dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
62
stardotstar
join:2000-12-13
Barker, TX

1 edit

stardotstar

Member

Re: I am stuck in the fight between spamcop and AT&T-Yahoo!

Just got off of the phone again with ATT and Yahoo Escalation Team, aside from ATT trying to upsale me, still no resolve.

Here is what I was told by "Liberty" at Yahoo Escalation:

This issue has started on April 29 and ALL ATT customers are subject to this issue. They have had numerous calls regarding it over these days. She further stated that ATT is aware of the issue and is calling it an "outage"! ATT says that its not their problem.

She said that there is nothing they Yahoo can do as the email hosting folks, that this is entirely up to Spamcop!

I told her that I did not agree, but as the consumer I was stuck in the middle of all of this, ATT-Yahoo vs Spamcop!

She apologized and I terminated the call!

Looks like we are in for a long one on this issue and it will be the straw that breaks the camels back for many, to leave ATT!

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

said by stardotstar:

She said that there is nothing they Yahoo can do as the email hosting folks, that this is entirely up to Spamcop!

An apology; I conflated SpamCop with Spamhaus. I reject outright on the advice of Spamhaus because of reliability. I score on the advice of SpamCop; weighting email toward spam, but mitigating with counterweight based on other characteristics of the email; so an SC listing is not rejected outright.

But that decision is, ultimately, made by the receiving mail server operator. The SpamCop FAQ states:
quote:
We recommend that when using any spam filtering method, users be given access to the filtered mail - don't block the mail as documented here, but store it in a separate mailbox. Or tag it and provide users documentation so that they can filter based on the tags in their own MUA. We provide this information only for administrators who cannot use a more subtle approach for whatever reason.

»www.spamcop.net/fom-serv ··· 291.html

Looks like we are in for a long one on this issue and it will be the straw that breaks the camels back for many, to leave ATT!

Since nobody I communicate with has a server blocking on the advice of SpamCop, I am not affected by this brouhaha.

P.S. I left AT&T over their caps. Getting faster service for a lower price was a bonus. Because of the ability to use alternate SMTP servers, even as an AT&T customer, this SpamCop issue would have been much less a reason for me to leave than caps and price.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

cramer to stardotstar

Premium Member

to stardotstar
said by stardotstar:

... ATT says that its not their problem.

She said that there is nothing they Yahoo can do as the email hosting folks, that this is entirely up to Spamcop!

AT&T is correct... it's not their problem. Yahoo! is incorrect... they are the ***hats sending spam; they are the only one who can stop that. SpamCop is 100% correct in listing those servers as spam sources, because they are spam sources and Yahoo! isn't doing jack about it.
Dick Lasswel
join:2008-04-05
Portland, OR

Dick Lasswel to stardotstar

Member

to stardotstar
said by stardotstar:

J
She said that there is nothing they Yahoo can do as the email hosting folks, that this is entirely up to Spamcop!

Well, as I said, all spamcop does is identify servers hosting lots of spam. That's a matter of fact. Spamcop doesn't block anything themselves. They just offer that identification list to e-mail managers, who try to use it responsbly. It isn't "entirely up to spamcop". If a product is crap, it isn't up to anyone to say that it isn't.

What it's entirely up to is the client that uses the spamcop blacklist to block e-mails.

But, at root, it's Yahoo's problem. I have to say that AT&T might want to have second thoughts about using Yahoo servers. So to the extent there is nothing Yahoo can do about the problem, that's just Yahoo inviting AT&T ad its subscribers to take their business elsewhere.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to cramer

MVM

to cramer
said by cramer:

AT&T is correct... it's not their problem. Yahoo! is incorrect... they are the ***hats sending spam; they are the only one who can stop that. SpamCop is 100% correct in listing those servers as spam sources, because they are spam sources and Yahoo! isn't doing jack about it.

Yahoo! is not sending spam; worst case they have a spamming user.

I have evaluated both Spamhaus, whose advice I trust well enough to reject email based on their listings, and SpamCop, which had a sufficient number of false positives that I don't trust them enough to reject email outright.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

cramer

Premium Member

I'm not sending the spam. You aren't sending the spam. Yahoo! (their servers) is the origin of spam. That makes it 100% their f***ing problem to fix. I cannot fix it. You cannot fix. Thousands of affected AT&T users cannot fix it. Yahoo! must stop relaying those messages... turn off the accounts being used, filter outgoing messages... whatever gets the job done. None of this can be done by any of us.

NetFixer
From My Cold Dead Hands
Premium Member
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Netgear CM500
Pace 5268AC
TRENDnet TEW-829DRU

NetFixer

Premium Member

said by cramer:

I'm not sending the spam. You aren't sending the spam. Yahoo! (their servers) is the origin of spam. That makes it 100% their f***ing problem to fix. I cannot fix it. You cannot fix. Thousands of affected AT&T users cannot fix it. Yahoo! must stop relaying those messages... turn off the accounts being used, filter outgoing messages... whatever gets the job done. None of this can be done by any of us.

Or, the AT&T customers who are effected by Yahoo!'s spam blacklist problem can use another mail submission server. Even if you don't have access to a third party mail submission server, you should be able to use fmailhost.isp.att.net (SSL on port 465) unless your mail client can't handle SSL. I tested using that server again after this thread started, and I did not have a single bounced (or dropped) email when using that server.

fmailhost.isp.att.net is still an AT&T server, not a Yahoo! server (unlike outbound.att.net):

C:\>dig outbound.att.net
 
; <<>> DiG 9.9.2 <<>> outbound.att.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 58565
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
 
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1280
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;outbound.att.net.              IN      A
 
;; ANSWER SECTION:
outbound.att.net.       765     IN      CNAME   smtp-att.mail.yahoo.com.
smtp-att.mail.yahoo.com. 1665   IN      CNAME   smtp.att.mail.fy4.b.yahoo.com.
smtp.att.mail.fy4.b.yahoo.com. 165 IN   A       98.138.84.52
 
;; Query time: 46 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.9.2#53(192.168.9.2)
;; WHEN: Wed May 08 14:18:36 2013
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 132
 
C:\>whois 98.138.84.52
 
Whois v1.11 - Domain information lookup utility
Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com
Copyright (C) 2005-2012 Mark Russinovich
 
Connecting to COM.whois-servers.net...
Connecting to COM.whois-servers.net...
Connecting to whois.markmonitor.com...
 
MarkMonitor is the Global Leader in Online Brand Protection.
 
MarkMonitor Domain Management(TM)
MarkMonitor Brand Protection(TM)
MarkMonitor AntiPiracy(TM)
MarkMonitor AntiFraud(TM)
Professional and Managed Services
 
Visit MarkMonitor at www.markmonitor.com
Contact us at 1 (800) 745-9229
In Europe, at +44 (0) 203 206 2220
 
The Data in MarkMonitor.com's WHOIS database is provided by MarkMonitor.com
for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining information
about or related to a domain name registration record.  MarkMonitor.com
does not guarantee its accuracy.  By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree
that you will use this Data only for lawful purposes and that, under no
circumstances will you use this Data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise
support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or
solicitations via e-mail (spam); or  (2) enable high volume, automated,
electronic processes that apply to MarkMonitor.com (or its systems).
MarkMonitor.com reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.
By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
 
Registrant:
        Domain Administrator
        Yahoo! Inc.
        701 First Avenue
         Sunnyvale CA 94089
        US
        domainadmin@yahoo-inc.com +1.4083493300 Fax: +1.4083493301
 
    Domain Name: yahoo.com
 
        Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com
        Registrar Whois: whois.markmonitor.com
        Registrar Homepage: http://www.markmonitor.com
 
    Administrative Contact:
        Domain Administrator
        Yahoo! Inc.
        701 First Avenue
         Sunnyvale CA 94089
        US
        domainadmin@yahoo-inc.com +1.4083493300 Fax: +1.4083493301
    Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
        Domain Administrator
        Yahoo! Inc.
        701 First Avenue
         Sunnyvale CA 94089
        US
        domainadmin@yahoo-inc.com +1.4083493300 Fax: +1.4083493301
 
    Created on..............: 1995-01-18.
    Expires on..............: 2014-01-18.
    Record last updated on..: 2013-04-25.
 
    Domain servers in listed order:
 
    ns4.yahoo.com
    ns1.yahoo.com
    ns3.yahoo.com
    ns2.yahoo.com
    ns5.yahoo.com
 
MarkMonitor is the Global Leader in Online Brand Protection.
 
MarkMonitor Domain Management(TM)
MarkMonitor Brand Protection(TM)
MarkMonitor AntiPiracy(TM)
MarkMonitor AntiFraud(TM)
Professional and Managed Services
 
Visit MarkMonitor at www.markmonitor.com
Contact us at 1 (800) 745-9229
In Europe, at +44 (0) 203 206 2220
 
C:\>dig fmailhost.isp.att.net
 
; <<>> DiG 9.9.2 <<>> fmailhost.isp.att.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65429
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
 
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1280
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;fmailhost.isp.att.net.         IN      A
 
;; ANSWER SECTION:
fmailhost.isp.att.net.  10666   IN      A       204.127.217.18
 
;; Query time: 46 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.9.2#53(192.168.9.2)
;; WHEN: Wed May 08 14:18:46 2013
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 66
 
C:\>whois 204.127.217.18
 
Whois v1.11 - Domain information lookup utility
Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com
Copyright (C) 2005-2012 Mark Russinovich
 
Connecting to NET.whois-servers.net...
Connecting to NET.whois-servers.net...
Connecting to whois.networksolutions.com...
 
AT&T Corp.
   55 Corporate Drive
   Bridgewater, NJ 08807
   US
 
   Domain Name: ATT.NET
 
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Promote your business to millions of viewers for only $1 a month
   Learn how you can get an Enhanced Business Listing here for your domain name.
   Learn more at http://www.NetworkSolutions.com/
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
   Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
   GNMC         rm-hostmaster@ems.att.com
   424 S. Woodsmill Rd
   Chesterfield, MO 63037
   US
   800-325-1898 fax: 281-664-9975
 
   Record expires on 14-Dec-2015.
   Record created on 13-Dec-1993.
   Database last updated on 8-May-2013 14:37:51 EDT.
 
   Domain servers in listed order:
 
   ORCU.OR.BR.NP.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 68.94.156.130
   WYCU.WY.BR.NP.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 68.94.156.128
   OHCU.OH.MT.NP.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 99.99.99.128
   MACU.MA.MT.NP.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 99.99.99.130
 

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to cramer

MVM

to cramer
said by cramer:

I'm not sending the spam. You aren't sending the spam. Yahoo! (their servers) is the origin of spam. That makes it 100% their f***ing problem to fix. I cannot fix it. You cannot fix. Thousands of affected AT&T users cannot fix it. Yahoo! must stop relaying those messages... turn off the accounts being used, filter outgoing messages... whatever gets the job done. None of this can be done by any of us.

And if that account belongs to your Aunt? Here are some headers for your consideration:
X-Message-Delivery: Vj0xLjE7dXM9MDtsPTE7YT0wO0Q9MDtTQ0w9NA==
X-Message-Status: n
X-SID-PRA: Aunty <********@msn.com>
X-SID-Result: Pass
X-AUTH-Result: PASS
X-Message-Info: m2DhXBI/dWmnvCUeMwzdANPllG7jTe9yKB4KzzCCN0q8QK9IBfkcSo3Oi2Yc0VvPlRyYS+CwAaD1FBcEgEhKyKYu+k7DU7uSbUrvw8KXgtdWQS52pOulsg==
Received: from col0-omc4-s15.col0.hotmail.com ([65.55.34.217]) by col0-hmmc2-f4.Col0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);
 Mon, 30 May 2011 03:26:19 -0700
Received: from COL109-W47 ([65.55.34.199]) by col0-omc4-s15.col0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);
 Mon, 30 May 2011 03:26:19 -0700
Message-ID: <col109-w47EEDF3751818B4D535ADDD27B0@phx.gbl>
Return-Path: ********@msn.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_e4f76282-094d-4c10-bb61-5dc852ee18dc_"
X-Originating-IP: [96.8.113.226]
From: Aunty <********@msn.com>
Subject: Pls kindly get back
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 03:26:19 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20090909.232020.8885.0@webmail03.vgs.untd.com>
References: <20090909.232020.8885.0@webmail03.vgs.untd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Bcc:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2011 10:26:19.0484 (UTC) FILETIME=[03DFB1C0:01CC1EB4]
 
Source? Will you count the sending server (col0-omc4-s15.col0.hotmail.com), or the injector (X-Originating-IP: [96.8.113.226])? Will you just close the account with a note saying, "Sorry, Aunty, your spam violates our ToS"?

FWIW, recovery of that account was a PITA. Not because of MSN, but because the Indian (as in south Asia) thief locked it down as his own; including localization to his region. It took a second call to MSN, with an explanation of the localization details to get it straightened out.

BTW, Yahoo! had a security breach at one point, which caused dozens of there customers to have their accounts hijacked. Yes, that was their fault. Yes, most of the hijacked accounts were used to send spam. Your response is that Yahoo! should just unceremoniously close those accounts and tell the owners, "Tough cookies"?
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC

cramer to NetFixer

Premium Member

to NetFixer
If you're smart enough to come here (DLSR) then chances are you'd figure out how to get around it. That's a very small percentage of AT&T users.

OldCableGuy
@planetcr.net

OldCableGuy to NormanS

Anon

to NormanS
Yes that is EXACTLY what yahoo should do if someones account is compromised. Delete the account and tell the person not to fall for the trick a 2nd time. We're talking about email here, not life support. If you got your account compromised, then you forfeit it IMO.

Not to mention Yahoo is a stinking free service, so just sign up for a new one.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

said by OldCableGuy :

Not to mention Yahoo is a stinking free service, so just sign up for a new one.

AT&T customers get the email as part of their Internet service, not exactly free; and my aunt is still paying for MSNIA.

And Yahoo! isn't being listed by the best RBL: Spamhaus.

And whomever is rejecting SMTP connections based on SpamCop listings is totally ignoring the recommendation of SpamCop, themselves.

So rant away, but recognize that the folks who are in charge aren't listening to you. And the ones most able to fix this, beyond the end users, are the ones rejecting based on the SCBL.

P.S. For all the spam I have received from Comcast, TW Cable, and Verizon servers, you should demand they shut their paying customers down, as well.