Attention -- Why some email messages may be bouncing

This morning I tried to send an email message to a Microsoft contact that I deal with on a regular without any email problems.

Today, I got an email message but Microsoft had an email address shown in the bounced email that you could send a message so that a user could figure out what the problem is and what to do. So I sent an email to that address and got an automated response, which was chock full of information.

Then I called ATT and the male support rep told me that it problem was not the because of anything that ATT was doing or not doing. So I hung up and went back to the Microsoft generated email and I discovered that SpamCop had blacklisted the SBC server that my email account is tied to. But there were dozens and dozens of SBC IP addresses, which were blacklisted by SpamCop.

So I called ATT again and this time I talked to a very knowledgeable woman. Jackie informed me that ATT had blocked port 25 for all of their legacy customers, who were on these legacy servers (in my case the domain is swbell.net). She said ATT had done this to try to clean up the servers and remove all of the spammers, as well as, computers which were compromised by the spambots.

She removed the block and then sent me a test email message. I then tried to resend the previous email message to the Microsoft employee. I also send another message to another Microsoft employee.

BottomLine:

SpamCop has all of these ATT (SBC) IP addresses blacklisted and until ATT's IP addresses are removed, their customers will continue to have problems sending email to any domain, which is using either SpamCop or SpamHaus as part of their anti-spam efforts.

One other tip:

Some ISPs or domains don't even bother to send a bounced email message.

What a mess.

ATT is NOT the only vendor, with these types of problems. Verizon, Charter and Comcast are also up to their eyeballs with similar problems.

IMO, the biggest problem is the lack of comprehensive information, to direct customers as to what they need to do to solve the problem. Some companies like Verizon just ignore the notifications from their customers, when their customers discover that Verizon is NOT delivering all of the customers legitimate email.

Remember we have a contract with the ISP, where they commit to deliver all of our email. Unfortunately, it may take a bunch of class-action lawsuits against all of the ISPs to force them to provide sufficient information and a process for the customer to get their email address or domain removed from one of the blacklists.

None of the ISPs that I have dealt with even bothers to tell their customers, which blacklists they are using. Talk about a black hole.

Cheers,

Linda

I've long thought that SpamCop's "solution" is every bit as bad as the problem they are trying to solve, and frankly I'm quite surprised that they haven't already been sued out of existence considering the collateral damage they do on a regular basis, especially in the litigious US. SpamHaus is a very different kettle of fish though, and shouldn't be classed in the same category as SpamCop.

This solution to the spam problem is itself becoming an increasing problem. For example, AOL has all CableOne e-mail blacklisted. If you have a fixed CableOne IP address, there is a process you can use to get your IP address removed from the blacklist, but it takes a week or more to get this done. Of course, none of this does more than temporarily inconvenience the spammers.

LindaHewitt & all;
I think I'm having the same problem - when I try to send an e-mail with some attachments I get the message below - and tech support is no help. See what you think - it doesn't occur with all messages with attachments, just some of them.
Most irritating - and one of recent vintage.
Thanks,
Storminnormin...

An unknown error has occurred. Subject '', Account: 'pop-server.tampabay.rr.com', Server: 'smtp-server.tampabay.rr.com', Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: '451 4.3.2 Please try again later', Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 451, Error Number: 0x800CCC6A

Unfortunately, the error messages frequently do not provide the user with substantive content.

Best suggestion is to call your ISP until the problem is resolved. Keep a record of each occurence, email which you are trying to send and the error message so that you can send this information to your ISP. As you can see, it may take several calls before you get to a knowledgeable tech support rep.

What I did not mention above is that I called 2nd Tier support (in the US) instead of first tier in the Phillipines or India or whereever.

Keep us posted.

Linda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storminnorman

An unknown error has occurred. Subject '', Account: 'pop-server.tampabay.rr.com', Server: 'smtp-server.tampabay.rr.com', Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: '451 4.3.2 Please try again later', Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 451, Error Number: 0x800CCC6A

---

451 is a temporary error meaning "Requested action aborted: error in processing", and the 4.3.2 code is defined as:

Quote:

---

X.3.2 System not accepting network messages

The host on which the mailbox is resident is not accepting messages. Examples of such conditions include an imminent shutdown, excessive load, or system maintenance. This is useful for both permanent and transient errors.

---

In other words, nothing to worry about. If a mail server got that response it'd just queue the message and try again later. Clients tend to be less sophisticated and just give you an error no matter what.

I learned this weekend, that a friend of mine cannot send out any email from his sbcglobal.net account.

Based on my experience, ATT probably has a block on his legacy account; so he has to call to get them to take the block off. It seems that he never upgraded his account to Yahoo.

What can I say. It sure would have been nice, if ATT had email all of their affected customers ahead of time to let them know what was going to happen and what their customers needed to do to prevent any interruption of service.

My friend is going to GoDaddy and GMail until ATT can get their act together. He also thinks that legal action needs to be taken against the owners of SpamCop and that the ISPs should be reported to the Federal Trade Commission, as well as getting Congress involved.

I think that this is an excellent reason NOT to approve the merger of ATT and Bell South.

Linda

Below is a letter that my friend wrote to the FTC. I am printing this with his permission. Obviously, the letter below was written over 3 years ago and nothing has been done. Hopefully, this thread will result in some pro-active actions that will make a difference for the legitimate customers of ISPs.

Linda


August 23, 2003

Federal Trade Commission
Division of Marketing Practices
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580

Attn.: Mr. Renard C. Francios
Mr. Brian Huseman

Gentlemen:

I have filed a complaint using the FTC internet web page, that concerns
spam and the delivery of legitimate EMail.

Because I was unable to send all of it with your web page facility, I am
enclosing a paper copy here.

I hope something is done about attempts to stop 'spam' that end up
impacting legitimate EMail. EMail that complies with all the policies
of the sending and receiving ISPs should not be read, censored,
interrupted, delayed or blocked.

Please let me hear from you.

Sincerely,

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

Date: 8-23-03

I am an individual residing in Dallas, Texas. I have an individual
Internet account with Southwestern Bell Global DSL.
They publish policies on the use of Internet services, including EMail,
and I have complied with all of those policies.
Several friends have signed up for Internet service with Internet
America, which has similar policies, published on the
Internet. Both my ISP and my friends' ISPs represent that they provide
full Internet service to the public.

I have sent EMail from my account to my friends' various accounts. Each
EMail complies with all these
published policies - - of my ISP and the recipients' ISPs. Yet a number
of these important EMails have been returned to me as "blocked - - See
Spamcop."

"Spamcop" has a web page at www.spamcop.net.

Apparently "Spamcop" has gotten Internet America and several other ISPs
to subscribe to their "black list" of Internet mail servers. When installed at the ISP that receives EMail, and a customer of this ISP is sent any EMail that originates from a "black listed" mail server, it is interrupted and returned to the
sender. This has unreasonably interfered with ordinary personal EMail from me to individual customers of these ISPs.

The content of my EMail is not "spam." It is not commercial. For
example, an EMail from me to an attorney at his law office has been
returned as "blocked." (I finally had to print the EMail and send it to
him on his fax machine, for him to receive it.)

This is not an isolated problem. There are many messages on an Internet
news group called "Spamcop.help" that shows this has become a widespread
problem - - impacting persons all over the United States. "Spamcop" is
the proximate cause of interference to a lot more than just "spam." It
is the proximate cause of the blockage, censorship and return of a large
quantity of legitimate EMail that complies with all the policies of
sending and receiving ISPs, which users on both ends have paid for.

It appears that many of the victims of this improper EMail blockage do
not have the technical understanding of these issues to complain. Then
when we do, we either receive non-responsive answers, or are summarily
ignored.

I am among those who have paid for internet services that are not being
delivered. Messages that comply with all the published policies of
sending and receiving ISPs should not be interfered with.

"Spamcop" has been reckless to list entire mail servers on its black
list, as this causes legitimate EMail to be blocked and censored. Users
have paid to send and receive these messages. Each one of these
messages has value.

This also means that ISPs that represent that they offer full internet
service are delivering something less.

Two of my friends (one an attorney, and another a retired Judge) have
asked their ISPs to correct this, so they will receive EMail normally.
The ISPs have not corrected this, and EMails to them continue to bounce
back to me as "blocked."

Additional considerations: It appears that other persons have used the
outgoing mail server at Southwestern Bell Internet to send various
messages - - of which I have no personal knowledge of the content. As
these messages were not sent to me, I have no standing to complain about
them, even if, in fact, they may be commercial or somehow offensive. It
appears that the intent of "Spamcop" is to trigger me to go spend my
resources to investigate them and complain to Southwestern Bell about
them, with the hope that "Spamcop" will take Southwestern Bell's server
off of its black list. It would also appear that if I did this, I would
expose myself to legal claims by the persons sending the other EMails
through Southwestern Bell's equipment. They could argue that their
speech is legal, and that I was somehow interfering with their business
with my complaint to Southwestern Bell.

Additionally, there is the matter of where the EMail I send to others,
such as one to the attorney mentioned above, is opened and inspected in
the process. This is how my EMail address was obtained to send me the
notice that my mail had been "blocked."

Further, this system of blocking EMail would seem to be the equivalent
of an improper blockage of telephone calls, where the operator of the
black list decides that an entire area code of telephone numbers is
blocked from completing phone calls because a few persons in that area
code are using their telephones to place commercial phone calls, or
arguably improper phone calls.

I want to see your office take action to resolve these immediate
problems involving "Spamcop." Complaints to them, and to ISPs from
their users and from me have not resulted in any resolution or change.

Below is a copy of an exchange of EMails that further illustrate this
problem:

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

Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 5:22 PM
To: SpamCop Admin
Subject: LEGAL PRIORITY: False spam report, Messages censored and
blocked

First, Be advised that with mergers and acquisitions, Southwestern
Bell and Sbcglobal are also known as "Prodigy."

Click here:

http://sbcglobal.prodigy.net/

Second, your answer is not responsive. See my previous statement.

Third, my ISP, sbcglobal.prodigy.net, advises me that they have no
such contract. If you or "spamcop" have any evidence of such a contract, please provide a copy of it at this time. All the EMails I have sent have complied with all published policies of each of the sending and receiving ISPs.

If you believe you have any evidence to the contrary, you are directed
to provide it, also, at this time. The EMails I have sent that were
reported back as "blocked" include my routine reply to an EMail from an attorney at his law office. The response to my reply stated:

"Blocked - see http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml?207.115.63.116" Another was my reply to a Judge at his office. I maintain that "spamcop" is a proximate cause of interruption of computer services that I have paid for, and others have paid for. The messages involved do not and could not constitute "spam" or otherwise involve any published policy violation. I have been damaged. There have also been consequential damages as a result.

"Spamcop" is again hereby directed to cease and desist. The problem seems to originate from "Spamcop's" decision to publish a 'black list' that includes entire mail servers. You very well know what happens when you 'black list' an entire mail server at an ISP like sbcglobal.net and circulate this list to
various ISPs. This has come to proximately impact routine EMail where
no one has made a complaint, which is not and could not be considered "spam," which is not a part of any policy violation or controversy, and where the person sending legitimate EMail has no knowledge of or responsibility for any communications allegedly entered by other Internet
customers.

Again, Where do I submit the bill for my damages?

_______

SpamCop Admin wrote:

I can understand why Southwestern Bell wouldn't know anything about this
because the server you're using to send mail is 207.115.63.116 =
smtpauth2-ext.prodigy.net. It belongs to Prodigy.

This is a contractual matter between you and your service provider.
They are not providing the email services you are paying them for. The
people, who are refusing your mail are free to do so on any basis they
choose. No one can force them to accept mail. It's up to your service provider to convince the destination services to accept their mail.

You are free to use a different provider to contact your correspondents if
they won't accept mail from your current one.

- Don -

All,

This website covers many of the issues involved in Direct Marketing. The link below is for their December 1, 2006 issue. Direct Mag is written for online marketers, providing information about marketing campaigns, which are in compliance with the Can Spam Act.

I am providing this information because there is substantive content as to what ISP customers may need to do, in order to send and receive all of their legitimate email
messages.

http://directmag.com/issue_20061201/

The Skinny on Blacklists
Dec 1, 2006 12:00 PM, BY KEN MAGILL
The Spamhaus Project made international headlines recently because of an ongoing legal dustup with Chicago-based direct marketer e360 Insight. As a result, the spotlight is once again on the self-appointed — some say vigilante — anti-spam cops that run blacklists. ... see URL below ...

Quote:

---

"A serious blacklister also will provide “some means by which to plead your case,” she adds. “If you go to its site and there are no remediation provisions or mechanisms for providing evidence that you're not spamming, don't bother going a step further. First, you're not likely to ever get off that blacklist even if you can find someone to speak to but, more importantly, a lack of remediation mechanisms is also a clear sign it is not a professional outlet."

---

Unfortunately, none of the ISPs inform their customers as to which anti-spam blacklist providers they are using in their automated anti-spam solution, nor do they provide any detailed information on what their customers need to do to get removed from the blacklist. This is assuming that the blacklist provider is blacklisting individual email addresses and not entire servers.

http://directmag.com/disciplines/ema...nny_blacklists

Judge Won't Overturn Spamhaus Ruling
Dec 1, 2006 12:00 PM, BY KEN MAGILL
A FEDERAL JUDGE IN Illinois recently denied anti-spam blacklisting group The Spamhaus Project's motions to dismiss an $11.7 million default judgment against ...

http://directmag.com/legal/online/ma..._wont_overturn

Cheers,

Linda

Linda:
Thanks for the info - and I am more than ever aggravated at my ISP, which is rr, as they won't even admit what is going on. It becomes apparent when one can see some e-mails go out just fine and others don't and both are innocuous and of the same comparable size and content. I have been using e-mail and various ISP's for at least 10 years and these current monopolies have become absolutely too domineering.
Again, thanks for the info, at least, I realize its not just me thats having this problem. Regards, Storminnorman.

I called ATT 2nd Tier support to see if they had gotten the blacklist removed from the server that my email address is on. This guy was another I don't know anything about that, but he did complete a ticket to policy and I am supposed to hear something in 24 hours.

When I told him that I could not communicate with some of my business associates at Microsoft, his solution was to get Microsoft to make an exception for my email address. I informed him that this is not the only ISP, which is using SpamCop, so the problem resides with ATT to get their act together.

Linda said:

"I guess it is going to take class-action lawsuits against the ISPs and SpamCop, to get this resolved. I am paying ATT for a service and I am complying with all the rules in the agreement, yet I cannot communicate with many of my business associates."

ATT rep's response:

"ATT is not responsible. ATT provides only the transport. Yahoo provides everything else for free."

If the ATT merger with Bell South, then they will be the dominant carrier in 27 states. Obviously the FCC nor the FTC is going to do anything about this, so we the customers have to find a way to get their attention.

Please spread the word. It's terrible, when a vendor says to a customer, it doesn't matter what we promised, we want your money but to hell with providing the service to you the customer.

If and when I hear from ATT Policy group, I will post that information here in this thread.

Linda

SpamCop uses an absolutely boneheaded method of spam control :mad:

http://jhoward.fastmail.fm/spamcop.html

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=23

http://www.politechbot.com/p-04129.html

http://lists.jammed.com/ISN/2003/04/0040.html

http://todayinsci.com/Editorial/Spamcop.htm

SuperSparks,

These complaints about SpamCop go all the way back to 2000, and yet 6 years later, these horrific business practices are still occuring.

Apparently, no one is doing anything. I know that you are in England but it looks like governmental agencies and ISP customers should be filing lots of class action lawsuits. Obviously, going to court everywhere is the only solution.

IMO, SpamCop is not going to change because then that would cost them money. However, the ISPs have very deep pockets and they are the vendor that we are buying our service from, who has decided to take this anti-spam shortcut and use SpamCop.

Spread the word. If we can get enough people on the internet talking about this, we can make things happen, just as we did with Sony's use of a rootkit.

Cheers,

Linda

In general, nobody is required to accept anyone else's email. You probably have a contractual agreement with your ISP that requires them to accept yours and provide a best-effort service to deliver it, but that's about it. You definitely don't have any agreement with ISP X which requires them to accept your messages that are being sent through your ISP Y. Their servers, their rules.

Blocklists like Spamcop and Spamhaus and SORBS and ORDB and RFC-Ignorant and the CBL and the hundreds of others around are, in general, useful tools. They're basically reputation systems where you can ask about a particular IP address or domain name and get a yes-or-no answer back. That's all they are -- big lookup tables. No blocklist has the power to block anything; that's all up to the mail server. The good lists have (and stick to) published policies that allow a mail server admin to decide if they care about that answer. Those that don't generally end up not being used much.

What a mail server admin chooses to do with the answers from one or more of those lists is entirely up to the mail server admin. They can reject, they can use it as just another input to a spam rating system, they can ROT13 the whole incoming message if they want. (Their servers, their rules again.) Unless you have an agreement with them that they'll accept your mail, you really have no right to dictate what they accept and reject. As a mail server admin, if I want to refuse all mail from China, that's my call. If I want to refuse all mail with an o in the username, that's my call. And if I want to delegate that accept/reject decision to a blocklist provider, that's my call too.


FWIW, I think SpamCop is a pretty dirty list -- it lists a lot of stuff that it shouldn't based on faulty header-reading algorithms etc. So my mail servers don't check it. If I try to email someone and theirs does and it causes a problem, I get in touch with them or their mail admin some other way and have a chat about why SpamCop sucks as an automatic-deny trigger. Sometimes they stop using SpamCop and email works again. Sometimes they don't, and I find some other way around it. None of this is end-of-the-world stuff.[1] If it becomes enough of a problem for me, I stop dealing with whoever I'm having trouble sending to. If it becomes enough of a problem for them, they can change mail providers.

And that's where you can apply pressure -- move your business to an ISP which runs a clean network, so they don't end up on those lists much to begin with. Move your business to an ISP which doesn't use spam filtering methods you disagree with, like SpamCop. Get your friends to do the same. If enough people do that, the ones doing bad things will either change their ways or go bankrupt. And if not, you've still managed to get the problem out of your life by switching to an ISP which runs the way you want it to run. You win either way.

Note also that you can get email service separately from IP connectivity -- if you want ISP Y for some reason but their email service sucks, there's nothing to stop you going somewhere else for your email.


[1] If anyone thinks I'm ranting now, wait until I get started on people who assume email is either instant or a guaranteed service...

Tuttle,
Thanks for the in-depth info on this situation. Somehow I remember the earlier days when we sent and received e-mails without blacklists and arbitrariy screenings by self-appointed dictatorial ISP's - and, what happened to the first amendment in all this? As for changing ISP's - where would that end? Maybe ISP A on Monday; B on Tuesday and Z for the rest of the week?Anyway, I appreciate this forum where we can discuss and become informed on what's happening And I thank everyone for their input.
Regards, Storminnorman