Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
crazy_vag

Cornell's alumni forwarding blacklisted

Recommended Posts

As Cornell alumni, I am able to keep my Alma Mater's ([at]cornell.edu) email address. After graduation however, you need to forward the address to another ISP, and so I chose to forward it my ISP ([at]paxio.net). Last week, I started hearing reports of email bouncing because cornell's server was blacklisted. I contacted Cornell, and got the following reply:

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

SpamCop recently decided that it was going to start listing the IP address of mail servers that relay mail on its list of IPs that are potentially sending spam. CU On the Net, our mail forwarding service, is a mail relay service. We are not going to stop relaying mail, because that would mean alumni would not have the mail forwarding service available to them.

SpamCop is refusing to stop listing us for relaying mail. This means that any ISP that uses SpamCop to check for potential spam is most likely going to end up blocking a person's CU On the Net forwarded mail.

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

What the heck? Why is SpamCop allowed to effectively nuke my email address. The whole point of forwarding is so I can switch ISP's and still keep the same email address, but SpamCop feels that everyone should either switch email addresses when they move or move to a web-mail based system.

Are any other forwarding services blacklisted, or is Cornell's the only one?

-martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your rant shows total disregard to the FAQ's which were designed especially for the benefit of people like you. Spamcop only analyses source of e-mail IP for what reporting users define as spam, unwanted junk mail. Nothing to do with relays, whether in the sports arena or internet domain... However, if you want to go deeper into the reasons for listing you'd have to post the error message in question.. (which would include the IP spewing spam from the Cornell e-mail server)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please see Want to post about your email being blocked?.  Thanks!

37791[/snapback]

I looked at it, in the past 7 days, I've seen my ISP's IP blacklisted, and then two different cornell IP's blacklisted. This is getting out of control, as I don't believe that I'm a unlucky user where every email system I use gets blacklisted.

What really gets me is this prevents me for RECEIVING email. I can totally understand blacklisting SMTP servers, but what is the point in blocking the receiving path?

Suppose, a friend sends me an email from his gmail account. Once spamcop certifies that gmail is a legit service, where's the benefit in bouncing the email at cornell.edu or paxio.net? Certainly blocking pop3 servers, hasn't decreased the number of spams I receive.

By request, below are all various forms of bounced email that I've had trouble with in the past month.

1) ----------------------------

-----Original Message-----

From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [mailto:MAILER-DAEMON[at]cornell.edu]

Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:06 PM

To: jeremy.friedmaatgmail.com

Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details

The original message was received at Tue, 8 Nov 2005 23:06:11 -0500 (EST) from daemon[at]localhost

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- mwasiaatpaxio.net

(reason: 550 Rejected message because 132.236.56.31 is in a black list at bl.spamcop.net)

----- Transcript of session follows ----- .. while talking to mail.paxio.net.:

DATA

550 Rejected message because 132.236.56.31 is in a black list at bl.spamcop.net 550 5.1.1 mwasiaatpaxio.net... User unknown

503 valid RCPT command must precede DATA

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

2) --------------------

Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON[at]cornell.edu> wrote:

Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:37:42 -0500 (EST)

From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON[at]cornell.edu>

To: mgabrieatalumni.cmu.edu

Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details

The original message was received at Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:37:41 -0500 (EST)

from daemon[at]localhost

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

mwasiak[at]paxio.net

(reason: 550 Rejected message because 132.236.56.28 is in a black list at bl.spamcop.net)

----- Transcript of session follows -----

... while talking to mail.paxio.net.:

>>> DATA

<<< 550 Rejected message because 132.236.56.28 is in a black list at bl.spamcop.net

550 5.1.1 mwasiaatpaxio.net... User unknown

<<<! ; 503 valid RCPT command must precede DATA

Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:37:37 -0800 (PST)

From: Melanie <mgabrieatlumni.cmu.edu>

Subject: Fwd: Re: Another Holiday Thing...

To: Martin <mjw1atcornell.edu>

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

3)-----------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Andrew [mailto:andrew.baroatgmail.com]

> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 4:33 PM

> To: Martin

> Subject: Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details

>

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------

> From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON[at]cornell.edu>

> Date: Dec 12, 2005 4:00 PM

> Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details

> To: andrew.baroatgmail.com

>

>

> The original message was received at Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:55:01 -0500

> (EST)

> from daemon[at]localhost

>

> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

> masiakatpaxio.net

> (reason: 550-Rejected message because 128.253.83.143 is in a black

> list at)

>

> ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to

> mail.paxio.net.:

>>>> DATA

> <<< 550-Rejected message because 128.253.83.143 is in a black list at

> <<< 550 bl.spamcop.net 550

> 5.1.1 masiakatpaxio.net... User unknown <<< 503 valid RCPT command

> must precede DATA

>

>

> Final-Recipient: RFC822; masiakatpaxio.net

> Action: failed

> Status: 5.1.1

> Remote-MTA: DNS; mail.paxio.net

> Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550-Rejected message because 128.253.83.143 is

> in a black list at

> Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:00:20 -0500 (EST)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that data.

At present:

"132.236.56.31 not listed in bl.spamcop.net"; however, it does have the following Report History:

Submitted: Saturday 2005/12/10 06:14:47 -0500:

Returned mail: see transcript for details

1581325300 ( 132.236.56.31 ) To: abuse[at]cornell.edu

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

Submitted: Monday 2005/09/19 20:23:48 -0400:

Problems delivering your mail

1511600027 ( 132.236.56.31 ) To: abuse[at]cornell.edu

"132.236.56.28 not listed in bl.spamcop.net"; however, it does have the following Report History:
Submitted: Sunday 2005/11/20 19:29:40 -0500:

Problems delivering your mail

1561252502 ( 132.236.56.28 ) To: abuse[at]cornell.edu

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

Submitted: Monday 2005/10/17 04:22:30 -0400:

Problems delivering your mail

1532243788 ( 132.236.56.28 ) To: mole[at]devnull.spamcop.net

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

Submitted: Saturday 2005/10/01 20:44:31 -0400:

Problems delivering your mail

1519644388 ( http:// plagecut.com/buildingsbuiltforspeed/brea... ) To: mole[at]devnull.spamcop.net

1519644386 ( 132.236.56.28 ) To: mole[at]devnull.spamcop.net

Also:
128.253.83.143 listed in bl.spamcop.net (127.0.0.2)

If there are no reports of ongoing objectionable email from this system it will be delisted automatically in a short time. [it is in the process of delisting]

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. ...

Listing History

In the past 285.9 days, it has been listed 36 times for a total of 34.7 days

Report History:
Submitted: Monday 2005/12/12 06:08:07 -0500:

Problems delivering your mail

1583511599 ( http:// uqwroh.eggscity.info/?wmfavqxwsuqybegvlc... ) To: abuse[at]cq.chinamobile.com

1583511579 ( 128.253.83.143 ) To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com

1583511565 ( 128.253.83.143 ) To: abuse[at]cornell.edu

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

Submitted: Wednesday 2005/11/02 10:36:21 -0500:

Problems delivering your mail

1545815134 ( 128.253.83.143 ) To: abuse[at]cornell.edu

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

Submitted: Thursday 2005/10/20 23:44:26 -0400:

Returned mail: see transcript for details

1535627197 ( 128.253.83.143 ) To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com

1535627181 ( 128.253.83.143 ) To: abuse[at]cornell.edu

Can you please provide the headers of one of the messages that bounced or made it through, so that we can see what Cornell's servers are putting in their Received Header Lines? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for that data.

At present:

"132.236.56.31 not listed in bl.spamcop.net"; however, it does have the following Report History:"132.236.56.28 not listed in bl.spamcop.net"; however, it does have the following Report History:Also:Report History:

Can you please provide the headers of one of the messages that bounced or made it through, so that we can see what Cornell's servers are putting in their Received Header Lines?  Thanks!

37795[/snapback]

Here goes:

Return-path: <[at]Alum.Dartmouth.ORG>

Envelope-to: [at]paxio.net

Received: from atmail by ns2.paxio.net with spam-scanned (Exim 4.51)

id 1EmEq6-0007LD-LY

for [at]paxio.net; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:25:26 -0800

Received: from filter02.mail.cornell.edu ([132.236.56.28])

by ns2.paxio.net with esmtp (Exim 4.51)

id 1EmEq6-0007LA-AO

for [at]paxio.net; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:25:26 -0800

Received: (from daemon[at]localhost)

by filter02.mail.cornell.edu (8.12.10/8.12.6) id jBDIPMHa015101

for [at]paxio.net; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:25:22 -0500 (EST)

Received: from whoville.dartmouth.org (whoville.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.123])

by filter02.mail.cornell.edu (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBDIOhqp013852

for <[at]cornell.edu>; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:25:18 -0500 (EST)

Received: from newdoc.Dartmouth.ORG (newdoc.dartmouth.org [129.170.16.86])

by whoville.dartmouth.org (8.12.10+DND/8.12.10) with ESMTP id jBD7m85o005897

for <[at]cornell.edu>; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:24:38 -0500

Message-id: <[at]newdoc.Dartmouth.ORG>

Date: 13 Dec 2005 13:24:37 EST

X-PH: V4.1[at]filter02

From: [at]Alum.Dartmouth.ORG (Mindy)

Subject: Re: FW: FW: Returned mail: see transcript for details

To: [at]cornell.edu ("Martin")

X-Mailer: BlitzMail/blitzserv 3.14a4

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

X-MailScanner: Found to be clean by whoville.Dartmouth.ORG

X-MailScanner-From: [at]alum.dartmouth.org

X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.1.0.0, Antispam-Data: 2005.12.13.19

X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on ns2.paxio.net

X-spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=3.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS

autolearn=ham version=3.0.4

X-spam-Level:

Does that help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, spamcop doesn't block anything, all they do is publish a list of known spam sources by IP address, for ISPs, businesses, and individuals to do with as they please. It is the receiving ISPs that choose to block the emails.

Now, on to your 3 rejected messages. None of the sending IP addresses are currently listed in the SCBL, so either the listings have already expired (they usually do so after 24 hours if no more spam is reported from that IP), or the receiving IP has misconfigured their error messages.

However, 2 of the IP addresses have had spam sightings in the past, although they were fairly old so I'm guessing that is probably not part of your current problem.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=132.236....group%3A*abuse*

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=132.236....group%3A*abuse*

It looks like abuse reports for all of these addresses go to abuse[at]cornell.edu, so you should contact the person or group responsible for that address to find out what kind of reports they have received from spamcop if any. If no reports have been received, then it is most likely they addresses were listed due to sending email to spamtraps. This is usually caused by improperly bouncing email to the "FROM:" address specified, rather than rejecting it during the SMTP session using a 500 series error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does that help?

37796[/snapback]

Yes, that does help, thanks! It confirms (via http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z840895969zfe...4b7c9b8f4439dfz) that SpamCop's Parser is successfully able to parse email that comes through what appears to be Sendmail v8.12.10 on filter02.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.28]. However, based on the Report Histories I posted above, it appears that Cornell's email system is configured to accept and then send misdirected bounces rather than rejecting with 500-series errors during the SMTP transaction. Such misdirected bounces are now considered abusive and reportable by SpamCop per the "Messages which may be reported" section of On what type of email should I (not) use SpamCop? and the Misdirected bounces section of Why are auto-responders (and delayed bounces) bad?. Please ask Cornell's email server administrators to stop doing this, and also ask Quinlar's paxio.net mail server administrators to whitelist your email coming from Cornell's email servers. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, spamcop doesn't block anything, all they do is publish a list of known spam sources by IP address, for ISPs, businesses, and individuals to do with as they please. It is the receiving ISPs that choose to block the emails.

37797[/snapback]

Spamcop doesn't block email directly, but with so many ISP's relying on their list, they can easily kill anyone's email by putting it in their list. And this rally gets to the root of the problem. Why are they blocking my POP3 server? For example, say a gmail user sends me and email. The email goes goes like this:

gmail.com -> cornell.edu -> paxio.net

Once gmail.com is certified as a valid SMTP server, why would anyone care if the POP3 server at paxio.net is blacklisted or not??? Spamcop's system seems really effective at blocking recepients of email, but I just don't see how that's beneficial?

Another question: Based on the example above, who generated the error message? Was it gmail saying "cornell.edu is blacklisted, i'm not sending anything there" or was it paxio saying "cornell.edu is blacklisted, i'm not accepting anything from there'?

-martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

paxio is saying cornell.edu is blacklisted, I'm not accepting anything from there because that server sends to much spam, which is certainly their right.

As stated above, I would request that paxio.net whitelist the cornell.edu server until they can sort out their misdirected bounce problem.

The problem that you are having, is that spamcop is automated. It is simply not feasible to verify every single claim that a server is legit, and manually whitelist them, nor is it desirable for a number of reasons. Even legit mail servers can become compromised or be abused.

If enough people complain about mail coming from cornell.edu, or if email coming from cornell.edu hits one of spamcops spam traps, then it is listed for a period of time. If the problem was temporary, and the spam stops, it is automatically delisted with no intervention from anyone after a set period of time (usually 24 hours).

The problem is, if no one at cornell.edu acts on these problems to prevent it from happening in the future, you can almost be guaranteed that it will happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paxio is saying cornell.edu is blacklisted, I'm not accepting anything from there because that server sends to much spam, which is certainly their right.

As stated above, I would request that paxio.net whitelist the cornell.edu server until they can sort out their misdirected bounce problem.

The problem that you are having, is that spamcop is automated. It is simply not feasible to verify every single claim that a server is legit, and manually whitelist them, nor is it desirable for a number of reasons. Even legit mail servers can become compromised or be abused.

If enough people complain about mail coming from cornell.edu, or if email coming from cornell.edu hits one of spamcops spam traps, then it is listed for a period of time. If the problem was temporary, and the spam stops, it is automatically delisted with no intervention from anyone after a set period of time (usually 24 hours).

The problem is, if no one at cornell.edu acts on these problems to prevent it from happening in the future, you can almost be guaranteed that it will happen again.

37800[/snapback]

I got a better solution. I convinced my ISP to drop spamcop. WOOOHOO!! Cornell was held hostage at the mercy of these bastards, and isp came to realize that what's the point of spending money on this service that blocks all email and is useless to customers.

Perhaps in the future spamcop will wisen up.

FYI: Here's last explanation from Cornell:

The way mail relaying works, on any server, is that ALL messages sent to an

email address are redirected to a different email address. In your case,

anything that comes in for [at]cornell.edu is sent to

[at]paxio.net. The only filters we have in place for spam are for

messages that are actually delivered to accounts on our mail servers -

anyone who receives their mail at their [at]cornell.edu account.

There are many universities who are having trouble with SpamCop blocking

their forwarded alumni mail as well. Since SpamCop refuses to do anything

about this new practice for any of the universities that forward mail to

their alumni, a solution we have found to this problem is to stop paying

SpamCop for their services because they are preventing alumni from

receiving their messages. If all alumni who encounter problems receiving

mail because of SpamCop encourage their ISPs to do the same, SpamCop may

stop this new practice if they lose enough money because of it.

As far as which servers to have paxio whitelist, you should start with the

ones that you have already received bounce messages from, since different

servers get blocked at different times by SpamCop. You could start with

128.253.83.143 (the one you forwarded us), 132.236.56.56, 132.236.56.28,

132.236.56.31 I believe are the most commonly used ones. If you receive

more bounce messages, you could forward those IP addresses to paxio.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to let us

know. Thank you, and have a pleasant day!

CIT Contact Center

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got a better solution.  I convinced my ISP to drop spamcop. WOOOHOO!!  Cornell was held hostage at the mercy of these bastards, and isp came to realize that what's the point of spending money on this service that blocks all email and is useless to customers.

FYI:  Here's last explanation from Cornell:

The way mail relaying works, on any server, is that ALL messages sent to an

email address are redirected to a different email address.  In your case,

anything that comes in for [at]cornell.edu is sent to

[at]paxio.net.  The only filters we have in place for spam are for

messages that are actually delivered to accounts on our mail servers -

anyone who receives their mail at their [at]cornell.edu account.

There are many universities who are having trouble with SpamCop blocking

their forwarded alumni mail as well.  Since SpamCop refuses to do anything

about this new practice for any of the universities that forward mail to

their alumni, a solution we have found to this problem is to stop paying

SpamCop for their services because they are preventing alumni from

receiving their messages.  If all alumni who encounter problems receiving

mail because of SpamCop encourage their ISPs to do the same, SpamCop may

stop this new practice if they lose enough money because of it.

38252[/snapback]

Simply so much cluelessness expounded in this tale of woe. And to note that some of the players are based in the landscape of a "higher education" arena. Yet another of those bad examples that even if one has the degree framed and hanging on the wall, one may still not have a clue of what one might be talking about. Too bad, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got a better solution. I convinced my ISP to drop spamcop. WOOOHOO!! Cornell was held hostage at the mercy of these bastards, and isp came to realize that what's the point of spending money on this service that blocks all email and is useless to customers.

Perhaps in the future spamcop will wisen up.

And now I suppose you will start complaining about the spam that you receive. As Wazoo said it is really sad that supposedly intelligent people cannot understand the basic concepts of the internet and email.

In another topic someone said it's all about greed - and for end users who don't understand that it is the *sending* end that has to be responsible, it is also selfcenteredness.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now I suppose you will start complaining about the spam that you receive.  As Wazoo said it is really sad that supposedly intelligent people cannot understand the basic concepts of the internet and email.

In another topic someone said it's all about greed - and for end users who don't understand that it is the *sending* end that has to be responsible, it is also selfcenteredness.

38269[/snapback]

I'm sorry, but I don't see why I should have to put up with months of email blackouts. How would you feel if over the next 30 days, we'll randomly pick 20 days where all email to you gets bounced back to the sender. Perhaps your opinion of spamcop would change as well.

And you know what's sad about this? The whole time i'm blacked out, all I got was spam that got sent directly to the paxio account.

Either way, yea spam sucks, but my outlook filters it out well enough to catch it. Spamcop should be transparent to the end users, and if it's not, there's no point in supporting a crappy product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but I don't see why I should have to put up with months of email blackouts.  How would you feel if over the next 30 days, we'll randomly pick 20 days where all email to you gets bounced back to the sender.  Perhaps your opinion of spamcop would change as well.

38360[/snapback]

I would learn that it is being listed because it is sending spam (unrequested messages) to people and complain to the help desk to fix it or take business elsewhere. In fact, I HAVE done that.

It is not spamcop's fault that your sending IP is listed. It is the administrators fault for allowing it to be listed that much. (I am also on the administration side of things at work).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If spam is to be controlled, it will be the *sending * end that takes responsibility.

You are complaining to the wrong people if you are truly interested in stopping spam.

Filters after the fact of receiving do nothing to stop spam. They only make the recipient do work that they shouldn't have to do. It is the *sending* end that should make sure that their emails are receivable.

Sorry that you are having problems. It is too bad that you don't understand why responsible internet users like blocklists that give a sender a headers up that there is something wrong. I don't expect the spam problem will get any better for you- either on the receiving or the sending end.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but I don't see why I should have to put up with months of email blackouts.  How would you feel if over the next 30 days, we'll randomly pick 20 days where all email to you gets bounced back to the sender.  Perhaps your opinion of spamcop would change as well. 

38360[/snapback]

I would feel like I messed up the configuration on my mailserver and I would fix it. But if I was an end user and didn't have control over the mail server, I would take the time to understand what the SCBL is, and how it works. I would then realize that it is not spamcop I need to gripe to, but the server sending the spam. If a server is insecure and abusable, it WILL eventually get listed.

The nice thing about the SCBL is that if you fix the problem, the listing goes away automatically after a day or so. If you don't fix the problem though, you end up on a lot tougher BLs that are MUCH harder to get off of. The SCBL is a GREAT early warning system in that respect, and I will continue to use it. I have on occassion had legitimate customers blacklisted (usually because they can't understand the reason to not send NDRs), but this has happened so seldom that it is really not a big deal to whitelist those servers once I am reasonably confident that they are not sending real spam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would feel like I messed up the configuration on my mailserver and I would fix it. But if I was an end user and didn't have control over the mail server, I would take the time to understand what the SCBL is, and how it works. I would then realize that it is not spamcop I need to gripe to, but the server sending the spam. If a server is insecure and abusable, it WILL eventually get listed.

The nice thing about the SCBL is that if you fix the problem, the listing goes away automatically after a day or so. If you don't fix the problem though, you end up on a lot tougher BLs that are MUCH harder to get off of. The SCBL is a GREAT early warning system in that respect, and I will continue to use it. I have on occassion had legitimate customers blacklisted (usually because they can't understand the reason to not send NDRs), but this has happened so seldom that it is really not a big deal to whitelist those servers once I am reasonably confident that they are not sending real spam.

38376[/snapback]

Yes, I suppose it's my fault for picking Cornell as my university of choice back in 94, and for being so stupid i should give up my email address and find someone else.

I should've known that their email forwarding system will be setup in a way to gets it blacklisted by spamcop regularly.

You simply fault me for not understanding why Cornell's system is setup the way it is, and why it fowards email between filtering servers before passing it onto paxio. You fault Cornell for not simply closing some port and making the problem go away.

Do you think I WANTED to have my email bounce randomly for 4 months?

Yes, it is a nice thing that listings on SCBL goes away, but it's also sh**ty that they black list normal users email just as easily. And they do it repeatedly w/o the option of letting me do anythign about it. If I was allowed to whilelist all of Cornell's servers to be excluded when forwarding email to Paxio, i'd say "spamcop is cool." But that's on the case, and by leaving me powerless, I'm going to claim that spamcop sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's partly Cornell's email admins' fault for not running a secure email system, and it's partly Paxio's fault for:

  • Blocking with Spamcop instead of filtering (against SpamCop's recommendation).
  • Not telling you what they were doing up front.
  • Not letting you whitelist email to you from Cornell's servers.
  • Not working with you to put pressure on Cornell's email admins to clean up their act.

Perhaps you can work with Cornell's Alumni Association (a big source of revenue) to influence Cornell's email admins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You simply fault me for not understanding why Cornell's system is setup the way it is, and why it fowards email between filtering servers before passing it onto paxio.  You fault Cornell for not simply closing some port and making the problem go away.

38655[/snapback]

I don't think anyone is faulting you for not understanding 'why' - most people do not know how email works - including those that make policies at universities. Unfortunately, the internet has become a place where one needs to know something about how email works just as an educated person generally knows the basics of automobile mechanics and maintenance.

One of the things that an educated person needs to know about spam is that the *sender* is the one who has to *do* the work about preventing spam - whether it is closing spammers down or doing preventative measures so that they don't unwittingly act like spammers or so that they do the equivalent of showing photo ID in order to cash a check or get on an airplane (something that no one but kooks object to in modern life).

Yes, it is a nice thing that listings on SCBL goes away, but it's also sh**ty that they black list normal users email just as easily.  And they do it repeatedly w/o the option of letting me do anythign about it.  If I was allowed to whilelist all of Cornell's servers to be excluded when forwarding email to Paxio, i'd say "spamcop is cool."  But that's on the case, and by leaving me powerless, I'm going to claim that spamcop sucks.

It is also irritating to go through security checks of all kinds in modern life. I have lived in places where one could leave the keys in the car and I am still grumble about having to lock doors.

And you do have power. You have power as a consumer of email service; as an alumni. One is only powerless when one is ignorant.

You can claim anything you want. That's the beauty of the internet. It is based on netiquette which, when people cooperate, makes a much nicer, broader, more generous, more helpful world. But unlike offline life, when people don't cooperate, one can simply ignore unpleasantries - my server, my rules, your choice.

Happy New Year!

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  

×