Telarin Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Thought you might all find this interesting. I actually got a response to a spamcop report that was submitted to abuse[at]bluehost.com. The text of the response was a single line: Complying with RFC822 To which I sent my own response: Compliance with an RFC is not in question. You are sending unsolicited mail to our server. Bouncing emails after acceptance is no longer considered e-mail best practice as most spam messages use forged "FROM" addresses, therefore any bounces sent to these addresses is unsolicited. Emails should be rejected with a 500 series error during SMTP to prevent this from happening. Has anyone else gotten a response along these lines from any ISPs? If so, what was your response? Since spam doesn't violate any RFCs as far as I know, I fail to see how compliance with RFC822 has anything to do with a spam report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 ... I fail to see how compliance with RFC822 has anything to do with a spam report.It hasn't, spam suppression is all about legal compliance (but there are issues of jurisdiction there), "netiquette" and AUP/TOS (see the previous two). BlueHost seem to have nothing in the way of the latter (that I could see, maybe it's in the members' area) and no regard for the antepenultimate. Their ruling on the serious matter of libel/slander (would have thought it was "only" libel but IANAL)We do not take down websites without an official court order to do so. It would be a violation of our clients' rights to demand anything less, prior to removing a site from our servers.Okay, not on topic but it goes to the "mindset" and sort of makes me glad they're inclined to heed RFCs even. They're quite happy to bounce to forged addresses (they couldn't be in the business and not know that's what they're doing, could they?). I guess the BLs will apply some sort of leverage over time, to enourage an attitude readjustment. Seems civic responsibility wouldn't be enough. [add on - Talking of RFCs and netiquette, RFC1855, the netiquette one, reminds Administrators that addresses can be "forged and spoofed". BlueHost are being selective in their "authorities" if they chose to ignore that to simply point to RFC822.] This is bluehost.com, not blueyonder.co.uk (do you need the topic name changed?) Bringing the query to the foreground- ... Has anyone else gotten a response along these lines from any ISPs? If so, what was your response? Since spam doesn't violate any RFCs as far as I know, I fail to see how compliance with RFC822 has anything to do with a spam report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 To bring Farelf's observation up front... This topic relates to bluehost.com not, as per the subject, blueyonder.co.uk Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Topic Title changed to match the content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telarin Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 Thanks Wazoo, it was late in the day, and I was having a long day to begin with... Thats my excuse, and I'm sticking with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbear Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Have you considered emailing postmaster[at]mattheaton.com (CEO of bluehost.com) to ask if he's aware of the response to the abuse report & if he is, (he may not be), then is he happy to be regarded as a bombproof host for spammers? This sort of response makes me think that the battle against spam is like a coracle with four paddlers, (the registrars, the hosts, the ISP's and the network providers), some of which are deliberately paddling against the desired direction & most are not paddling at all. If only they could all be persuaded to paddle in the same direction.... No wonder my spam load has doubled in the last three months from c. 100 per day to c. 200 per day and the curve continues ever upwards, slowly strangling the internet..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooster Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 ... (the registrars, the hosts, the ISP's and the network providers), some of which are deliberately paddling against the desired direction & most are not paddling at all. If only they could all be persuaded to paddle in the same direction.... I can think of another way to deploy a paddle that can be be quite propelling as well as providing a much needed sense of direction. No wonder my spam load has doubled in the last three months from c. 100 per day to c. 200 per day and the curve continues ever upwards, slowly strangling the internet..... It is a little comfort to me to know I am not the only one experiencing this. I was nearly convinced I had comitted some inadvertent misdemeanor that had got some spammers excited about my default email address. Back in April, my "Average Daily" (based on striking the average for the week) was 35. Last week it was 198. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Back in April, my "Average Daily" (based on striking the average for the week) was 35. Last week it was 198. On 19 October the SC Email service news pages reported the following: SpamCop and others are monitoring a huge global increase in spam volumes that started late last week. Networks are reporting anywhere from 30-50% increases in spam volume. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.