Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dave202

Register.com seems to be the problem

Recommended Posts

My incoming email has been "disappearing" or just getting bounced back to senders. If I understand correctly, the owner of 198.41.1.55 (mx01.nic.name) is the culpret. This server is the "mail exchange server" at Register.com which forwards my mail to my local ISP (who utilizes Spamcop). Since this server forwards email for multi-thousands of web addresses, it is not surprising that a bunch of spam goes through it.

Can Register.com really do anything about it or am I just out of luck? I've contacted them several times, without success.

---Dave---

=======================================

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

Subject: There has been a problem delivering your email.

From: ".name mail system" <postmaster[at]lastname.name>

Date: Mon, October 23, 2006 3:32 pm

To:

Dear user,

This is an automated message from the mail agent mx01.nic.name,

serving the .name mail system.

I couldn't deliver your email to the address dave[at]bittner.name, since

the remote address it forwards to, reported the following:

bittner[at]colorado.net: 65.38.128.146 does not like recipient. Remote host

said: 550 Service unavailable; Client host [198.41.1.55] blocked using

bl.spamcop.net; Blocked - see

http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?198.41.1.55 Giving up on

65.38.128.146.

It has not been possible for us to deliver the message you were trying

to send to <dave[at]bittner.name>. There is a problem with the account that

the .name email address has been set up to forward to.

This is a problem with the end-point account, and we have done all we

can to deliver the message. Only the user you were sending to, or

his/her email box provider, can correct this problem. Please contact the

recipient via alternate means to let him/her know of this problem.

Alternatively, the recipient of your mail can change his/her .name email

to forward to another email account. Your message can still be sent to

the same .name email address but can be fetched from somewhere else by

the recipient.

Please be ensured that the .name address will continue to work and

forward to any end-point determined by its owner.

Yours truly,

The team at Global Name Registry

With .name, get your own name as an e-mail address!

Now, .name is also open for second level domain registrations.

Your name is simple and easy to remember. Never change

your e-mail address again.

Below you will find a copy of the message(s) that could not be

delivered, with the headers included. These headers may help your

system administrator to find any errors.

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

Received: (qmail 25427 invoked by uid 1004); Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:32:16

-0000 Delivered-To: dave[at]bittner.name

Received: (qmail 25416 invoked by alias); Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:32:15

-0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outback.techgaze.com) (207.44.182.80)

by mx01.nic.name with SMTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:32:15 -0000

Received: (from apache[at]localhost)

by outback.techgaze.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id k9NKxIA10638;

Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:59:18 -0600

X-Authentication-Warning: outback.techgaze.com: apache set sender to

cdltinfo[at]cdlt.org using -f Received: from 67.42.246.140

(SquirrelMail authenticated user cdltinfo[at]cdlt.org)

by www.cdlt.org with HTTP;

Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:59:16 -0600 (MDT)

Message-ID: <2003.67.42.246.140.1161637156.squirrel[at]www.cdlt.org>

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:59:16 -0600 (MDT)

Subject: web design proposal for CDLT

From: <cdltinfo[at]cdlt.org>

To: <erin[at]timeforcake.com>

X-Priority: 3

Importance: Normal

Cc: <dave[at]bittner.name>, <larriemac[at]aol.com>, <karn[at]comcast.net>,

<wursters[at]colorado.net>, <info[at]cdlt.org>

X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.10)

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be a blocklist issue rather than reporting - moved accordingly.

Confess I'm going 'round in circles here. dave[at]bittner.name has the following MXs (DNSStuff):

Host IP(s) [Country]

mx02.nic.name. 198.41.1.56 [uS]

mx03.nic.name. 198.41.1.57 [uS]

mx04.nic.name. 198.41.3.34 [uS]

mx05.nic.name. 198.41.3.35 [uS]

mx01.nic.name. 198.41.1.55 [uS]

mx01.nic.name. 198.41.1.55 has indeed been on the SCBL and is about timed off at this instant. There was enough information in the posted headers to take an alternative route direct to bittner[at]colorado.net

Noting the sender cdltinfo[at]cdlt.org seems to be associated with ev1.net with IPA 207.44.182.80 used for sending on "not on any blocklists" (SenderBase).

Register.com could possibly register to receive reports which currently go the network owner

tovshostmaster[at]verisign.com

support[at]verisign.com

Not sure of Register.com's status with SC on resolution of BL issues.

PM to OP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, 198.41.1.55 has timed off, so my mail is coming through again today and the other four MX's did continue to send me mail. However, after 3 instances of being shut down down, this has gotten real old and tired.

It looks to me as if Verisgn.com and Register.com are different sides of the same company? Register.com has a customer service that is only qualified to handle very simple problems. Any idea how I might find someone with enough clout to impliment significant change?

--Dave--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was sort of hoping Register.com might be the white knight, if not, no - sorry - except to try Verisign support of course. They at least know the problem (they get reports) and must appreciate the nic.name thing they support is about as useful as an ashtray on a surfboard if the servers keep getting blocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was sort of hoping Register.com might be the white knight, if not, no - sorry - except to try Verisign support of course. They at least know the problem (they get reports) and must appreciate the nic.name thing they support is about as useful as an ashtray on a surfboard if the servers keep getting blocked.

Okay, let's try this again.

(btw, Verisgn support never replied)

I heard from another person with the identical problem and what he found out is this: What happens is that a company "Global Name Registry" (GNR) is authorized by ICANN to do the forwarding.   So when we register our addresses with register.com, they tell GNR the forwarding address. GNR administers the five servers mx01.nic.name, mx02.nic.name, ..., mx05.nic.name that do this forwarding.

When one of these servers starts kicking out a lot of spam, Spamcop puts it onto the blacklist and we lose email for 14 hours.

My solution was to get a mailbox at register.com, which does not use Spamcop. So now I have no spam filtering by my mail provider, but at least I get my mail......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Dave,

<snip>

When one of these servers starts kicking out a lot of spam, Spamcop puts it onto the blacklist and we lose email for 14 hours.

My solution was to get a mailbox at register.com, which does not use Spamcop. So now I have no spam filtering by my mail provider, but at least I get my mail......

...That will work. Another would be to see if your local ISP (who use SpamCop) will allow you to whitelist. Another would be to try to convince them to adopt SpamCop's advice on how to use SpamCop to either tag the suspected spam or direct it to some place accessible to you other than your Inbox. They may be understandably reluctant to do that, though, as it probably saves them lots of resources to simply reject it. Their server, their rules.

...The best solution, understandably slower, would be to convince those sending you e-mail to get their providers to clean up their act or to switch to a provider that does not get on the SpamCop blacklist so readily -- it's really their responsibility to either get their providers to stop the spam spew or leave in favor of a more reliable/competent provider.

...Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, let's try this again....
Agreeing with Steve, above. Thanks Dave, for the the update. Anyone experiencing the same difficulty and looking "here" will appreciate your effort too.

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  

×