El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
I have no idea why. This is very dificult for an ESP to find his network listed and we have no idea who is abusing the system. We do outgoing spam scan using commtouch we maintain FBL's with AOL etc
The best APEWS can do is provide a abuse report mail to the network owner before it gets too bad.
A Feedback loop is the best thing that can prevent prolonged abuse.
On Nov 4, 5:58 am, ram <ramprasad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My Network range has been listed as E-352722
> I have no idea why. This is very dificult for an ESP to find his > network listed and we have no idea who is abusing the system. We do > outgoing spam scan using commtouch we maintain FBL's with AOL etc
> The best APEWS can do is provide a abuse report mail to the network > owner before it gets too bad.
> A Feedback loop is the best thing that can prevent prolonged abuse.
Well any ESP I see get listed at home and dayjob as far as i know all ESP do a lot of abuse, I have never seen one that does not. as far as I have seen all ESP send a lot of spam , it's like what your guys do, spam for pay. wheeler
> On Nov 4, 5:58 am, ram <ramprasad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My Network range has been listed as E-352722
> > I have no idea why. This is very dificult for an ESP to find his > > network listed and we have no idea who is abusing the system. We do > > outgoing spam scan using commtouch we maintain FBL's with AOL etc
> > The best APEWS can do is provide a abuse report mail to the network > > owner before it gets too bad.
> > A Feedback loop is the best thing that can prevent prolonged abuse.
> Well any ESP I see get listed at home and dayjob as far as i know all > ESP do a lot of abuse, I have never seen one that does not. > as far as I have seen all ESP send a lot of spam , it's like what your > guys do, spam for pay. > wheeler
Same here, all ESPs are auto-blocked as soon as i know about them. I'll go you one further in that not only have i never seen an ESP that doesn't spam, i've never seen a non-spam email from an ESP.
-- I sense a disturbance in the farce. TOASTEDspam.com
> On Nov 4, 5:58 am, ram <ramprasad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My Network range has been listed as E-352722
> > I have no idea why. This is very dificult for an ESP to find his > > network listed and we have no idea who is abusing the system. We do > > outgoing spam scan using commtouch we maintain FBL's with AOL etc
> > The best APEWS can do is provide a abuse report mail to the network > > owner before it gets too bad.
> > A Feedback loop is the best thing that can prevent prolonged abuse.
> Well any ESP I see get listed at home and dayjob as far as i know all > ESP do a lot of abuse, I have never seen one that does not. > as far as I have seen all ESP send a lot of spam , it's like what your > guys do, spam for pay. > wheeler
Well , That is an incorrect point of view to say the least.
Google hosts thousands of domains for email, so does yahoo. And we do get spam from both. Does this mean that you will junk all mails from google and yahoo networks. If you do you are not in business. You cant expect every one mailing you to be big enough to afford their own mail servers
> On Nov 4, 9:58 pm, wuffa <magewu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 5:58 am, ram <ramprasad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My Network range has been listed as E-352722
> > > I have no idea why. This is very dificult for an ESP to find his > > > network listed and we have no idea who is abusing the system. We do > > > outgoing spam scan using commtouch we maintain FBL's with AOL etc
> > > The best APEWS can do is provide a abuse report mail to the network > > > owner before it gets too bad.
> > > A Feedback loop is the best thing that can prevent prolonged abuse.
> > Well any ESP I see get listed at home and dayjob as far as i know all > > ESP do a lot of abuse, I have never seen one that does not. > > as far as I have seen all ESP send a lot of spam , it's like what your > > guys do, spam for pay. > > wheeler
> Well , That is an incorrect point of view to say the least.
> Google hosts thousands of domains for email, so does yahoo. And we do > get spam from both. > Does this mean that you will junk all mails from google and yahoo > networks. > If you do you are not in business. > You cant expect every one mailing you to be big enough to afford their > own mail servers
The point seems to be though that the people who farm their email out to 3rd parties never seem to obtain opt-in permission from the recipients. That is the only issue that matters. So far this i the relationship i have seen:
obtains opt-in permission = sends their own email
uses 3rd party emailing = sends without permission
Now, it is true that there are some (well, many) folks who send their own email without permission. However, i have never yet even once seen an opt-in permission email from a 3rd party. Not one single time in 12 years of receiving email.
This is why, at least in my book, ESPs are classified as 100% pure spam sources and are blocked on sight.
-- I sense a disturbance in the farce. TOASTEDspam.com
> On Nov 5, 12:13 am, ram <ramprasad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 9:58 pm, wuffa <magewu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 5:58 am, ram <ramprasad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > My Network range has been listed as E-352722
> > > > I have no idea why. This is very dificult for an ESP to find his > > > > network listed and we have no idea who is abusing the system. We do > > > > outgoing spam scan using commtouch we maintain FBL's with AOL etc
> > > > The best APEWS can do is provide a abuse report mail to the network > > > > owner before it gets too bad.
> > > > A Feedback loop is the best thing that can prevent prolonged abuse.
> > > Well any ESP I see get listed at home and dayjob as far as i know all > > > ESP do a lot of abuse, I have never seen one that does not. > > > as far as I have seen all ESP send a lot of spam , it's like what your > > > guys do, spam for pay. > > > wheeler
> > Well , That is an incorrect point of view to say the least.
> > Google hosts thousands of domains for email, so does yahoo. And we do > > get spam from both. > > Does this mean that you will junk all mails from google and yahoo > > networks. > > If you do you are not in business. > > You cant expect every one mailing you to be big enough to afford their > > own mail servers
> The point seems to be though that the people who farm their email out > to 3rd parties never seem to obtain opt-in permission from the > recipients. That is the only issue that matters. So far this i the > relationship i have seen:
> obtains opt-in permission = sends their own email
> uses 3rd party emailing = sends without permission
> Now, it is true that there are some (well, many) folks who send their > own email without permission. However, i have never yet even once seen > an opt-in permission email from a 3rd party. Not one single time in 12 > years of receiving email.
> This is why, at least in my book, ESPs are classified as 100% pure > spam sources and are blocked on sight.
I am not talking of marketing mailing at all. Pure 1 to 1 transactional mails are being sent. If you have 25 users in your organization and you want mail@yourdomain would you run your own email server ? At least not in India
ram <ramprasad...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am not talking of marketing mailing at all. > Pure 1 to 1 transactional mails are being sent. If you have 25 users > in your organization and you want mail@yourdomain would you run your > own email server ? At least not in India
Of course you are right, but there is no discussion with rabid spam haters like the one you cited. They have their fixed point of view and nobody is going to change it. When a single spam has come out of a company, the company is a spammer and it will be blocked (by them). This of course means that every mail provider is blocked as everyone will have at least one misbehaving customer. But there is no need to worry about it, you don't want to mail him anyway so who cares if he blocks you? Same for being listed on APEWS. This is not a blocklist a normal company would use, it is only for unreasonable persons. You will not be affected by it in normal mail traffic.
> On Nov 5, 4:21 pm, "TOASTEDspam.com" <goo...@toastedspam.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 12:13 am, ram <ramprasad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 9:58 pm, wuffa <magewu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 4, 5:58 am, ram <ramprasad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > My Network range has been listed as E-352722
> > > > > I have no idea why. This is very dificult for an ESP to find his > > > > > network listed and we have no idea who is abusing the system. We do > > > > > outgoing spam scan using commtouch we maintain FBL's with AOL etc
> > > > > The best APEWS can do is provide a abuse report mail to the network > > > > > owner before it gets too bad.
> > > > > A Feedback loop is the best thing that can prevent prolonged abuse.
> > > > Well any ESP I see get listed at home and dayjob as far as i know all > > > > ESP do a lot of abuse, I have never seen one that does not. > > > > as far as I have seen all ESP send a lot of spam , it's like what your > > > > guys do, spam for pay. > > > > wheeler
> > > Well , That is an incorrect point of view to say the least.
> > > Google hosts thousands of domains for email, so does yahoo. And we do > > > get spam from both. > > > Does this mean that you will junk all mails from google and yahoo > > > networks. > > > If you do you are not in business. > > > You cant expect every one mailing you to be big enough to afford their > > > own mail servers
> > The point seems to be though that the people who farm their email out > > to 3rd parties never seem to obtain opt-in permission from the > > recipients. That is the only issue that matters. So far this i the > > relationship i have seen:
> > obtains opt-in permission = sends their own email
> > uses 3rd party emailing = sends without permission
> > Now, it is true that there are some (well, many) folks who send their > > own email without permission. However, i have never yet even once seen > > an opt-in permission email from a 3rd party. Not one single time in 12 > > years of receiving email.
> > This is why, at least in my book, ESPs are classified as 100% pure > > spam sources and are blocked on sight.
> I am not talking of marketing mailing at all. > Pure 1 to 1 transactional mails are being sent. If you have 25 users > in your organization and you want mail@yourdomain would you run your > own email server ? At least not in India
25 users sending 1 to 1 emails? Who needs an esp for that at all? Why doesn't the company simply set up email accounts with their ISP? That would be so much cheaper and more efficient than using a 3rd party solution.
And yes, i would set up my own mail server for that situation. Previous $dayjob had about 20 email users and we ran our own mail server. It cost $300 for the hardware, took about 40 minutes to set it up, and required several minutes per week maintenance and administration. Using it was effectively free. Current $dayjob has 17 employees total. We run our own mail server because we want complete control of our domain and email operations. It also means we're not sharing resources with other entities who may misbehave and get that resource's connectivity blocked.
If a small business doesn't want to run their own server then they ask their ISP for 25 POP3/IMAP accounts and install Thunderbird or a similar email client on their PCs.
-- I sense a disturbance in the farce. TOASTEDspam.com
In article <df53fcad-b83a-4bdf-805e-a06849686...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ram <ramprasad...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 5, 4:21 pm, "TOASTEDspam.com" <goo...@toastedspam.com> wrote: >> Now, it is true that there are some (well, many) folks who send their >> own email without permission. However, i have never yet even once seen >> an opt-in permission email from a 3rd party. Not one single time in 12 >> years of receiving email.
>> This is why, at least in my book, ESPs are classified as 100% pure >> spam sources and are blocked on sight.
That is position is even more ridiculous than the position of ESPs and ESP apologists that legitimate ESPs such as MAAWG member send practically no spam. An ESP that sent 100% pure spam would be 100% blocked by inbox providers such as Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft and listed by real DNSBLs such as Spamhaus'. If you or your users get much transactional mail, and if you pay attention to headers and owners of SMTP client (mail sender) IP addresses, then you know that ESPs send a lot of perfectly legitimate bulk email.
What is true is that the economics of sending bulk email for hire ensure that all ESPs send less spam than will get them blocked much of the time by inbox providers but not so little spam that anti-spam measures push customers to other ESPs or other advertising media.
Marketing mail will always have a significant opt-out component. No advertiser wants to send an initial message saying the equivalent of "You didn't click the checkbox that would have stopped this junk when you registered the warranty for your new toaster or asked for your rebate. Click <here> or reply to this mail to start a stream of irritating advertising junk to your mail box." Many advertisers simply won't do the bulk mail confirmation dance despite MAAWG claims about their member ESPs. There will always be occassional "courtesy subscription." Targets on "repurposed" list of former customers or customers of acquired companies will continue to get invitations to opt-out of junk mail. And then there is human error.
An ESP that did what is necessary to honestly send practically no spam such as a $100 fee for each validated spam complaint would have no customers. So ESPs use "global suppression" lists and other mechanisms to send no advertising or transactional mail (e.g. bank statements) to users and entire domains that have ever made a spam complaint. That works because fewer than 0.01% of users make valid spam complaints even about the worse spam. If you can trim those few "flamers" from your traget list, you don't need to worry about spam complaints.
The result is that all ESPs send some unsolicited bulk email, but not enough to win blacklisting by major inbox providers or major DNSBLs such as Spamhaus's. ESPs are blacklisted by small organzations that have per-user, per-bulk mail stream whitelisting machinery and users willing to use it. ESPs are also listed by toy DNSBLs but randomly along with half of the Internet regardless of spam and with the goal of worrying the naive and credulous.
>I am not talking of marketing mailing at all. >Pure 1 to 1 transactional mails are being sent.
Pardon the skepticism, because all spammers claim spam is that which others do. For example, pill spammers claim that their "reorder reminders" are "pure 1 to 1 transactional mails."
> If you have 25 users >in your organization and you want mail@yourdomain would you run your >own email server ?
Why not? You can't out source your entire business. Out sourcing bulk email would make business sense except for the fact that all ESPs send enough spam to be blacklisted by small outfits.
> At least not in India
Why not in India? Are there laws against running your own mail system? If power or reliable Internet connections are the issue, why not buy Internet colocation or hosting services, perhaps overseas?
> In article <df53fcad-b83a-4bdf-805e-a06849686...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> ram <ramprasad...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 5, 4:21 pm, "TOASTEDspam.com" <goo...@toastedspam.com> wrote: > >> Now, it is true that there are some (well, many) folks who send their > >> own email without permission. However, i have never yet even once seen > >> an opt-in permission email from a 3rd party. Not one single time in 12 > >> years of receiving email.
> >> This is why, at least in my book, ESPs are classified as 100% pure > >> spam sources and are blocked on sight.
> That is position is even more ridiculous than the position of ESPs and > ESP apologists that legitimate ESPs such as MAAWG member send practically > no spam. An ESP that sent 100% pure spam would be 100% blocked by inbox > providers such as Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft and listed by real DNSBLs > such as Spamhaus'. If you or your users get much transactional mail, > and if you pay attention to headers and owners of SMTP client (mail > sender) IP addresses, then you know that ESPs send a lot of perfectly > legitimate bulk email.
> What is true is that the economics of sending bulk email for hire ensure > that all ESPs send less spam than will get them blocked much of the > time by inbox providers but not so little spam that anti-spam measures > push customers to other ESPs or other advertising media.
> Marketing mail will always have a significant opt-out component. No > advertiser wants to send an initial message saying the equivalent of > "You didn't click the checkbox that would have stopped this junk when > you registered the warranty for your new toaster or asked for your > rebate. Click <here> or reply to this mail to start a stream of > irritating advertising junk to your mail box." Many advertisers simply > won't do the bulk mail confirmation dance despite MAAWG claims about > their member ESPs. There will always be occassional "courtesy > subscription." Targets on "repurposed" list of former customers or > customers of acquired companies will continue to get invitations to > opt-out of junk mail. And then there is human error.
> An ESP that did what is necessary to honestly send practically no spam > such as a $100 fee for each validated spam complaint would have no > customers. So ESPs use "global suppression" lists and other mechanisms > to send no advertising or transactional mail (e.g. bank statements) to > users and entire domains that have ever made a spam complaint. That > works because fewer than 0.01% of users make valid spam complaints even > about the worse spam. If you can trim those few "flamers" from your > traget list, you don't need to worry about spam complaints.
> The result is that all ESPs send some unsolicited bulk email, but > not enough to win blacklisting by major inbox providers or major > DNSBLs such as Spamhaus's. ESPs are blacklisted by small organzations > that have per-user, per-bulk mail stream whitelisting machinery and > users willing to use it. ESPs are also listed by toy DNSBLs but > randomly along with half of the Internet regardless of spam and with > the goal of worrying the naive and credulous.
> >I am not talking of marketing mailing at all. > >Pure 1 to 1 transactional mails are being sent.
> Pardon the skepticism, because all spammers claim spam is that which > others do. For example, pill spammers claim that their "reorder > reminders" are "pure 1 to 1 transactional mails."
Skepticism misplaced. I dont know about others , but for sure we kick off spammers on the first evidence. That is why we are looking for squeaky clean ip reputations
> > If you have 25 users > >in your organization and you want mail@yourdomain would you run your > >own email server ?
> Why not? You can't out source your entire business. Out sourcing > bulk email would make business sense except for the fact that all > ESPs send enough spam to be blacklisted by small outfits.
> > At least not in India
> Why not in India? Are there laws against running your own mail system? > If power or reliable Internet connections are the issue, why not > buy Internet colocation or hosting services, perhaps overseas?
Power is not a issue , affordable bandwidth is. The ISP's here are exorbitant. (An average Indian pays 250 times what a south Korean pays for the same 2mbps line ).
That is why people have a mail server in their local office. All local mails are delivered locally and you get an ESP to relay your remaining mails outside. No they cannot use the ISP's pop accounts, because services are pathetic. And they get charged for connecting to their own pop accounts too.
In article <4ebc5ac6-132d-4a47-828e-cc4d6dd34...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ram <ramprasad...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >I am not talking of marketing mailing at all. >> >Pure 1 to 1 transactional mails are being sent. >Skepticism misplaced. I dont know about others , but for sure we kick >off spammers on the first evidence. >That is why we are looking for squeaky clean ip reputations
Just as I said. An ESP that has spammers to kick off and merely kicks them off instead of fining them so much money that they never consider becoming customers is not sending only 1 to 1 transactional email and deserves a reputation for sending spam. It should be blacklisted except for users that want to receive junk mail or some identified streams of bulk for individual users.
All ESPs continually try to clean up their reputations. They have and deserve reputations for sending unsolicited bulk email, because they send some unsolicited bulk email. If their reputatations for spamming gets bad enough, they can't provide the service they offer of sending bulk mail. Ensuring that they never send spam would not be competetive or as profitable. So they minimize but do not eliminate spam and continually massage ISPs, inbox providers, blacklist and spam filter operators, and anyone else they reach with their propaganda.
I bet part of Ram's job includes regularly contacting ISPs with his "we don't send spam except for the spammers that we kick off" story. And signing up for big ISP "feedback" to tune his global suppresion list.
>Power is not a issue , affordable bandwidth is. The ISP's here are >exorbitant. (An average Indian pays 250 times what a south Korean >pays for the same 2mbps line ).
>That is why people have a mail server in their local office. All local >mails are delivered locally and you get an ESP to relay your >remaining mails outside. No they cannot use the ISP's pop accounts, >because services are pathetic. And they get charged for connecting to >their own pop accounts too.
There are plausible reasons for hiring an ESP, but that nonsense is bad ESP sales blather. It makes no sense to anyone who knows how much bandwidth is needed for email compared to other uses of the Internet (e.g. http://www.cnn.com/ is about 700 KBytes just now).
|
