What can we do regarding blocking?

[turetzsr]

<snip> 

First of all, thanks for understanding my position here (some other people seem to have problems with this).

38511[/snapback]

Hi, Bojan,

...That should be no surprise -- you came to a Forum populated almost entirely by people who have been abused by spam! <g>

The problem that I have hanging is that my servers are being blacklisted. And I can't do anything about it. 

38511[/snapback]

...Seems to me that, at least in a sense, you (personally) are in a no-lose situation, as you can rightfully lay the responsibility off on both sides of the issue: the SpamCop Deputies for (perhaps understandably; we don't really know why) not replying to you about the spam traps and your "political" situation (again, perhaps understandably we don't really know whether the "rules" are merely bureaucracy or if they are needed to avoid an even worse situation) which is keeping you from taking the steps that are technically available to you to try to get the problem addressed.

[Bojan]

Hi, Bojan, 

...That should be no surprise -- you came to a Forum populated almost entirely by people who have been abused by spam! <g>

Heh, ok, and I understand that people usually "attack" SpamCop without even checking things they should have done.

...Seems to me that, at least in a sense, you (personally) are in a no-lose situation, as you can rightfully lay the responsibility off on both sides of the issue: the SpamCop Deputies for (perhaps understandably; we don't really know why) not replying to you about the spam traps and your "political" situation (again, perhaps understandably we don't really know whether the "rules" are merely bureaucracy or if they are needed to avoid an even worse situation) which is keeping you from taking the steps that are technically available to you to try to get the problem addressed.

Well, you are partially (if not completely) correct here. "Personally" I'm maybe ok, but from my work point of view I'm not. I know I can say that this has nothing to do with me and that SC Deputies didn't reply etc, but believe me, when an e-mail from someone high up (like a vice chancellor) gets rejected because of this, guess who will be the one to blame.

I put *A LOT* of effort into this. Before we had a gateway which was dumb.

Now we have an enterprise class gateway which is easy to expand if needed, can do whatever we want and offers nice AV and anti-spam protection for our users.

I personally am flooded with e-mails, as I do various other things, as a volotneer as well. But I always reply to every e-mail. Maybe it takes me 2 or 3 days sometimes to reply. But I do. So I think that the thing that Deputies didn't reply back, after I sent 3 e-mails and 2 times used the web form, is rude.

I don't want to sound rude, but again, I am disappointed with lack of support for them (I believe that I showed that I do care about my servers and that I do want to work on them).

Sigh, sorry for long posts - it's (luckily) a quiet day here, as most of the users are on leave and the Uni is closed for students.

Bojan

[Bojan]

The way I understand it, unless your gateway server is not listing where it got it's message from in a way that spamcop can parse, the spamtrap hits are directly from your server machines rather than messages being routed through that server.

You can use the address in my sig to send a test or 2, one from your server and at least one routed through the server so I can try to parse it.  If you do this, please indicate spamcop test in the subject line so I won't accidentally report these test messages.

38510[/snapback]

Sure, I just sent you an e-mail - let me/us know what happens.

Bojan

[dbiel]

I personally am flooded with e-mails, as I do various other things, as a volotneer as well. But I always reply to every e-mail. Maybe it takes me 2 or 3 days sometimes to reply. But I do. So I think that the thing that Deputies didn't reply back, after I sent 3 e-mails and 2 times used the web form, is rude.

I don't want to sound rude, but again, I am disappointed with lack of support for them (I believe that I showed that I do care about my servers and that I do want to work on them).

38513[/snapback]

Have you tried sending an email to: Don D'Minion/Argyle - SpamCop Administrative affairs [at] service[at]admin.spamcop.net?

Be sure to include copies of your previous emails and include a link to this topic as well http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5585

I wish you success in your attempts to resolve the situation.

[dbiel]

Since it appears the the majority (if not all) of you problems are the results of bounces or rejects after SMTP acceptance, I would try is see if there is any way that you can identify them via software and direct them through a separate IP address. This would avoid dealing with your political issues (as you are not blocking the outgoing mail) and could possibly restrict the SpamCop BL listings to that one IP address. Not sure how or if it can be done, but might be worth a bit of time to investigate. It does not really solve the problem but it might help minimize the effects.

[StevenUnderwood]

Sure, I just sent you an e-mail - let me/us know what happens.

Bojan

38514[/snapback]

Parse: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z847829099zb5...83d3f0399a7408z

Seems to indicate you have done what you need to:

...trusted site 130.216.190.11

...Sender relay: 130.216.190.11

...Tracking message source: 130.216.4.143

I assume all servers use pretty much the same route through your site. The one part that is strange using mailhosts anyway is line 3 and the explaination: Internal handoff at SpamCop while it is actually on your site.

The only other possibility is that the spamtraps do NOT use the parse and only report the connecting IP address, but that is purely a guess on my part. Trying Don is not a bad idea as he may be able to at least anwswer some of the qustions. Good luck.

[turetzsr]

<snip>

...That should be no surprise -- you came to a Forum populated almost entirely by people who have been abused by spam! <g>

38512[/snapback]

Heh, ok, and I understand that people usually "attack" SpamCop without even checking things they should have done.

38513[/snapback]

...Well, yeah, that, too, but that isn't what I meant. I meant that the fact that most here do not seem to understand your position is due to the fact that most of us look at things principally from the viewpoint of we who receive the spam, so we tend to have less sympathy for those who are sending it, however "good" their reasons for not being able to stop it. I think (hope) that most of us do appreciate that you are giving this the "old college try" (pun intended).

...Seems to me that, at least in a sense, you (personally) are in a no-lose situation, as you can rightfully lay the responsibility off on both sides of the issue: the SpamCop Deputies for (perhaps understandably; we don't really know why) not replying to you about the spam traps and your "political" situation (again, perhaps understandably we don't really know whether the "rules" are merely bureaucracy or if they are needed to avoid an even worse situation) which is keeping you from taking the steps that are technically available to you to try to get the problem addressed.

38512[/snapback]

Well, you are partially (if not completely) correct here. "Personally" I'm maybe ok, but from my work point of view I'm not. I know I can say that this has nothing to do with me and that SC Deputies didn't reply etc, but believe me, when an e-mail from someone high up (like a vice chancellor) gets rejected because of this, guess who will be the one to blame.

38513[/snapback]

...CYA: escalate! The Vice Chancellor should not be left to be surprised if, in the [near] future, (s)he has e-mail rejected. If (s)he is a really good manager, (s)he may even try to help bypass some of the political inertia. If not, at least (s)he will have been made aware, in advance, that you did not simply "let" her/his e-mails get rejected but you were really doing all you could to avoid it!

<snip>

So I think that the thing that Deputies didn't reply back, after I sent 3 e-mails and 2 times used the web form, is rude.

38513[/snapback]

...And I fully understand that. I can only say that my own personal experience, as a SpamCop reporting user, with the deputies is that they're human and so don't always do everything "right" but are very conscientious about helping with problems they hear about.

[Miss Betsy]

The problem that I have hanging is that my servers are being blacklisted. And I can't do anything about it. 

38511[/snapback]

Somewhere in this topic is a reference to 'user education' I know server admins are not teachers, but in this case, IIWY, I would definitely try to 'educate' the ones who make policy. You probably didn't read the Why Am I Blocked for non server admins, but it explains it in laymen's language.

There must some computer savvy professors on the campus (or perhaps you could find a vocational school instructor). If you could find someone to help you present your case, then it would help - both you and your case.

And if someone high up gets their email rejected, I definitely would give them the Why Am I Blocked FAQ to read - with notes pointing out that it is users who are causing the problem and how they are doing so.

You are getting mostly technical advice here, but you should also be getting some 'communication' and management advice from people who do know how to navigate political avenues within bureaucracies.

Miss Betsy

[Ellen]

Bojan, have you received a reply yet?

37899[/snapback]

Yeah, I haven't received any reply back so far.

I just sent another e-mail (lets call it a reminder .. Hope I'll get some reply soon.

38029[/snapback]

I am concerned that you indicate that you have written more than once and not had a response. We do answer all our mail altho mail volumes may cause a response to be delayed for up to 24 hours after you write. As I don't know what email address you are writing from nor the name of the edu or the IPs involved I cannot do a mail database search to see if we have received your mails :-(

We do not use any filtering on the deputies <at> admin.spamcop.net account (sadly) so there should be no reason we cannot get your mail. The website forms also should not be a problem. Please try to contact us again and post here when you have done that.

Edit: Jeff G. fixed the quoting.

[Jeff G.]

As I  don't know what email address you are writing from nor the name of the edu or the IPs involved I cannot do a mail database search to see if we have received your mails :-(

38670[/snapback]

The University appears to be "The Auckland University" and the email messages probably came from domain "auckland.ac.nz" concerning listing of IP Address "130.216.190.11" with sole name "groucho.itss.auckland.ac.nz" and shared name "mailhost.auckland.ac.nz" (one of a group .11 to .14 with names groucho, chico, harpo, and zeppo, apparently named by a Marx Brothers fan). I suggest that Bojan use one or more freemail services to try to contact the Deputies, due to the distinct possiblity that Bojan's direct email to them was blocked.

[SpamCopAdmin]

due to the distinct possiblity that Bojan's direct email to them was blocked.

38677[/snapback]

Just so there's no confusion...

We don't filter/block any mail. All of our admin.spamcop.net addresses are wide open.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

[Jeff G.]

Just so there's no confusion...

We don't filter/block any mail.  All of our admin.spamcop.net addresses are wide open.

38690[/snapback]

Of course YOU don't filter/block, I was thinking more on the sending end or somewhere in the middle, perhaps a new content filter that doesn't like "spam" in a recipient domain name, retaliation for an SCBL listing, or other somesuch nonsense.

[Bojan]

The University appears to be "The Auckland University" and the email messages probably came from domain "auckland.ac.nz" concerning listing of IP Address "130.216.190.11" with sole name "groucho.itss.auckland.ac.nz" and shared name "mailhost.auckland.ac.nz" (one of a group .11 to .14 with names groucho, chico, harpo, and zeppo, apparently named by a Marx Brothers fan).  I suggest that Bojan use one or more freemail services to try to contact the Deputies, due to the distinct possiblity that Bojan's direct email to them was blocked.

38677[/snapback]

Yes, they named by a Marx Brothers fan (not me, a colleague of mine in DNS department .

Anyways, sorry for not replying for a while. I finally managed to communicate with SpamCop admins (*HUGE* thanks to Don for contacting me).

We're currently working on this. The main reason why our servers got black listed is that they sent e-mail to spam traps. After checking those e-mails, Don pasted couple of them to me and they are all out of office replies (guess what, it's holiday season).

Of course, in the perfect world, we wouldn't be doing this, but there is absolutely no way I can control what users do in an organization this big.

Now, the other thing that seems problematic is that Don says some e-mails have incorrect headers (headers are not complete) so SpamCop can't see what the real source of the e-mail is (it looks like our gateway is the source, instead of an internal machine).

We're trying to figure out what's wrong here (I will be brave and say that it's impossible for our gateway to mess this up). I will post again when we find more.

Thanks for help to all of you for support in this issue.

Bojan

[turetzsr]

<snip>

The main reason why our servers got black listed is that they sent e-mail to spam traps. After checking those e-mails, Don pasted couple of them to me and they are all out of office replies (guess what, it's holiday season).

Of course, in the perfect world, we wouldn't be doing this, but there is absolutely no way I can control what users do in an organization this big.

<snip>

38813[/snapback]

...Perhaps not, but you (assuming you're the e-mail server admin) can control what goes out from your outgoing servers and you can educate your users as to good and bad practices.

...There's what may be a related discussion going on in thread "Help Us Prevent Being Blocked Again".

[Miss Betsy]

Of course, in the perfect world, we wouldn't be doing this, but there is absolutely no way I can control what users do in an organization this big.

I understand that it is a challenging task. However, someone has to attempt to educate end users or there will continually be problems. As Steve T. has suggested (maybe not in this topic, but in other similar topics), it would be very politic for you to /start/ trying to communicate what end users need to do to have reliable email. Then if they don't listen to you and their email is blocked, the 'blame' finger points at them, not you.

To expect the IT department to make email run smoothly without some responsibility by the end user is like expecting your automobile mechanic to keep your car from breaking down when you never change the oil.

I know that sometimes teachers are worse students than any other group, but I really do think you need to make an effort. If you can get one person interested, s/he may do the hard parts for you.

Miss Betsy

[Farelf]

Of course, in the perfect world, we wouldn't be doing this, but there is absolutely no way I can control what users do in an organization this big.

38813[/snapback]

Well, to add to the general tide of support for your efforts - lots of organisations of varying sizes still use auto responses, depends how good the individual (inwards) account filters are (and user education), of course, as to the risk/benefit. (From a recent example "Automatski odgovor prilikom odsutnosti" is apparently the out of office autoreply phrase in Croatian - give yourself a laugh by seeing what the on-line translators make of that. But I digress).

The thing is, the University of Auckland isn't operating in a vacuum, isn't the biggest around, *has* to be responsive to considering "best practice" in similar institutions elsewhere (a little research might be in order). The powers that be should be invited to live up to their motto ("Celebrate Thinking"). Otherwise - roimata ana e! (is that the phrase?)