|
|
AOL and TW are rejecting all e-mail coming from grex IP address 216.86.77.194 due to complaints of spam and bulk e-mail. Is there any way we can get these blocks lifted?
8 responses total.
Really funny since most of the people using Grex to do their spamming come in from AOL and AOL hasn't seen fit to respond to our complaints about their members.
The first step will be to stop allowing grex to be a source of spam. There are a few discussions currently underway in other items on ways to change our exim configuration to implement daily outbound mail limits to make grex an uneconomical place from which to spam. Once we've cleaned up our act, then we can see about getting ourselves off the blacklists. I don't see any point in attempting to do so before then.
Any idea of how soon that will be?
Spamcop (and maybe AOL, too) use complaint-based systems. If the
complaints stop, the blacklisting will eventually expire.
Hey! We should all learn from AOL here -- you deal with abusive hosts by blocking them. Thus, we should hunt down all of AOL's netblocks (I think they even publish them somewhere) and block them. :) On a serious note, AOL has blocked our E-Mail server at work on many occasions. This is mainly due to the fact that we have several large mailing lists (newsletters, not marketing), AOL (l)users sign up for them, then decide a few months later they don't want/don't have time for the mailings, couldn't be bothered to read and follow the handy unsubscribe instructions sent on *every* E-Mail, and just resort to clicking on the "report as SPAM" button to get rid of it. The end result? They still receive it each day, they continue to click the button each day, sometimes we end up blocked because of it, but at the end of the day, they still receive it. AOL's suggestion? Set up a feedback loop. We did. We still have it. It's totally unhelpful. I get 3-4 complaints a day from some of these lists, most likely from someone who doesn't want it anymore and is too lazy (or doesn't know how to follow directions) to remove themselves from the listserv. Fine. But, AOL masks the address of the member who complained, so I have no idea who it was. If I knew who it was, I could unsubscribe them. The only way to get around this (and AOL has even said to do this) is to include their address somewhere in the message. That would require a lot more work on the part of our servers, which I am not interested in creating. Plus, all this to work around someone who is too lazy to take two minutes to remove themselves? Not interested. I'm not sure if Grex is setup with a feedback loop or not. If not, it might be a wisde idea. Just bear in mind that the recipient's address isn't going to be listed in the complaints. Other than that, it's handy to know what is originating from your netblocks and getting complained about. If they would unmask the address of who complained, I'd be a happy camper.
I think its ridiculous for Grex to expend resources fixing AOL's list technology.
True. At our site, I try to be a decent netadmin. We have aowkring abuse@ and postmaster@, make every effort not to spew backscatter, we don't let spammers run amuck on our network, etc. Sure, things can happen from time to time (and will with any network) -- but, once I am aware of it, it's dealt with swiftly. However, I do not respond to AOL complaints that are a result of their members signing up for a list we host, then deciding they no longer want the mail, and are too lazy to unsubscribe, so they just start reporting it as spam. The unsubscribe feature is there for a reason -- to allow you to administer your subscription and so I don't have to spend all day fooling with it. I'm not interested in taking unsubscribe requests via complaints either. Period. We have to draw a line somewhere.
I think the problem that some users have with the unsubscribe instructions is not mo much laziness as it is that several years ago, spam would come with similar unsubscribe instructions, which would just verify that the address was live and had a human being reading it, thereby entitling said human being to *more spam*. How does the saying go? Once burned, twice shy.
Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss