AOL "Bounced mail "
Thread Starter
Thought police antagonist
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 349
From: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
AOL "Bounced mail "
I have just sent three emails to friends with aol address's. All have been returned with the message that AOL is not accepting mail from the point of origin and my current ISP --which is BT / Yahoo. Some questions here please.
Has anybody else experienced the same problem ?
Can AOL enforce this, apparent, discrimination towards another ISP?
Is there any specific reason that anybody is aware of as to why this has suddenly happened?
Forgot to say, I am UK based, but clearly this may be a world wide occurence.
Many Thanks in advance.
K n C
Has anybody else experienced the same problem ?
Can AOL enforce this, apparent, discrimination towards another ISP?
Is there any specific reason that anybody is aware of as to why this has suddenly happened?
Forgot to say, I am UK based, but clearly this may be a world wide occurence.
Many Thanks in advance.
K n C
Persona non grata
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane, Australia.
They CAN do it all right, whether they should or not is another question. 
Some months ago I had the same thing, even emails to a family member in the USA on AOL were bounced.
I contacted them, and they said because there had been a lot of spam from the ISP in Australia (NOT from me
), they just banned any email from the ISP. 
It was lifted after a couple of weeks.
Some months ago I had the same thing, even emails to a family member in the USA on AOL were bounced.
I contacted them, and they said because there had been a lot of spam from the ISP in Australia (NOT from me
), they just banned any email from the ISP. It was lifted after a couple of weeks.
Thread Starter
Thought police antagonist
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 349
From: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
So it would appear !!! I have just spoken to a mutual friend of a friend in Norway----and he is having the same problem. The problem actually started today in the UK as the mails I sent yesterday were all recieved.
So is this a fit of pique / petulance on AOL's part, or just a "childish" attempt to gain market share. If so, not a very astute strategy !
I have just spoken to a mutual friend of a friend in Norway----and he is having the same problem. The problem actually started today in the UK as the mails I sent yesterday were all recieved. So is this a fit of pique / petulance on AOL's part, or just a "childish" attempt to gain market share. If so, not a very astute strategy !
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
From: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
I believe BT/Yahoo got together to offer an alternative to AOL so read into that what you like.
I did have an AOL account but don't bother now, too much trouble and things like this pissed me off too much. Actually leaving them was hell itself, the bloke on the phone was unreal, it was like his life depended on me staying with them, he just wouldn't have it why I wanted to go and no matter what I said he would come back with an instant reply to it, it was terrible, ended up swearing at the prick in the end and putting the phone down, he really, really got on my nerves he did. Spam was bad too. I set up an e-mail account and told no-one, didn't post a thing anywhere, nothing, just kept it to myself and alas, a few days later, full, pages of spam..........
Funny though how AOL sounds like a certain part of the anatomy, that sort of sums them up....
I did have an AOL account but don't bother now, too much trouble and things like this pissed me off too much. Actually leaving them was hell itself, the bloke on the phone was unreal, it was like his life depended on me staying with them, he just wouldn't have it why I wanted to go and no matter what I said he would come back with an instant reply to it, it was terrible, ended up swearing at the prick in the end and putting the phone down, he really, really got on my nerves he did. Spam was bad too. I set up an e-mail account and told no-one, didn't post a thing anywhere, nothing, just kept it to myself and alas, a few days later, full, pages of spam..........
Funny though how AOL sounds like a certain part of the anatomy, that sort of sums them up....
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
Krystal n chips
There may be some information in the bounce messages which tell us why they've been bounced e.g. if an RBL was involved (see below) but I'm not holding my breath.
It's possible that AOL are making use of one of the myriad RBL (Realtime Blocking Lists) which are available, or are "rolling their own". RBLs, or "a fit of pique" as they might appear, can be an extremely effective way of stopping spam, depending on the listing policy and efficiency of the operator. A little background...
Most spam does not come direct from the spammers machine, for obvious reasons. What the spammers are on the lookout for are what are called open relays. These are machines which are inadvertantly permitting third-party relaying of email through themselves, either due to incompetence or negligence. Email is transmitted throug the internet from server to server in a very similar way to ordinary paper mail, which goes from sorting office to sorting office until it finally reaches one where it can be delivered to the recipient's mailbox. Most, though not all, software has any security features that it might have switched off when you "get it out of he box" and email is no exception. The so-called "rationale" for this is it makes it "easy to get it up and running" (<rant> which translates as "we might be able to get away with using somebody cheap to run our servers, rather than somebody who actually knows what they are doing..." </rant>).
The problem is that having got your mail server up and running, there is great tendency to leave it "working" and not to go back and turn on all the appropriate security features, either becasue you are afraid of breaking something, or becasue you forget. So it's likely that this shiny new server will, as well as accepting mail for "the locals" who hanve mailboxes on it, also relay mail for third-parties, that is will helpfully try to deliver messages it recieves over the internet, but which are not destined for local mailboxes. This is box is then an open-relay, and is a prime candidate for being relay-raped.
Once a spammer find such an open relay, he proceeds to do one of two things. If he's clever, he drip feeds spam through it, on the grounds that 99% of the time the operator won't notice (rember they've not been clued up enough to secure the box in the first place). If he's not clued-up, he'll dump as much spam at it as he can. A depressingly large proportion of the time, nobody notices even this, but there is a higher chance that it will get noticed and the plug pulled. The spammer then moves on to his next open relay.
But what to do about all the spam that's pouring through the open relays until it gets noticed ? This is where the RBLs come in. The allow the addresses of the offending systems to be reported and listed in near "real time" in such a way that any mail server can look up the address of the sending system (note that's the network address of the offending system, not any email address associated with the message -- they're too easily forged) and decide before even receiving the message whether or not it wants to accept it, based purley on where it's come from. This is a Good Thing[TM] because any receiving site which performs this check will not accept the message in the first place, thus reducing network traffic, and it doesn't have to expend resources scanning the message to see if it's a virus or spam after getting it. The messages are left to pile up on the open-relay system leaving it to the operator to that system to deal with.
Now if this (badly run) open-relay happens to belong to an ISP, for example, then the email of legitimate customers of the ISP will get their email blocked as well as the spam; and this is where the issue gets contentious. Supporters of this type of approach (myself included, for the record) point out that as a matter of historical fact, system oerators will tend not to listen to complaints from third parties to secure their systems, only (sometimes) to their customers, and not often to them. I have witnessed on more than one occassion an very big UK ISP refuse to accept there was a mail-relaying problem with one of their servers for nearly two months until they got RBLed (by somebody else on this occassion -- I was trying to help them out before resorting to that
); and guess what -- the problem that they hadn't been able to solve for 7 weeks was fixed overnight when all their customers started complaining to them about their legitimate email not getting though.
Now the opponents of this system say that it's totally unfair that innocent customers of the offending ISP (or whoever) who are trying to send legitimate email end up becoming "collateral victims" of my refusal to accept email from them (well, not just them, their whole ISP.) This is a point of view with which I have much sympathy. However, experience has shown that systme operators tend not to respond to these complaints if they don't come from their customers. And anyway, why should i have to accept a shed load of spam coming from Dodgy-ISP, just to get the email from the one or two legitimate customers who wish to correspoind with me, and then have to run a load of software to weed out the 90% of it which is spam, just because the operator wouldn't setup their machine properly in the first place.
(For completeness, I should point out that although the example cited here tend to imply an individual-oriented ISP like AOL, the worst offenders tend to be the baby-coporate ISPs, that is the ones who sell connectivity to small businesses who themselves want to run their own mailservers. Getting mail relaying working correctly for these customers is marginally more difficult than for a setup where you only have local mailboxes, but not much. Any sysadmin who cannot do this properly shoulddn't be doing it all -- excepting, of course, the case where they know what they should be doing, but manglement refuse to allow them to do it for some spurious reason or another. but it is in this latter case (managementBinterference) that customer pressure, rather than third-party pressure, has the most effect.)
In short, spam filterning by ther recipient, no matter how clever it is, is ultimately no more than a sophisticated delete key. And hitting delete, although very effective in remoing the spam, has absolutely no effect on the spmmaer at all. What the RBL techiniques does, in effect, is to push the problem of dealing with the spam back, just a little bit, towards the spammer (in this case by inconveniencing the operator of the open relay rather than the recipient). As these people get their act together and secure their machines against open relaying (which is, when you get right the bottom line, theft of their resources by the spammer) less systmes will be available to spam though, and there will simply be less bandwidth available to the spammers. While we continue to simply absorb what they throw at us -- by deleting it, not rejecting it -- the problem will get worse. And I'm of the opinion that if a little "collateral damage" occurs, unfortunate though it is, thing will be better for it in the end...
Phew, this has all ended going on far longer that I was expecting, but as you might have guessed, you've got me going one of my pet subjects...
There may be some information in the bounce messages which tell us why they've been bounced e.g. if an RBL was involved (see below) but I'm not holding my breath.
It's possible that AOL are making use of one of the myriad RBL (Realtime Blocking Lists) which are available, or are "rolling their own". RBLs, or "a fit of pique" as they might appear, can be an extremely effective way of stopping spam, depending on the listing policy and efficiency of the operator. A little background...
Most spam does not come direct from the spammers machine, for obvious reasons. What the spammers are on the lookout for are what are called open relays. These are machines which are inadvertantly permitting third-party relaying of email through themselves, either due to incompetence or negligence. Email is transmitted throug the internet from server to server in a very similar way to ordinary paper mail, which goes from sorting office to sorting office until it finally reaches one where it can be delivered to the recipient's mailbox. Most, though not all, software has any security features that it might have switched off when you "get it out of he box" and email is no exception. The so-called "rationale" for this is it makes it "easy to get it up and running" (<rant> which translates as "we might be able to get away with using somebody cheap to run our servers, rather than somebody who actually knows what they are doing..."
</rant>).The problem is that having got your mail server up and running, there is great tendency to leave it "working" and not to go back and turn on all the appropriate security features, either becasue you are afraid of breaking something, or becasue you forget. So it's likely that this shiny new server will, as well as accepting mail for "the locals" who hanve mailboxes on it, also relay mail for third-parties, that is will helpfully try to deliver messages it recieves over the internet, but which are not destined for local mailboxes. This is box is then an open-relay, and is a prime candidate for being relay-raped.
Once a spammer find such an open relay, he proceeds to do one of two things. If he's clever, he drip feeds spam through it, on the grounds that 99% of the time the operator won't notice (rember they've not been clued up enough to secure the box in the first place). If he's not clued-up, he'll dump as much spam at it as he can. A depressingly large proportion of the time, nobody notices even this, but there is a higher chance that it will get noticed and the plug pulled. The spammer then moves on to his next open relay.
But what to do about all the spam that's pouring through the open relays until it gets noticed ? This is where the RBLs come in. The allow the addresses of the offending systems to be reported and listed in near "real time" in such a way that any mail server can look up the address of the sending system (note that's the network address of the offending system, not any email address associated with the message -- they're too easily forged) and decide before even receiving the message whether or not it wants to accept it, based purley on where it's come from. This is a Good Thing[TM] because any receiving site which performs this check will not accept the message in the first place, thus reducing network traffic, and it doesn't have to expend resources scanning the message to see if it's a virus or spam after getting it. The messages are left to pile up on the open-relay system leaving it to the operator to that system to deal with.
Now if this (badly run) open-relay happens to belong to an ISP, for example, then the email of legitimate customers of the ISP will get their email blocked as well as the spam; and this is where the issue gets contentious. Supporters of this type of approach (myself included, for the record) point out that as a matter of historical fact, system oerators will tend not to listen to complaints from third parties to secure their systems, only (sometimes) to their customers, and not often to them. I have witnessed on more than one occassion an very big UK ISP refuse to accept there was a mail-relaying problem with one of their servers for nearly two months until they got RBLed (by somebody else on this occassion -- I was trying to help them out before resorting to that
); and guess what -- the problem that they hadn't been able to solve for 7 weeks was fixed overnight when all their customers started complaining to them about their legitimate email not getting though.Now the opponents of this system say that it's totally unfair that innocent customers of the offending ISP (or whoever) who are trying to send legitimate email end up becoming "collateral victims" of my refusal to accept email from them (well, not just them, their whole ISP.) This is a point of view with which I have much sympathy. However, experience has shown that systme operators tend not to respond to these complaints if they don't come from their customers. And anyway, why should i have to accept a shed load of spam coming from Dodgy-ISP, just to get the email from the one or two legitimate customers who wish to correspoind with me, and then have to run a load of software to weed out the 90% of it which is spam, just because the operator wouldn't setup their machine properly in the first place.
(For completeness, I should point out that although the example cited here tend to imply an individual-oriented ISP like AOL, the worst offenders tend to be the baby-coporate ISPs, that is the ones who sell connectivity to small businesses who themselves want to run their own mailservers. Getting mail relaying working correctly for these customers is marginally more difficult than for a setup where you only have local mailboxes, but not much. Any sysadmin who cannot do this properly shoulddn't be doing it all -- excepting, of course, the case where they know what they should be doing, but manglement refuse to allow them to do it for some spurious reason or another. but it is in this latter case (managementBinterference) that customer pressure, rather than third-party pressure, has the most effect.)
In short, spam filterning by ther recipient, no matter how clever it is, is ultimately no more than a sophisticated delete key. And hitting delete, although very effective in remoing the spam, has absolutely no effect on the spmmaer at all. What the RBL techiniques does, in effect, is to push the problem of dealing with the spam back, just a little bit, towards the spammer (in this case by inconveniencing the operator of the open relay rather than the recipient). As these people get their act together and secure their machines against open relaying (which is, when you get right the bottom line, theft of their resources by the spammer) less systmes will be available to spam though, and there will simply be less bandwidth available to the spammers. While we continue to simply absorb what they throw at us -- by deleting it, not rejecting it -- the problem will get worse. And I'm of the opinion that if a little "collateral damage" occurs, unfortunate though it is, thing will be better for it in the end...
Phew, this has all ended going on far longer that I was expecting, but as you might have guessed, you've got me going one of my pet subjects...
The Oracle
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,902
Likes: 0
From: Naples, Florida U.S.A.
RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike,
Excellent post!
That is why I hate hearing people say they just delete instead of bouncing, etc. because they do not want to waste bandwidth, etc.
If we do not strike back, the Spammers win 100% of the time.
Take Care,
Richard
Excellent post!
In short, spam filterning by ther recipient, no matter how clever it is, is ultimately no more than a sophisticated delete key. And hitting delete, although very effective in remoing the spam, has absolutely no effect on the spammer at all.
If we do not strike back, the Spammers win 100% of the time.
Take Care,
Richard
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
From: The frequency jungle
I have two different emails from two different providers. Both are on my email client and both get rejected by a host in Africa because of the smtp server I use. The returned mail uses the wording "because of previous spamming incidents" and gives the smtp server's name.
I dont spam and never have. So could it be that someone has abused the same ISP that I use?
I dont spam and never have. So could it be that someone has abused the same ISP that I use?
Thread Starter
Thought police antagonist
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 349
From: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
My Thanks to all who replied to my original question.
RTFM Many Thanks for the detaile reply and the time taken to construct it. Some of it went over my head I have to say
but a lot did register. To answer your question, the message I get reads
ISP:B2 AOL is not currently accepting emails from your point of origin through your ISP. Contact your ISP ( followed by a selection of codes I assume which vary from message to message) but no mention of the point you raised---as you surmised.
The situation remains the same today, so I assume we all have to wait until the issue / feuding is resolved
As for the BT / Yahell link up, well until Yahell appeared, the BT service was actually improving. However, since then Yahoo seem to have induced the equivalent of C.F.I.T at Vne with regard to the service standards
Any further info. is appreciated re the original question.
Many Thanks,
K n C
RTFM Many Thanks for the detaile reply and the time taken to construct it. Some of it went over my head I have to say
but a lot did register. To answer your question, the message I get reads ISP:B2 AOL is not currently accepting emails from your point of origin through your ISP. Contact your ISP ( followed by a selection of codes I assume which vary from message to message) but no mention of the point you raised---as you surmised.
The situation remains the same today, so I assume we all have to wait until the issue / feuding is resolved
As for the BT / Yahell link up, well until Yahell appeared, the BT service was actually improving.
However, since then Yahoo seem to have induced the equivalent of C.F.I.T at Vne with regard to the service standards Any further info. is appreciated re the original question.
Many Thanks,
K n C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 513
Likes: 31
From: Dorset,UK
Krystal n chips
I too use BT/Yahell and I agree with you that BT on it's own was improving. In fact I had little problem with BT. But YAHOO is a complete heap of dog sh$t. The only problem with changing to another e-mail provider is telling everybody your new address.
I might try telling BT/Yahell that I am changing to AOL
Although I have heard that AOL is in fact AOHELL!!
CC
I too use BT/Yahell and I agree with you that BT on it's own was improving. In fact I had little problem with BT. But YAHOO is a complete heap of dog sh$t. The only problem with changing to another e-mail provider is telling everybody your new address.
I might try telling BT/Yahell that I am changing to AOL
Although I have heard that AOL is in fact AOHELL!!
CC
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
Richard
"Excellent post! "
Thank you
. I have, on re-reading what I wrote, noticed a whole load of typring 'orrors which I'm sure weren't there when I posted it... I really ought to go back and correct them... [my only defence is that writing it provided "light relief" while my network ops. staff went and disconnected a rogue multicast server which was saturating part of our network 
with a pair of wire cutters )
The other reason you don't want to reply is that these days, more often then not, the sender address is either bogus or even worse, legitimate but forged to some innocent third party. So at best any attempt to reply will go nowhere (beacuse the address is completely bogus) or at worst complaints go and clog up some poor unsuspecting innocent's mailbox instead. (This goes for complaints about most viruses too, BTW. They almost always forge legitimate but completely unrelated sender addresses.) So no only does the spammer have the cheek to spam you in the first place, but then should you actually want to avail yourself of the service offered 
then you'll have to jump through hoops to do it, since the expected technique of simply replying has been broken due to the fact that the reply address would get flooded by complaints ! Pah
And if you reply, even if only to complain, they know which of there zillions of email addresses are actually live, as opposed to ones which are simply dormant.
126,7
If the host in Africa is rejecting your email due an RBL they really should identify which one it is so that you can report this to your ISP. However this information may be in the message headers -- come back to us if you need more help with that.
One thing that I really ought to clarify is that there are a number of RBLs, each operating their own listing policy; that is what crieteria they use to decide if and when they are going to list a given server/ISP, and under what circumstances, and, perhaps more importantly, how quickly, they will remove an entry. It is up to potential subscribers to an RBL service to determine whether its listing policy is appropriate to the type of users that it has...
[ to be continued... ]
"Excellent post! "
Thank you
. I have, on re-reading what I wrote, noticed a whole load of typring 'orrors which I'm sure weren't there when I posted it... I really ought to go back and correct them... [my only defence is that writing it provided "light relief" while my network ops. staff went and disconnected a rogue multicast server which was saturating part of our network with a pair of wire cutters )
That is why I hate hearing people say they just delete instead of bouncing, etc. because they do not want to waste bandwidth, etc.
then you'll have to jump through hoops to do it, since the expected technique of simply replying has been broken due to the fact that the reply address would get flooded by complaints ! Pah And if you reply, even if only to complain, they know which of there zillions of email addresses are actually live, as opposed to ones which are simply dormant.
126,7
I have two different emails from two different providers. Both are on my email client and both get rejected by a host in Africa because of the smtp server I use. The returned mail uses the wording "because of previous spamming incidents" and gives the smtp server's name.
I dont spam and never have. So could it be that someone has abused the same ISP that I use?
I dont spam and never have. So could it be that someone has abused the same ISP that I use?
One thing that I really ought to clarify is that there are a number of RBLs, each operating their own listing policy; that is what crieteria they use to decide if and when they are going to list a given server/ISP, and under what circumstances, and, perhaps more importantly, how quickly, they will remove an entry. It is up to potential subscribers to an RBL service to determine whether its listing policy is appropriate to the type of users that it has...
[ to be continued... ]
The Oracle
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,902
Likes: 0
From: Naples, Florida U.S.A.
RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike,
When ISPs put Bayesian Algorithm Spam Filters and Antivirus Filters on their mail servers, this problem will be solved. It is something the ISPs could do today but they just do not do it.
Till then create as much bouncing traffic till be becomes more economical for the ISPs to add the Filters and we all win.
Take Care,
Richard
When ISPs put Bayesian Algorithm Spam Filters and Antivirus Filters on their mail servers, this problem will be solved. It is something the ISPs could do today but they just do not do it.
Till then create as much bouncing traffic till be becomes more economical for the ISPs to add the Filters and we all win.
Take Care,
Richard
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
AOL are, I suspect, trying to scare BT/Yahoo users into changing to AOL. I've had lots of complaints (to the Flyer List) these past few days from BT users whose mail to AOL users is being bounced.
And I'm that "victim". My (former) primary e-mail address is being used by a spammer sending out advertising to Russians. I was getting thousands of bounces a day, till I disabled it. The primary source of the Spam was blueyonder, who claimed it's a virus on one user's machine.
Still don't know why it took them over three weeks to sort out that user! The spam goes on, from a different ISP now.
And I'm that "victim". My (former) primary e-mail address is being used by a spammer sending out advertising to Russians. I was getting thousands of bounces a day, till I disabled it. The primary source of the Spam was blueyonder, who claimed it's a virus on one user's machine.
Still don't know why it took them over three weeks to sort out that user! The spam goes on, from a different ISP now.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
Richard,
I'm not sure that I completely agree with you . Viruses and spam need to be treated differently. AV software and proper filtering of outbound traffic will be necessary until the the evil of the Microsoft Virus, sorry, Operating System is eliminated
As to spam, no amount of Bayesian filters and all the rest will ever, I believe, solve the problem. Not because they cannot be made good enought to identify the spam, but becasue deleting the spam after you have received it will never impact the spammer. This is the crux of the problem.
The RBL-based approach provides a mechanism for stopping the spam before you get it, thus moving the impact back towards the spammer. Note that because you've not received the spam, you cannot use Bayesian, or any other technique, to analyse it, because you don't actually have "it" to analyse...
Keef,
You may well be right (I have no experience of using AOL's services, but if you want to PM me your AOL email address, I would be interested to send a test email from a BTYahoo account and see what I get back); however, on more than one occassion I have become, ahem, "aware" of BT servers getting listed in various RBLs....
Krystal,
You're welcome I did get a bit carried away, but it was an good place to air the issues of RBLs to a wider audience
Don't worry about it. If you're prepared to PM me an email address, I'll test it out from a BTYahoo account I have.
When ISPs put Bayesian Algorithm Spam Filters and Antivirus Filters on their mail servers, this problem will be solved. It is something the ISPs could do today but they just do not do it.
. Viruses and spam need to be treated differently. AV software and proper filtering of outbound traffic will be necessary until the the evil of the Microsoft Virus, sorry, Operating System is eliminated As to spam, no amount of Bayesian filters and all the rest will ever, I believe, solve the problem. Not because they cannot be made good enought to identify the spam, but becasue deleting the spam after you have received it will never impact the spammer. This is the crux of the problem.
The RBL-based approach provides a mechanism for stopping the spam before you get it, thus moving the impact back towards the spammer. Note that because you've not received the spam, you cannot use Bayesian, or any other technique, to analyse it, because you don't actually have "it" to analyse...
Keef,
AOL are, I suspect, trying to scare BT/Yahoo users into changing to AOL. I've had lots of complaints (to the Flyer List) these past few days from BT users whose mail to AOL users is being bounced.
Krystal,
RTFM Many Thanks for the detaile reply and the time taken to construct it.
I did get a bit carried away, but it was an good place to air the issues of RBLs to a wider audience
Some of it went over my head I have to say but a lot did register.
Last edited by RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike; 1st March 2004 at 21:08.
The Oracle
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,902
Likes: 0
From: Naples, Florida U.S.A.
RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike,
I think we are talking about the same thing. We need two things to happen. One the Spam needs to be blocked from ever getting though and two we need to locate the spammers and stop them.
The ISPs are the ones that can do this. They have the information needed on every account and they know which account is logged in on which IP Address. It is very simple for the ISPs to work to stop spammers.
Using Bayesian Algorithm Spam Filters will let them know who is spamming instantly and they can take efforts to stop them, but they do not do it.
After all, each account they stop is one less account paying the monthly internet access fees to the ISP.
Take Care,
Richard
I think we are talking about the same thing. We need two things to happen. One the Spam needs to be blocked from ever getting though and two we need to locate the spammers and stop them.
The ISPs are the ones that can do this. They have the information needed on every account and they know which account is logged in on which IP Address. It is very simple for the ISPs to work to stop spammers.
Using Bayesian Algorithm Spam Filters will let them know who is spamming instantly and they can take efforts to stop them, but they do not do it.
After all, each account they stop is one less account paying the monthly internet access fees to the ISP.
Take Care,
Richard
Thread Starter
Thought police antagonist
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 349
From: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Just to say the current little spat of temper tantrums now seems to be over and all is back to normal---for the moment at least.
RTFM Many thanks for your kind offer re the emails. If it happens again, and my nasty little mind suspects it will given the parties involved, then I will certainly take up your offer. However, I also wish to thank others who have contributed and provided a fascinating insight with regard to ISP's and spam. You live and learn
Best Wishes,
K n C
RTFM Many thanks for your kind offer re the emails. If it happens again, and my nasty little mind suspects it will given the parties involved,
then I will certainly take up your offer. However, I also wish to thank others who have contributed and provided a fascinating insight with regard to ISP's and spam. You live and learn Best Wishes,
K n C
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
From: The frequency jungle
This is the msg I get sent back to me
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
(reason: 553 Your site is blocked due to previous spamming incidents)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to smtpserv.absamail.co.za.:
<<< 553 Your site is blocked due to previous spamming incidents
554 5.0.0 Service unavailable
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
(reason: 553 Your site is blocked due to previous spamming incidents)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to smtpserv.absamail.co.za.:
<<< 553 Your site is blocked due to previous spamming incidents
554 5.0.0 Service unavailable
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
From: The frequency jungle
Hi Richard
About the ISP: They had a documentary on TV last night saying that 54% of my ISP's subscriber's computers are not adequately protected. That's probably where this spamming all comes from
Cable provider!!
About the ISP: They had a documentary on TV last night saying that 54% of my ISP's subscriber's computers are not adequately protected. That's probably where this spamming all comes from
Cable provider!!
