of freedom? The internet is not your personal playground! The internet is made up of millions of private networks that have the "freedom" to chose who they want to accept email from. Don't talk about your freedom on the internet untill you own the internet.

I find rules a pain to use and I have much better results blocking IP addresses that the spam originates from.

Everyone is tired of receiving mortgage quotes, penis enlargement, breast enhancement, weight loss, nude 40 year old teenage sluts, Viagra, vacation, lottery, prescription drug, business opportunities, genealogical, university degrees, gambling, get rich quick, MLM, pyramid schemes, Web Cams, Russian brides, work from home, stock scams, pirated software and everything else that is force fed into our inboxes.

We have the freedom to block what we want on our servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what good mail service providers do...they give the end users the power to accept what they want to accept.

DT

25633[/snapback]

That would suppose spamcop relays the mail...

No one is tampering with your email! If you are blocked you are being blocked by the person you are sending your email to or their ISP or email administrator who has made the decision of what and how they want to block.
Wrong ! My friends in the U.S. would love to get my e-mail, but their ISP had the wrong reflex : spamcop !

What are you talking about breach of freedom? The internet is not your personal playground! The internet is made up of millions of private networks that have the "freedom" to chose who they want to accept email from. Don't talk about your freedom on the internet untill you own the internet.
* I do not plan to own the Internet (not this year at least, I am a bit busy :) )

* Some private networks would LOVE to have the freedom to chose to accept my mail... it is a breach of THEIR freedom to accept my mail !

I find rules a pain to use and I have much better results blocking IP addresses that the spam originates from.
This means "who cares about collateral damage". I do not agree with that.

Everyone is tired of receiving mortgage quotes, penis enlargement, breast enhancement, weight loss, nude 40 year old teenage sluts, Viagra, vacation, lottery, prescription drug, business opportunities, genealogical, university degrees, gambling, get rich quick, MLM, pyramid schemes, Web Cams, Russian brides, work from home, stock scams, pirated software and everything else that is force fed into our inboxes.
That's why many mail software (including white or black listings) are made for. Not a single one reaches my mailbox.

We have the freedom to block what we want on our servers.
Sure. Not on everyone's.

Anyway, I am obviously talking to the buyers'guild. Sure you can't approve my feeling as you are buying a service that fills the lack of knowledge of mail software.

I just hope your outgoing legit mail gets blocked by spamcop or similar -they probably have competition-, you'll see what it does... and I'll get a big laugh !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It hosts over 4 million accounts...

And with such numbers, it would seem hard to imagaine the spew involved to exceed the mathematical threshold needed to make in into the SpamDNSBL ...

Incidentally, I am surprised such a service exists. Not only is it extremely easy to get rid of spam with e-mail rueles or external tools (from Mailwasher to PopPeeper, etc.),

That's actually a pretty funny commentary ... if it was so easy to handle with e-mail rules and such, there wouldn't be the need for all the various third-party tools that are advertised to "make it easy" <g> .... and funnier still is that a lot of these thrid-party add-on tools also offer/use the SpamCopDNSBL for their operation.

but also in my case this is close to be tampering with my private mail. This is a breach of freedom on the internet, and really shocking as such...

"Freedon on the internet" ... absurd ... especially when dealing with e-mail, which is not a guaranteed item to begin with .. and based on your suggested use of filters and third-party tools, why would you have a problem with "me" blocking anything coming from youe ISP (yet another side of your "freedom on the internet)

Anyway, I am obviously talking to the buyers'guild. Sure you can't approve my feeling as you are buying a service that fills the lack of knowledge of mail software.

I have never had the extra manoy to "buy" anything, so have always been nothing more than a "free report account" holder. I receive no paycheck from the folks that run the SpamCop system. My time here is voluntary. Sorry, you lose again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would suppose spamcop relays the mail...

No, you are incorrect. The blocking is ENTIRELY controlled by the ISP at the receiving end. If they are using SpamCop's BL listings to fully block mail, then they are going too far. You must not have understood my point, which is that all of the receiving ISP's shouldn't block, but should instead "tag" messages, and/or place them in a temporary holding area for the users to inspect.

SpamCop does not block email. SpamCop publishes a BL that lists IP addresses that are causing problems.

The other functions of SpamCop are:

1. sending reports of abuse to the responsible ISP's

and

2. providing email accounts to those of us who choose to pay for them.

Please review the FAQ's, because I don't think you fully understand what you're talking about.

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And with such numbers, it would seem hard to imagaine the spew involved to exceed the mathematical threshold needed to make in into the SpamDNSBL ...
:?

That's actually a pretty funny commentary ... if it was so easy to handle with e-mail rules and such, there wouldn't be the need for all the various third-party tools that are advertised to "make it easy" <g> .... and funnier still is that a lot of these thrid-party add-on tools also offer/use the SpamCopDNSBL for their operation.
That's right, there is no need for self-appointed cops, and regarding Mailwasher, spamcop is an option you do not have to subscribe. You lose...

"Freedon on the internet" ... absurd ... especially when dealing with e-mail, which is not a guaranteed item to begin with .. and based on your suggested use of filters and third-party tools, why would you have a problem with "me" blocking anything coming from youe ISP (yet another side of your "freedom on the internet)
Freedom in my speech would be : let my friends or my business associates get my mail, let me get their mail. YOU can block me, no problem. I resent the idea that spamcop does and decides wether my friends can get my mail or not...

Sorry you feel freedom is absurd. But it's probably the general feeling of the guests here...

I have never had the extra manoy to "buy" anything, so have always been nothing more than a "free report account" holder.  I receive no paycheck from the folks that run the SpamCop system.  My time here is voluntary.  Sorry, you lose again.
Irrelevant...

To make a long story short : let's block 4 million subscribers, there might be a couple of people who sent spam. Interesting, very dictatorial way of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please review the FAQ's, because I don't think you fully understand what you're talking about.
I'll do that and come back...

Edit :

I do not see anything more of interest in the FAQ.

In other words, the general feeling after reading the answers is :

a) who cares, YOU are blocked, we aren't...

B) keep looking for ISPs not getting their mail through spamcop-like BLs, because nobody is going to help...

c) start petitioning...

Edited by Quartzkyte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a) who cares, YOU are blocked, we aren't...

No, you misunderstand us....your English is very good, but there must be a language barrier (my French is horrible).

I'm NOT saying that "you are blocked, but I'm not, and that's OK." What I'm saying is even though such a large email provider's servers are listed on the SC DNSBL, that doesn't mean that the messages must be blocked by anyone, anywhere. It means that the receiving ISP's have made the bad choice of rejecting mail based on the BL listing, rather than the good choice of simply using the BL to filter/tag mail as it comes through their servers.

B) keep looking for ISPs not getting their mail through spamcop-like BLs, because nobody is going to help...

No, not necessarily. We could help you get enough information to help even your current ISP understand that what they are doing is a bad idea, so cooperate with us by exchanging information with us specific to your situation and we will try to help you.

From your messages, it does not appear that you truly understand the function of blacklist/blocklist listings and what the ISP's are doing with them. You seem to think that SpamCop is somehow doing some blocking....mais, ce n'est pas vrais !

DT

Edited by DavidT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As any resemblance to a "request for help" has left this Topic/Discussion .. I'm moving it to the Lounge also ...

And as the "rant" bit has actually been taken up in the more recent Topic at http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3828 this 'discussion' will be closed as there isn't much sense in having the 'same' discussion going on in two different Topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to the following PM request (and the fact that Godwin closed the other topic), this topic has been re-opened.

Well, since someone managed to get my thread blocked while I was away : the "evidence" you cite is just a bunch of delivery reports (in French since this is a french org) :

Submitted: Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:40:29 AM -0500:

=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Notification_d'=E9tat_de_la_distribution?=

Since laposte.net provides free lifetime mail accounts lots of people open accounts then drop then till the disk quota is filled with spam (the disk quota is pretty low at 10MB).

Any spam engine that walks these adresses will generate delivery reports that basically say the mail could not be delivered because the box is full, please try again later.

Clearly a spamer has been targetting laposte.net using false sender adresses, so lots of people have been getting these reports. I don't believe had they been written in english they could have been used to justify blacklisting.

Those types of messages are EXACTLY what led to the blocking and is what is pointed to on the reporting page:

Postmasters, please limit forgery blow-back:

Delayed bounces, virus notices, vacation messages and other forms of auto-response are frequently misdirected and can cause the sending systems to be blocked.

Accepting a message and then sending a bounce (effectively a new message to a very often forger return address) is becoming a less than acceptable way to indicate a problem with delivery of a message. Rejecting the message during the SMTP transaction has become the accepted way to produce the same result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a common misconception that blocking spam during the SMTP session is incompatible with giving end-users control over filtering policy.

If your hosting company is actually blocking, rejecting, or deleting mail based upon ANY BL listings, they are the ones who are wrong. They should offer to either:

A. only "tag" suspected spam, and then deliver it to you, allowing you to sort/filter the tagged mail, or

B. place suspected spam in a "held mail" or "junk mail" zone where you could then check for false positives.

25633[/snapback]

There is also:

C. Provide fine-grained end-user control over what rules are used to reject spam at SMTP.

see http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html#relay and http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html for how you can do this in one commonly used MTA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Accepting a message and then sending a bounce (effectively a new message to a very often forger return address) is becoming a less than acceptable way to indicate a problem with delivery of a message.  Rejecting the message during the SMTP transaction has become the accepted way to produce the same result.

26119[/snapback]

Well this might be so but surely MXs that have a suboptimal conf like this should not be punished as harshly as ISPs that knowingly harbour spammers.

Could not this have been dealt with in a less confrontational way ? abuse[at]laposte.net has always been responsive when I used it and with the number of mail accounts they have to handle they could not change their conf in 5 min even after aknowledging there is a problem.

(and BTW they might have been guilty of a less than optimal conf but if we start having a manichean all-or-nothing view spamcop would also be damned for failing to make clear to all its users the BL should only used in a scoring setup not as a sufficient reason to reject messages lacking any other evidence)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spamcop would also be damned for failing to make clear to all its users the BL should only used in a scoring setup not as a sufficient reason to reject messages lacking any other evidence

We get that here constantly even though the warning has been on the "how to use the bl" page probably since the beginning.

Well this might be so but surely MXs that have a suboptimal conf like this should not be punished as harshly as ISPs that knowingly harbour spammers.

They are spamming. They are sending messages to many addresses that never requested them (or initiated them, if you prefer). It is UBE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We get that here constantly even though the warning has been on the "how to use the bl" page probably since the beginning.

That's true and that is the way that spamcop email uses it. However, most of the language after the warning certainly sounds as though it should be used as a 'blocklist' rather than a 'blacklist' IIRC.

IMHO, there is little point to telling people how the ISP who is blocking /should/ use spamcop. Whether a major ISP or not, or maybe even especially a major ISP, their customers need to know that that they are getting unreliable service because their ISP is not on top of the spam situation. And the way they learn that is for their recipients to tell them that their ISP is spamming - whether it is not shutting down open proxies and compromised machines (at one time all the porn spam I got was thru Comcast and the only Comcast correspondents were extremely straitlaced - yet they supported the dissemination of porn by not either complaining strongly to Comcast or leaving) or now backscatter as well as selling services to spammers.

To explain to people that spamcop does not actually block anything, but it is the ISP who is using the scbl, is to the point. But the next remark should be to tell them to raise a ruckus with their ISP and give them the information to sound credible. Whitelisting and using the scbl to tag email as advice for them to give to the recipient is only as a last resort since neither activity has any impact on preventing spam from being sent and is only a version of JHD.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<snip>

Could not this have been dealt with in a less confrontational way ? abuse[at]laposte.net has always been responsive when I used it and with the number of mail accounts they have to handle they could not change their conf in 5 min even after aknowledging there is a problem.

<snip>

26124[/snapback]

...There's nothing confrontational about it, IMHO. SpamCop reporters report spam and e-mail notices are sent to the registered abuse address responsible for the IP adddress identified as the spam source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We get that here constantly even though the warning has been on the "how to use the bl" page probably since the beginning.

Sorry but that's not an excuse.

If you insist on a black-and-white view for others you can not ask forgiveness for yourself.

People are using spamcop to block IPs. Therefore the warning is ineffective/badly written. Therefore you will be blamed just as it never was here.

If you won't give others the benefit of intent (not result) you can not claim it for yourself.

They are spamming.  They are sending messages to many addresses that never requested them (or initiated them, if you prefer).  It is UBE.

26126[/snapback]

In UBE B=Bulk. A delivery report to a _single_ (even if not identified as spooffed by the MTA) address is not bulk e-mailing. You could have tried with UCE instead but similarly C stands for commercial which is not the nature of the report either.

Now you can argue the end result is more or less the same (though most people would tell you a badly routed delivery report is much less agressive than real UCE). But again if you want to take this route you can not claim the protection of your warning, since it fails to stop people misusing spamcop.

This is what is commonly called applying double standards.

Edited by Wazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait until you get a flood of bounces or virus scanner notifications because some spammer, worm, or virus decided to pretend to be you. Then you will see the evil that such bounces and notifications have become. Or, you can just take my word for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait until you get a flood of bounces or virus scanner notifications because some spammer, worm, or virus decided to pretend to be you.  Then you will see the evil that such bounces and notifications have become.  Or, you can just take my word for it.

Sure they are bad. Do you think blanket blocking innocent bystanders for days on a row is nice either ? The world is not a nice place - if everyone nuked his neighbour at the first hint of a problem there would not be a lot of humans still alive.

You have to show some restraint and lumping bounces with real UCE is not a balanced attitude (building a separate bounce list would at least allow the scoring spamcop advocates)

Or if the only acceptable tool is the sledgehammer just host a list of the bastards that pervert spamcop objectives by using it as a blacklist. I'm sure a _lot_ of people would be just as happy to /dev/null them. That would show spamcop is serious about its warning, and not using it only as a cheap excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have as much right to get upset as we do to protect our inboxes from unuanted bounces and the like. You can take the reported bounce and deal with it or continue to be blacklisted. Unfortunately it is the spammers who have compromized the normal flow of things. Sledgehammer or not this is the only tool at our disposal. If you are serious about taking some positive action direct your energy at the spammers who sent the original e-mail bounced by your server.

Edited by dra007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have as much right to get upset as we do to protect our inboxes from unuanted bounces and the like. You can take the reported bounce and deal with it or continue to be blacklisted. Unfortunately it is the spammers who have compromized the normal flow of things. Sledgehammer or not this is the only tool at our disposal. If you are serious about taking some positive action direct your energy at the spammers who sent the original e-mail bounced by your server.

1. The MX setup has been fixed like all other reported problems always were - as I wrote they are a serious clean org

2. The only reason it was listed is someone managed to spoof the "full inbox" responder

3. Due to the setup size it took several days to fix

4. During this time a lot of people that were neither spammers nor spammer supporters had their mail blocked by people too lazy to setup their mail filters properly (at the time spamcop was the only org listing this MX, and obviously legitimate mails didn't match other mail filters all of a sudden)

Now it would not be that hard for spamcop to collect reports on servers that use spamcop as a blacklist, to verify those reports by sending messages from canary IPs spamcop can add to its list for that purpose, and publish the result. This would allow spamcop to dissociate itself from those people, and give some teeth to the spamcop use warning.

Not doing it means spamcop is condoning the actions of blacklisters, and deserves a fair share of the angst they raise.

Demonstrators who do not want to be lumped with rioters and shoplifters do their own police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demonstrators who do not want to be lumped with rioters and shoplifters do their own police.

People who leave their keys in their cars and then get their cars stolen are still victims, though the police and other people might have other names for them.

People who go skiing during avalanch weather now have to pay for their rescues.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×