Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Overcoming MAPS Reverse-Lookup Oppression?

Cliff posted more than 10 years ago | from the all-servers-do-not-have-proper-reverse-lookups dept.

Spam 97

ArghBlarg asks: "Imagine the following scenario: you're the volunteer admin for a small, non-profit site for a few local artists and musicians. You run your web site and SMTP server out of your laundry room, via cable broadband. The broadband provider doesn't mind, as you only get a few hits a day; you keep your system secure and were only rooted once, over 4 years ago (hey, it happens). Your site has never, ever (to your knowledge) relayed spam. On the whole you've been an exemplary netizen. One day, some email you send bounces because your ISP's entire netblock has been placed on the MAPS DUL. True, your server's IP isn't technically static (though it hasn't changed in 12 months); because your domain is embedded within the broadband provider's larger IP block, reverse lookups don't give your domain name, rather that of the provider (with a huge number prefixed as the hostname). Hence you're considered a rogue SMTP node and blocked by MAPS. I've emailed MAPS but they won't agree to whitelist me. I have a proper MX record for my SMTP server, under my domain name. What can I do? Is there any way to make my legitimate domain take precedence in reverse-lookups, so I don't show up as being part of a spam-friendly network?""Please don't bother suggesting that I ask my provider to give me a static IP outside the affected block -- they won't, not without upgrading to a MUCH more expensive package which gives me no benefit for a small-traffic server like this.

What have you done to get your domain, running on a pseudo-static IP, out from under the thumb of the spam block lists? While I wholeheartedly support the efforts of the MAPS people and others like them to stamp out the vermin that are spammers, our domain has become collateral damage in the war!"

cancel ×

97 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That sux (1)

djsmiley (752149) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316090)

That indeed sux.

But appart from changing isp, im not sure what else you can do :(.

Im not to hot on the whole issue, but could some kinda mail forwarding work? Im guessing it wouldn't but its just a suggestion.

Good luck with it all.

Re:That sux (0, Troll)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317036)

But appart from changing isp, im not sure what else you can do :(
That's exactly what MAPS wants you to do -- change ISPs. They think that if everyone in your situation leaves your ISP, your ISP will go out of business and that's one less spam channel. Of course, this logic has proven false in the real world. Your short-term solution is indeed to change ISPs, but that won't give you any assurance this won't happen again. The only way to prevent a future occurance is to take out MAPS and their vigilante cousins. One way is legally - you could sue them, or write your Congressperson and ask for email anti-terror legislation (because, let's face it, MAPS is engaged in email terrorism to achieve their goals).

Or you could find their address and fire bomb them. If they ever mess with me again, that's the route I plan to take. I tried the other approaches and they don't work.

Either that, or make zombies of a few thousand Windows boxes (it's easy) and launce a DOS attack on MAPS. That might work, but I still think firebombs is your best option. Mod this "troll" or "flamebait" but you know I'm right.

Relay through ISP (5, Informative)

crow (16139) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316111)

You should configure your SMTP server to relay all mail through the ISP's SMTP server. Then people will receive the mail from the ISP, not from you, and presumably they won't be blacklisting the official SMTP server for the ISP (or else you have a bigger problem).

Re:Relay through ISP (3, Informative)

Saganaga (167162) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316406)

I second this recommendation. This is exactly what I do for my home email server (on Roadrunner cable) and my church's email server (on Onvoy DSL). Both email servers are using QMail.

The only possible negative I see to relaying through your ISP's SMTP server is that it introduces another possible point of failure, but that seems to be an acceptable tradeoff.

Re:Relay through ISP (2, Interesting)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317335)

Plus you tend to loose things like TLS, and of course being a single node for all mail for an ISP can make them a little slow and unreliable.

The best solution is probably to get your own server on a static IP and smarthost through that; since it's entirely under your control you know it's not going to get some handy config change which breaks your mail, nor is it likely to go away for hours on end while it's broken/fixed/upgraded without warning.

Re:Relay through ISP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9328305)

lose

Re:Relay through ISP (2, Informative)

jc42 (318812) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316630)

It won't work. Around here, we get cable service through rcn.com, and my wife and I have email accounts with them. I don't use it much except for testing, but she uses it a lot. She uses her Mac Mail program, and it is configured to relay through smtp.rcn.com. Some weeks back, she found that email to aol.com addresses were bouncing. I found the raw source message, and it contained an explicit statement that all messages from rcn.com addresses were being rejected as spam.

AOL has done this in the past, of course, and they proudly announce how many spam messages they have rejected. Some have suggested that they should reject all email, and then they'd have a 100% successful rejection of spam. But I digress. ;-)

Anyway, the dummies that reject email based on things like dynamic IP addresses often reject all messages from an ISP. So it doesn't matter whether the email comes from your machine or the ISP's relay.

Re:Relay through ISP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9316857)

all messages from rcn.com addresses were being rejected as spam.
Well, RCN are known pink-slip spammers. I've had (i.e. filtered) hundreds of spams from them.

Next time, try a credible, competent ISP.

Re:Relay through ISP (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317716)

Next time, try a credible, competent ISP.

Most people have a choice of exactly one ISP. Take it or leave it.

Actually, we do have two available here. Both have reported the same problem with mail to aol.com addresses. Maybe AOL is blocking all email from ISPs. That would definitely cut down the amount of spam that their customers receive.

Re:Relay through ISP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9317786)

I block inbound mail from dynamic addresses, since its all spam.

smtp.rcn.com is a fixed IP address, so its not blocked. Check the MAPS dialup list.

Who is the dummy?

Re:Relay through ISP (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 10 years ago | (#9318180)

So are you telling me that aol.com isn't blocking our email?

If so, how do you explain the bounce messages in my wife's inbox that explicitly says this is so?

And the message says this is because of dynamic IP addresses. It doesn't say that smtp.rcn.com has a dynamic IP address; it just says that some rcn.com addresses are dynamic. That is apparently sufficient ground at AOL to block email from smtp.rcn.com.

Maybe I am a dummy, but how do you suggest we get our email accepted by aol.com?

Re:Relay through ISP (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 10 years ago | (#9327360)

I use RCN also, but haven't had problems sending to friends on AOL. I checked http://www.openrbl.org/ and found out that smtp.rcn.com is only on one block list, which is in australia. I suspect AOL just doesn't like RCN because they are a competing ISP, otherwise they would whitelist their mail server. Complain to AOL.

Re:Relay through ISP (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317455)


Doesn't always work. Some ISPs will not accept email from one domain routed through another domain's SMTP server... :(

Re:Relay through ISP (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317654)

Add all the MX records of your ISP's domain to your own MX records, but put them all at a much lower priority. I assume...

Re:Relay through ISP (1)

tachyonflow (539926) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317895)

Add all the MX records of your ISP's domain to your own MX records, but put them all at a much lower priority. I assume...
I would not recommend that. If your mail server goes down for any reason, your ISP's mail servers will begin receiving mail destined for your domain... and of course, bouncing them.

Re:Relay through ISP (1)

0x537461746943 (781157) | more than 10 years ago | (#9334886)

The problem is that it will not work if you use ant-spam software like milter-sender which connects to remote mail servers to make sure the email addresses are valid. In that situation you still have to be able to connect directly to the remote mail servers and not get denied because of MAPS DUN. I do not get quite a few email from some ISPs because they deny my connection to check the sender's address(because my roadrunner IP is listed in DUNS). of this issue but would never disable milter-sender because it helps so much. I am in the same boat as this guy. I just cant get mail from ISPs that use MAPS DUN. Not much I can do about it without disable the antispam measures I have.

Re:Relay through ISP (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9336129)

A lot of times the ISP's SMTP server is configured to reject mails with return paths that don't match any of the ISP's served domains.

And if your domain isn't the ISP's domain, you get a 5xx error when you do the MAIL FROM:youremailaddr

If you change that email addr, you don't get the bounces.

If you change your email address to one of the ISPs then you don't get to use your domain for email.

Move. (0)

m0rph3us0 (549631) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316117)

Move to a service provider who takes action against open relay SMTPs. Once enough people move from that provider they will eliminate their spam problem.

*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9332656)

Thus speaks the obligatory NANAE troll.

Re:Move. (1)

pqdave (470411) | more than 10 years ago | (#9337752)

Some of the most anti-spam ISP's submitted their own dynamic ranges to the old MAPS DUL. Inclusion on dynamic or dial-up lists is only a sign that the ISP uses DHCP for it's customers. It is certainly not a sign that the ISP supports spammers.

Talk to your provider.... (1, Interesting)

Evanrude (21624) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316217)

I have had this happen on more than one occasion. I have *5* static IPs on a co-located server. Each time, I contact the ISP and they see to the removal of the netblock(s) that are listed on the MAPS lists.

If your ISP is unwilling to have their own netblocks removed from MAPS lists, then you need to consider a new ISP.

Re:Talk to your provider.... (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9336176)

Nah MAPs and other RBLs just suck. They don't really help reduce spam for the amount of false positives they generate.

But if anybody really wants to use the black lists they should use them as _part_ of the antispam process. If a sending IP is on the list, you ALLOW the connection, but you weight the message on the more spammy side. That way if the message is not spam it still has a chance to vindicate itself.

The popular method of 100% blocks is plain stupid and outdated.

Use SmartHost (4, Informative)

FattMattP (86246) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316251)

What can I do?
Easy. You just need to configure your MTA to relay your outgoing mail through your ISPs SMTP server. In Sendmail this would look like the following in sendmail.mc

define(`SMART_HOST',`smtp.myisp.com')dnl

of course it'll be different if you're using another MTA. MAPS DUL (dialup up list) is doing what it's supposed to do. It's listing dynamic address ranges such as cable modems, DSL lines, and dialup numbers. A lot of spam can come from these so people choose to use them to block email that isn't coming from the ISPs mail servers.

Re:Use SmartHost (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316374)

But then how the hell are hobbyists supposed to survive next to large commercial entities?

Oh, wait. I forgot. The Internet died a long time ago.

*sigh*

Re:Use SmartHost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9316881)

But then how the hell are hobbyists supposed to survive next to large commercial entities?
Get a static IP from a credible ISP. The original problem has occured because the provider used by the questioners wife has a bad reputation for allowing its DUL to spam.
Oh, wait. I forgot. The Internet died a long time ago.
Death of the Internet predicted. Film at 11.

Re:Use SmartHost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9317586)

NETCRAFT REPORTS: *INTERNET IS DYING

Film at www.eleven.com.

mwahahahahahaha

Re:Use SmartHost (2, Insightful)

Otto (17870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9319059)

But then how the hell are hobbyists supposed to survive next to large commercial entities?

The MAPS DUL is a list of IP's that are not supposed to be running mail servers, usually according to the people who actually own those IP addresses. Most dynamic IP's should be on it, as would any static IP's whose owners (the ISP who gives you your IP) told MAPS that yes, they are not supposed to run servers.

Don't like it? Exercise your free market rights and buy your service from somebody else.

In this life, if you want a thing, you pay for that thing. TANSTAAFL. There are providers who'll gladly sell you service and let you run mail servers all you like. And those won't be listed on the MAPS DUL because the ISP is who confirms which of their netblocks should go on the DUL.

If you're running a mailserver on a connection that you have a contract that says you cannot do that, then I don't see that you have cause for bitching here.

Oh, wait. I forgot. The Internet died a long time ago.

The Internet did not die. It just ceased to be the sole domain of hobbyists and tinkerers and a bunch of bastards (spammers/scammers/other people in general) moved in. This is the expected reaction to those bastards.

Re:Use SmartHost (2, Informative)

pbrammer (526214) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316506)

I second this motion. Cox even started blocking outbound port 25 traffic, so this is the only way my servers can send mail to the outside world. Works great.

Postfix can be setup similarly in the postfix/transport file:
my.domain :
.my.domain :
* smtp:outbound-relay.isp.domain
The null entries for my.domain are so that internal mail doesn't go to outbound-relay.isp.domain.

Phil

Re:Use SmartHost (1)

dodobh (65811) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333179)

If your internal mail is handled by the same system, then you don't need a special transport for that. mydestination defaults to local(8).
Use relayhost for the mail relaying part.

This is a cleaner solution than the one you have right now

Re:Use SmartHost (1)

Christopher_G_Lewis (260977) | more than 10 years ago | (#9318020)

My business DSL from AT&T was getting selectively blocked, so I had to do the same thing.

I run Exchange, so it was a little more work then your single line sendmail config :-)

Here's a write up [christopherlewis.com] .

Re:Use SmartHost (1)

Trepalium (109107) | more than 10 years ago | (#9320533)

Yes, MS Exchange is fun, isn't it. I had lots of fun getting Exchange 2000's Outlook Webaccess working with an Apache reverse proxy. I didn't want the hassle of trying to run an Exchange 'Front End' server in the DMZ, and trying to figure out which ports Exchange and Windows are going to demand to be able to communicate with, I decided I was just going to do a simple reverse proxy. With Exchange 5.5, this is no problem. Exchange 2000, on the other hand, wants to write or rewrite the FQDN into the requests.

Today, I have two servers who are convinced they own the www.domain.com. One is Windows/Exchange just so it's not screwing up things, and the other is Linux/Apache because it really is serving that website.

Well (3, Insightful)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316266)

Why not run email and webhosting separately? Email could always be run through a provider (Flames Burn [flamesburn.com] seems to be focusing on helping independent musicians). Yes, you're small and non-profit but I'm sure your time could be better used than dealing with hassles like these. Pay for the hosting, then spend your time on other stuff for this organization. From the looks of it, and the needs you have, this may be a simpler solution. Of course, I'm not supremely technically versed, and it sort of goes against the hacker mentality leaving this problem unsolved...

That's my EUR 0.016414 anyways.

Re:Well (1)

Scaba (183684) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317275)

On a similar note, you could get an inexpensive VDS. I use JVDS.net, whom I consider excellent, but there are others. My unaffiliated endorsement: With JVDS, $15 or $20 (FreeBSD or Linux - your choice) monthly gets you get root access, 3 GB disk and 64 Mb RAM, which will easily handle your web and mail server.

I'll second that (1)

tomblackwell (6196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317828)

I've got a low-end VDS from JVDS, too, and am very impressed with the quality of the support, and with what I get in performance for my money.

a bit SOL (1)

DrunkBastard (652218) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316270)

given that it's the ISP, or perhaps their upstream provider that owns the rights to those IP blocks, there's little to nothing that you yourself can do, other than complain to your ISP to get things done. As prevoius posters stated, perhaps you should find a more friendly ISP that cares about it's customers.

Pay for commercial service (1)

Xenophon Fenderson, (1469) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316272)

Life is full of disappointments. "End to end" is dead. You're going to have to suck it up and pay for commercial Internet connectivity in order to get out of the ghetto. Where I live, business-class cable connections start at around USD 175 per month. If you're lucky, your commercial ISP might even let you update the reverse DNS entries for your IP allocations.

Re:Pay for commercial service (1)

yamla (136560) | more than 10 years ago | (#9328598)

$175 USD per month? Wow! I had heard that the U.S. was more expensive than Canada, I had no idea how much more expensive. We are about to move over to commercial ADSL which gives us a couple of static IPs, permission to run servers, etc. and will be paying much less than $60 Canadian (so $40 - $50 U.S. per month). We can get a similar package with cable modems, though it may be as much as $80. There are higher-end packages, of course, but even they top out around $150 per month for ADSL or cable. Of course, the $1000 - $4000 packages are available as well, but that's an entirely different category.

Well DUH... (3, Insightful)

stienman (51024) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316283)

Please don't bother suggesting that I ask my provider to give me a static IP outside the affected block -- they won't, not without upgrading to a MUCH more expensive package which gives me no benefit for a small-traffic server like this.

Then you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. You are using a residential class line for business class use. MAPS is right to block residential lines because of all the zombie relay servers that virus writers are including in their payloads now.

Either pay for a business class connection, or use the SMTP server your provider gives you.

It's not the "open internet" that you'd like to see. Live within the limitations this simple, dumb network provides.

Besides, do you honestly expect MAPS to whitelist a dynamic IP? MAPS is not the problem, PEBKAC.

-Adam

Re:Well DUH... (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316451)

MAPS does block my static IP from Earthlink, I don't think they care much which it is as long as the somewhat arbitrary "business line vs residential line" distinction you make (because, as we all know, only businesses send email) is upheld.

Personally, my advice to the guy would be to ignore the issue. If people ask why there's a problem sending some email, tell them that some ISPs use a list to block incoming email from certain IP addresses that match certain criteria, and that unfortunately your IP address matches that criteria. That puts the onus on the receiver of the email to either figure out a solution, or lose the customer who wanted to receive the email.

It sucks, but these stupid, nothing-to-do-with-spam, "anti-spam" blacklists really are causing more problems than they're worth.

Re:Well DUH... (1)

stienman (51024) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316868)

The real problem is that the email system was designed so completely open that spam cannot be stopped.

You may have an earthlink static IP, but it's still within the earthlink netblock, and since the vast majority of earthlink users use the earthlink SMTP server, and do not keep their own PCs clean of zombie relays, then it is perfectly reasonable to block smtp transactions from that netblock.

Or are you saying that the 0.1% of internet users who want (not need or require, but want) to send email from their own SMTP server without spending the time to use an ISP that allows such usage and avoids being blocked should dictate how others should set up their spam filters?

Sorry, but this is just a speck of dust on the windshield. Certianly not worth the time to find a better solution, even for a low paid tech.

-Adam

Re:Well DUH... (4, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 10 years ago | (#9319035)

The "you must use the ISP's smarthost" thing has a number of consequences which you happily ignore by using the tired and frequently abused "It's only a small minority" argument.

The first is that this method of "spam prevention" provides pretty much no spam prevention whatsoever. Insofar as it provides any protection, it's from a small minority of unsecured open relays present in older operating systems, which happens to be an extremely specific bug and a very easy issue to deal with.

The second is that this method makes configurationless email impossible. You HAVE to configure your MTA to point at a specific smarthost. You HAVE to change this if you use a different ISP. And if you regularly use more than one ISP, then you have to reconfigure every time you connect.

The third is that the "small minority" argument is bogus to begin with. Point at any activity on the Internet and you can claim it's a small minority. Slashdot, for instance, regularly causes problems for websites by linking to them. Only a "small minority" read Slashdot. Therefore it is legitimate to block Slashdot. You can work on it to any degree. The World Wide Web would never have gotten off the ground if the "small minority" people had decided to block it as a bandwidth waster from the beginning.

The fourth is that hacks like this undermine the integrity of the email infrastructure. By frequently imposing arbitrary rules, you guarantee the failure of legitimate email. You force system administrators and end users to frequently make minor and unnecessary changes to the configuration of their systems.

The fifth is that better anti-spam systems exist, but ISPs lack the will and desire to operate them. Blacklists are an easy way out, their proven ineffectiveness is testament to the stubborness and power-tripping of the groups that operate and subscribe to them. We have more spam on our systems now than ever before.

Yes, SMTP email wasn't designed to cope with the spam phenominem, but this isn't helping. Solutions need to be sane, they need to block spam or spammers, and not block on an arbitrary "well, a spammer might use this" basis. There's been far too much support for things that do not work, it's time to switch to things that do.

Oh, and I'm an expert. I do know what I'm talking about. I operate my own SMTP servers, wouldn't touch an ISP that doesn't let me, and thanks to that pretty much never receive spam (perhaps once per organization I've done business with at most.) We could eliminate spam tomorrow if ISPs had the guts to implement the systems needed. Unfortunately, they don't.

Re:Well DUH... (4, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 10 years ago | (#9322218)

The first is that this method of "spam prevention" provides pretty much no spam prevention whatsoever. Insofar as it provides any protection, it's from a small minority of unsecured open relays present in older operating systems, which happens to be an extremely specific bug and a very easy issue to deal with.

It's not just open relays, it's also all those machines that have been taken over by trojans with built-in SMTP engines.

Another reason for not using smarthosts (1)

Cardbox (165383) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333028)

If you use your own SMTP server, you get rational standard 3-digit error responses when (eg) the recipient's email is invalid, mailbox full, whatever.

If you use a smarthost, the error response is wrapped up in a verbose email, so you have to implement automated handling, parsing, error code extraction, working out which email address it refer to, and all the rest.

Re:Well DUH... (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 10 years ago | (#9335404)

The second is that this method makes configurationless email impossible. You HAVE to configure your MTA to point at a specific smarthost. You HAVE to change this if you use a different ISP. And if you regularly use more than one ISP, then you have to reconfigure every time you connect.

If you're regularly connecting to different ISPs as often as that then the internet is apparently worth something to you. Which means that you should step up to the plate and either:

1. Use a mail-provider service like FuseMail, which can be accessed from anywhere

2. VPN into your corporate mail server and use that to send your e-mail

Residential internet users don't pay enough per month to pay for the support required to allow them to run widely abused services like SMTP. "Configurationless e-mail" is a smoke-screen.

Re:Well DUH... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9317222)


tell them that some ISPs use a list to block incoming email from certain IP addresses that match certain criteria, and that unfortunately your IP address matches that criteria. That puts the onus on the receiver of the email to either figure out a solution, or lose the customer who wanted to receive the email.
Lemme get this straight. They're supposed to complain each time they don't receive an email. And they would know when this is happening exactly how?

That's like taking class attendence by asking everyone who isn't there today to please raise their hands.

Re:Well DUH... (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 10 years ago | (#9318771)

Are you aware that there are methods of communication other than email?

God help people today. The worst thing is, I bet half the people reading this are going "Well, duh! Of course! There's always text messaging!"

Re:Well DUH... (1)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 10 years ago | (#9328298)

If you have to call to verify that somebody received an e-mail, then what is the point of e-mail? I don't have to call to verify that somebody received my postal mail, because postal mail is so close to 100% reliable that I can't even tell the difference. If I have to use another method of communication to verify e-mail, then I may as well just use that method of communication for the original message as well.

Re:Well DUH... (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 10 years ago | (#9335248)

You don't call to verify if someone received an email. You call them when it's bounced back with "Email undeliverable: An over-enthusastic idiot configured the destination server". They then contact their ISP with words to the effect of "I can't receive this perfectly valid email because your idiot admin subscribed to a blacklist which, actually, isn't a black and white way of telling spam from non-spam and which simply relies upon lazy programming. Either stop using it, or unblock the people trying to email me, or lose my business"

Then the problem gets fixed (either by the ISP, or by the end user going to a real, TCP/IP based RFC compliant, ISP, or the end user putting up with the situation and telling the sender that, unfortunately, they'll not be able to receive email from them for the time being) and there aren't any more problems that require non-email communication.

Remember, email is used because it's convenient, not because it's the only form of communication available.

Like I said, there's always text messaging ;-)

Re:Well DUH... (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9336366)

"They're supposed to complain...". Not bothered who complains. The receipients are just expected to lose business. If they don't notice they're losing business then good for them.

Their competitors just get more customers if their competitors don't use ISPs which incorrectly use MAPS.

At my office we have an antispam software that uses something like a MAPS list, and it blocks mail from DULs. I checked today and there were a few genuine requests for quotations and other important emails.

Now that really sucks. But I think it isn't a hard block and we can probably adjust the weights to not count the IP lists as so important. Or we may just switch to a different software.

The trouble is with ISPs who just 100% block messages from IPs on such lists.

Re:Well DUH... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9317894)

If people ask why there's a problem sending some email, tell them that some ISPs use a list to block incoming email from certain IP addresses that match certain criteria, and that unfortunately your IP address matches that criteria

Are you really that stupid? Do you think that the person you tell that to isn't going to ask their ISP what the problem is, and get the following response:

"Over 70% of all spam comes from dynamic IP addresses. The 'criteria' in question is a dynamic address - since you asked us to do something about spam, and since there is no valid reason why a dynamically assigned address needs to talk directly to our mail server, we do block connections from them. If the client had correctly configured their mail server (instead of simply making excuses), you wouldn't have noticed a problem."

these stupid, nothing-to-do-with-spam, "anti-spam" blacklists really are causing more problems than they're worth.

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Considering the fact that the first part of that statement is *provably* false (and the second is - at best - debatable), what do you hope to accomplish by crying about it here?

Re:Well DUH... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9319117)

Over 70% of all spam comes from dynamic IP addresses.
So the ISP would lie?
The 'criteria' in question is a dynamic address - since you asked us to do something about spam, and since there is no valid reason why a dynamically assigned address needs to talk directly to our mail server, we do block connections from them.
So the ISP is stupid too? Or can neither you nor the ISP really think of a single reason why a machine might be configured to send email directly?
If the client had correctly configured their mail server (instead of simply making excuses), you wouldn't have noticed a problem."
The client has correctly configured their mail server. It follows the RFCs. It sends email to the destination. They've simply not followed arbitrary rules imposed by the idiot (if you're really to be believed and they really cannot possibly comprehend of a single reason why a machine might want to talk to their mail server directly if they're on a dynamic IP) receiving ISP.
Considering the fact that the first part of that statement is *provably* false (and the second is - at best - debatable), what do you hope to accomplish by crying about it here?
The first part of that statement is provably correct. A dynamic IP address is not in any shape or form a signifier of spam. Anyone who suggests it is is an idiot. I've sent email from dynamic IP addresses before. Are you saying that it was spam?

Or is this a "well, we sometimes get email from dynamic IP addresses that's spam therefore it's legitimate" argument? In which case, why are you bothering to receive SMTP at all? After all, 100% of emailed spam is sent via SMTP!

It's idiots like you that are breaking the Internet. Use systems that identify spam, not systems that are implemented for the sake of it.

Re:Well DUH... (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316512)

So are you saying that only businesses should be allowed to exchange email?

I mean, presumably every casual internet user connects to the internet via some business, but still...

Re:Well DUH... (1)

sfire (175775) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316691)

Or perhaps they are saying they should relay through the isp's smtp server. This is the best solution for this question, and thankfully is what appears to be a fp, and rated high.

Re:Well DUH... (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316771)

Hmm.. are there any circumstances where the ISP wouldn't allow forwarding through their mail servers, though?

Some of the suckier ISPs out there probably don't allow it... (except for a Sender matching the account's username@isp.com exactly, you know)

Re:Well DUH... (1)

Goo.cc (687626) | more than 10 years ago | (#9333966)

Apple's .Mac mail system will only allow messages with a .mac email address to send out. I would imagine that others are doing this as well.

Re:Well DUH... (1)

stienman (51024) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317135)

So are you saying that only businesses should be allowed to exchange email?

No, I'm saying that only business class internet connections are expected to be fully open and unblocked. Residential customers get what they pay for.

When I wanted to overcome a similar problem myself (my ISP was free, but wouldn't forward email which had my domain's address instead of the ISPs) I simply made a port forwarder on my work machine which allowed me to use my work's SMTP server - the connection appeared to come from my work machine, so it was allowed through.

In this case he should use his ISPs SMTP server. If he can't, then he should get an ISP which allows him to do so.

In the end, MAPS is just a service some people subscribe to. Your ISP is just a business. Either or both may make it difficult to do what you are trying to do, but the reality is that you can switch services to someone who can meet your needs, since they are obviously not being met by your current providers.

Whining on slashdot is only going to get you a tiny bit of sympathy along with a heaping of ill will and "wake up, idiot!" postings.

Consider your audience.

-Adam

Re:Well DUH... (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317245)

meh. fuck the audience.

i was hoping for more of a "sad, but not entirely true! there's still hope! order now for your swedish internet enlarger! just visit www.undergroundinternet.com.biz.ecommerce for your trial subscription to the NEW INTERNET!" or something. you know.

unfortunately, "realist" attitudes are strikingly popular nowadays. i am still fully tongue-in-cheek, and awaiting for my style of half-seriousness, half-mockery to come back in style. but, you're right, there are always a plethora of "wake up, idiot! your opinion marks you as a clueless n00b! we don't like you! ra ra ra! there's no way in hell to have a discussion without me looking cool! you were clearly trying to offend me, and i outsmarted you! w00t!"

now awaiting the -1 moderations... ;)

virtually yours,
three buttcheeks and a slice of ham. mmmm, forbidden ham...
DONT TOUCH ME DOWN THERE!

No such thing as "business class" (1)

samjam (256347) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317821)

I have a static IP from Demon intenet who have always permitted folk to run their own mail servers, which I do; and I have the same problem for some mail recipients.

Business-class-service NOTHING!; its morons who use dont understand the stupid filtering they use and then can't get emails. So I don't buy ebay from them next time.

I'm thinking of poor road runner users here who only have once choice of ISP; shame they are half cut off from the internet by their cheap-skate ISP.

Demon internet give me a full blown internet service via ADSL. I get what I pay for and I went to Demon internet because of it.

No stupid rules on running servers at my end, no stupid rules about not VPN-ing to work, and a nice static IP address that reverse resolves to ME!

Only 25.00 or so per month.

Sam

Re:Well DUH... (1)

MerlynEmrys67 (583469) | more than 10 years ago | (#9328000)

It's not the "open internet" that you'd like to see. Live within the limitations this simple, dumb network provides.
Anyone else remember the days 20 years ago when it was considered rude to not allow relay through your SMTP server in case someone needed to bounce mail from your network.

God I hate spammers

Learning the hard way, eh? (3, Informative)

darksmurf (190761) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316404)

You being on the DUL is a good thing. It means less spam from your entire netblock.

This is where you learn to relay your outgoing mail through your upstream provider. You should of course continue to be the MX for your domain for all other purposes.

I know other people have mentioned this, but seriously... No cable or DSL clients should be pretending to be a full-on mail hub. Just use the smtp resources of your upstream provider.

Only corps should be free to run their own mail? (1)

b00m3rang (682108) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316970)

Is that what the Internet has become? Forget free speech and the ability to be an independant voice? It's not like that would even make an impact on spam, since most of it comes from China anyway. What exactly constitutes a "full on mail hub" and someone "pretending to be a full on mail hub", and who are you to make that distinction?

Re:Only corps should be free to run their own mail (1)

darksmurf (190761) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317141)

Look at it this way:

* You route your outgoing IP traffic through your upstream provider.

* You should also route your outgoing SNMP traffic through your upstream provider.

Free Speech? You have *got* to be kidding me ;-)

You don't think sending your outgoing traffic upstream negates your ability to be an independant voice, do you? This isn't about running your own mail or being an independant voice, it's about routing traffic. *routing traffic*

This is basic networking-made-simple here.

By "full on mail hub" I mean relaying mail directly from your SMTP server to the To: domain's MX host. If you instead relay the mail to your upstream SMTP server, they can do that for you. You can still be the MX for your domain and recieve all of your mail directly.

Note that one of the reasons most of the spam comes from China is because it's /easier/ to send it from there. Any clue as to why? These systems are not perfect, but they do provide pressure.

Re:Only corps should be free to run their own mail (1)

b00m3rang (682108) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317477)

There's obviously no real hinderance to free speech, but I just feel that responsible people should be allowed to run whatever servers they want to. The DIY nature of the internet is part of what makes it great, and running your own server is one of the best ways to learn configuration and administration skills.

There are ISPs like Speakeasy that let their customers run servers and even resell their bandwidth. I'd just rather switch to one of them than be complacent to yet another restriction the mainstream providers want put on our access to gain a little convenience on their end.

Re:Only corps should be free to run their own mail (3, Insightful)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317625)

but I just feel that responsible people should be allowed to run whatever servers they want to.

Absolutely NOBODY is preventing this guy from running whatever server he wants to.

Some people are, however, exercising their own rights to refuse to accept communications from him, for a reason that may or may not be reasonable, valid, or useful.

Re:Only corps should be free to run their own mail (1)

b00m3rang (682108) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317686)

Absolutely NOBODY is preventing this guy from running whatever server he wants to. You're right. I was commenting on the grandparent's assertion that the best way to deal with the situation if you don't like it is to take the ISP's advice and just not send your own mail (without relaying through their servers). I think a better approach is to swithch to an ISP that gives a crap about your blacklist status, and might even help you get off it.

Re:Only corps should be free to run their own mail (3, Informative)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 10 years ago | (#9318123)

He's not blacklisted. He's accurately listed as being a residential dynamic-assigned user.

The fact that some other mail servers choose not to accept his mail, based on that fact, has nothing to do with his ISP.

Nice straw man you got there. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9317919)

Pity it's so stupid.

A full on mail hub is... (2, Insightful)

Otto (17870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9319136)

What exactly constitutes a "full on mail hub" and someone "pretending to be a full on mail hub", and who are you to make that distinction?

A full on mail hub is somebody running a mail server on a connection where they are contractually allowed to run a mail server on that connection.

Nobody gets onto the MAPS DUL (dial up list) that easily. You have to be a netblock that has dynamic IP's (meaning that you can't receive mail anyway, as your IP could change) or has static IP's but has had your ISP confirm to MAPS that yes, your block is not allowed to run a mail server.

You pay for what you get. If you pay for a service that says "no mail servers" and then go an run a mail server, well, you get your ass blocked. You're operating outside your contract already, you're got no real right to bitch about this one.

Want to run a mail server? Buy your connection from someone that allows you to do so.

The internet ain't free, bub. You pay for your connection. In many cases, you can pay less if you use that connection for less. This is standard market economics at work. Most people don't use their connections for everything they can squeeze out of them, and so they get a bargain from their supplier. By trying to get that bargain while exceeding those limitations (in this case, not running a mail server is likely *explicitly* stated in your contract with the ISP), you're essentially being a jackass.

Re:A full on mail hub is... (2, Insightful)

ArghBlarg (79067) | more than 10 years ago | (#9320657)

The internet ain't free, bub. You pay for your connection.


With respect, I highly resent the above quip. I do pay for my connection -- up to 10MBps, no bandwidth limit. That was what I signed up for and I pay my bill faithfully.

While I am running a mail server, I can guarantee you I use *far* less bandwidth than any of my neighbours who download pr0n and have their PCs infected with the worm-de-jour. We serve mostly static web pages, some MP3s of a few local indie bands and email for 5-6 accounts, each of which sends less than 10 messages per day. Surely that isn't more than I've paid for.

Yes, it is in the newer contracts that you aren't supposed to run servers, but I was in fact never presented with a contract and have never been asked to sign one subsequently. One party cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract. They are free to disconnect me if they have been, at any time, unhappy with what servers I run. No complaints from them so far (four years and running).



Re:A full on mail hub is... (1)

Otto (17870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9324806)

Yes, it is in the newer contracts that you aren't supposed to run servers, but I was in fact never presented with a contract and have never been asked to sign one subsequently. One party cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract. They are free to disconnect me if they have been, at any time, unhappy with what servers I run. No complaints from them so far (four years and running).

Well, if they didn't tell you that you can't run servers, then you should be able to. So if your IP is on the MAPS DUL, you should complain to your ISP. Because if you have a static IP and your netblock is on MAPS DUL, your ISP put it there intentionally. Of course, if your ISP comes back with "you can't run servers" then you now have a bit of a problem with them, I assume...

The DUL is fairly straightforward to get onto and off of, unlike some of the other MAPS lists. It's not a list of people who have sent spam or anything, it's a list of dynamic IPs or static IPs supposedly not allowed to run servers. If you're not one of those, you shouldn't be on there, and your ISP has to confirm it.

These "services" suck (4, Insightful)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316508)

I had to waste alot of time with ORBS because my company's upstream provider had a larger netblock that we were a part of blacklisted. The people I emailed were quite obnoxious and rude, despite the fact that our servers were secure and never relayed a thing.

And for what? I still see a ton of spam, despite the fact that my ISP uses MAPS.

Re:These "services" suck (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 10 years ago | (#9318707)

I get 600 spams a month blocked by MAPS and ORBS. That's for what.

Re:These "services" suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9334916)

What percentage of your total spam is that?

I get 600 spam messages a day. If These services only blocked 3% of my spam, they certainly wouldn't be worth the hassle they cause to innocent administrators that get screwed by them.

Can we see your statistic expressed as a percentage of your total spam?

Re:These "services" suck (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 10 years ago | (#9392929)

Since April, around 200 spams got through the RBLs and were caught by SpamAssassin. So RBLs are catching the vast majority of spams sent to me.

Re:These "services" suck (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9336648)

How did you know they're spam?

Did you actually test MAPS/ORBS to see how accurate they are? Is your mailserver configured to do further processing on mails from IPs listed on MAPS/ORBS?

At home I regularly get 100-200+ spams a day. Spambayes screens most of them with minimal false positives (there were a few false positives during the initial training period, zero since then - I'm still testing it ). Even my personal naive keyword filtering screened out plenty of spam with very minimal false positives.

Disclaimer: My company resells Puremessage - it can be configured to take into consideration a listing on DNS blacklists. Taking into consideration means adding spamminess points, but still going through with the rest of the spamminess and hamminess tests.

Personally the MAPS/ORBS stuff is pretty shoddy. In the old days they even let you download lists of open relays. Now that must have been pretty useful for spammers and some other folk... To me that indicated to me how the MAPS/ORBS people think.

The addition of DULs is probably because that open relay stuff isn't such a big deal anymore. So they have to find more reasons to exist.

Re:These "services" suck (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 10 years ago | (#9392951)

I know they're spam by looking at the list of subject lines and senders that the system records.

cheap webspace host (2, Insightful)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316842)

Go sign up for an account with one of the inexpensive web hosts out there. For a few dollars per month you can point your web site's MX record thataway and run your email through their SMTP.

Use MailHop Outbound from DynDNS.org (3, Informative)

dpilot (134227) | more than 10 years ago | (#9316953)

For a small (volume-dependent) fee DynDNS.org will relay outbound mail for you with the 'MailHop Outbound' service. They will also relay inbound mail to your server (on a high port, if need be because of your ISP) with 'MailHop Relay'.

At this point, you'd probably want your DNS hosted through them, as well. On the plus side, this would give your domain a complete and consistent appearance, IP-wise. I believe at this point, you may even be able to add SPF records to your DNS entry as well. (Though I'm not sure if they do the correct thing outbound for SPF.)

The whole shebang would probably still come to less than $100/yr.

Dynu (1)

Morgon (27979) | more than 10 years ago | (#9319044)

I use Dynu's Email Store/Forward [dynu.com] service for $20 a year.

My ISP used to block incoming 25, and Dynu was my primary MX that could use ETRN to send to "alternate" ports, much like DynDNS.

Now that my ISP has come to their senses and has allowed me to run a mail server, it makes a great inexpensive failsafe in case of routing or power outages.

This is MUCH less than $100/yr :)

Re:Dynu (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 10 years ago | (#9331584)

I was thinking of the $100/yr range for a complete, consistent Internet presence, not for the one service. I see Dynu charges $60/yr for a complete email presence.

My other factor was that I just got burned with my old email forwarding provider, and wanted:
1 - Someone more high-profile, less likely to go away or act weird. DynDNS.org has been around a LONG time.
2 - My own domain, even if it's more expensive. Even if DynDNS.org were to go away or act weird, with a bit of effort I should be able to regain control of my domain, and take it to a different provider.

I'm phasing in, and plan to expand my services in the future, and hope to get the 'complete consistent presence.'

You have a few options (2, Interesting)

petard (117521) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317015)

1. (You sound like you tried this one) Convince MAPS not to blacklist you. This is unlikely to happen if you're only in the DUL.

2. Convince the people you wish to exchange mail with (who presumably want your mail) to either
a. Stop using MAPS
b. Stop using the DUL
c. Add your server to a local whitelist

Note that gaining control over your reverse DNS listing will not help; DUL is based on netblocks.

3. Get a better ISP. There are options out there that will do what you want, and not all are prohibitively expensive. If you ISP's options are, switch. I've been very happy with speakeasy. They are available to most of the US. If you get one of their very reasonably priced (multiple) static IP packages, you will not be on the DUL. What's better, they will set your reverse DNS to whatever you wish so long as you own the domain in question. Their TOS are also very nice, explicitly permitting you to run your own servers so long as you don't disrupt the network. (They do permit running spam, porn, and irc if it's part of a public irc network, as those tend to disrupt service more often than they don't.) Speakeasy is not the only option... there are other similar ones, but I haven't tried any of them.

4. (As others have said) Use a smarthost for your mail. Receive incoming mail on your own server but configure your outgoing mail to relay through your ISP's gateway. This is trivial with most MTAs. See your documentation for details.

5. Complain to your ISP, and tell them that you're willing to switch if they can't get you onto a netblock that isn't blacklisted. It might work. Their cost to acquire a new customer is relatively high, so they should be interested in accomodating you. Don't just go based on their written policy, though. Talk to a real person, preferably one who would feel the pain of lost revenue.

Well, it looks like the consensus is... (5, Insightful)

rusty0101 (565565) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317058)

... that only large businesses should be allowed to run mail servers that can send e-mail.

Glad to see so many people here who are interested in maintaining a free system.

-Rusty

publish SPF records for your domain (1)

Greg Couch (544551) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317068)

Even though it wouldn't work today, I'd recommend publishing the IP addresses that are allowed to send email for your domain with a SPF record see http://spf.pobox.com [pobox.com] . That will give email receivers enough information to override the blacklisting and effectively whitelist your domain.

I don't use MAPS, but do blacklist residental Internet connections, so when people in your situation send me email (as the postmaster for a domain diluged with spam), I offer to whitelist them until I get SPF-based whitelisting implemented. If I am the first to add that technology to sendmail, you'll see a post on sendmail newsgroup [comp.mail.sendmail] .

Other alternatives. (3, Funny)

Passman (6129) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317138)

I can see you have been told the politically correct answer to this situation: "Suck it up, do it for the common good."

But if you are a true American, one question has not yet been answered. What's in it for me? How can I get rich off of this? How do I make them pay?

The answer is simple. Sue Em!

Chances are if you are posting this, you reside within the United States. This makes things more difficult, but not impossible, we just have to be more clever. Our first direction we must look toward in this time of opportunity is toward The Courts. Unfortunately this course will not serve us well. Nothing MAPS does is inherently illegal. Even worse, they have developed a significant volume of caselog to show your average judge that they have a right to do what they do and you have no right to complain. So unless you happen to have a friendly state law or lawmaker in you back pocket (not likely for an indie band) the courts will not likely be of use to you.

Luckily here in the grand old USA, the Courts aren't the only places to extract money from people you don't like. Are you or any of the band members from Canada or Mexico? Can your latino drummer fake a mexican accent? If so then you can demand compensation under Section 7 of the NAFTA Treaty, the expatriation clause. While normally this clause only applies to government regulation, there have been complaints brought forth against psudo-governmental entities (such as industry trade groups and sanctioning bodies) which you could argue the MAPS organization is one of. From there, it's up to them to prove the rules don't apply to them or else you get money. Nothing could be simpler.

There you have it, a simple solution to your problem both short term and long term. Assuming that MAPS survives their major outflow of cash, you will now be able to afford professional internet connectivity free from MAPS blocking. If they don't survive, hey your free to send emails anyway and you get a tidy bundle of cash (a double victory).

irrespectfully submitted, with tounge firmly in cheek

Ask users of DUL to stop being lame (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317206)

This isn't a DUL problem as such; it's a problem with it's users assuming that, since you're on the DUL, you must be a spammer, instead of just factoring that into some spam filtering heuristic.

Just set up your MTA to use a smarthost for sites which deny mail from you; whether you do that for all hosts or just those which suck is up to you and the capabilities of your MTA. There's not really a lot more you can do; the DUL is doing precisely what it's designed for -- it's the users which are taking "sending mail from a dynamic address range" == "spamming scumbag" which are causing the problem. You just have to route around the damage :)

In theory it should be possible to set up your MTA to take a rejection from a direct MX send and fall back automatically to a smarthost.. it's probably easier to just do it manually though -- it's not as if everyone is that stupid :)

Why not host your website on a cheap host? (2, Informative)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 10 years ago | (#9317266)

For instance, FuitadNET offers a $5/mo package that includes DNS hosting, 3GB of Web Space, 25GB of bandwidth, and 100 e-mail addresses. You'll get better uptime than with a cable modem and shouldn't have to worry about MAPS or ORDB or whatever.

Re:Why not host your website on a cheap host? (1)

ArghBlarg (79067) | more than 10 years ago | (#9318866)

I have considered using a colo provider, and it will definitely be the next step if our traffic increases or I decide to actually charge money for the service, but for now I actually enjoy the hobby of keeping the system maintained physically in my home. Plus I can upgrade the drives/net card/whatever, whenever I want that way.

As far as uptime goes, I must say Shaw cable has been incredibly good for the last two years or so (as in, less than a day total down per year). It's good enough for a 'hobby' server.

I suppose I will take the suggestions mentioned here and use the ISP's server for outgoing mail. I did already know about smarthost configuration; I just thought it might be a good discussion if I brought the issue up. Lots of good comments.

Thanks for a good discussion everyone!

Had this problem about a fortnight ago... (1)

Atrahasis (556602) | more than 10 years ago | (#9318356)

So I contacted my ISP's [freedom2surf.net] technical support, and they added reverse lookup support as standard on all their packages. Its nice to know that there are companies that'll go that extra mile. Note that I am a home user on f2s's cheapest subscription, and it took less than 24 hours from my enquiry to full support.

Collateral damage (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 10 years ago | (#9318449)

Ah well, better to be on DUL blocks than have ISPs block port 25. That's coming next.

You're just collateral damage in the "War on Spam". I am too. Until people start realizing the amount of false-positives that spam filters catch, the carpet bombing will continue and still catch One company stopped really quickly when they found the spam filtering lost some email orders.

I'm surprised at how unsophisticated some SMTP servers are. They'll take my mail even when I have the wrong $HOSTNAME set. Yet if I'm on their DUL, bounces.

Three options, one will work for you (1)

adturner (6453) | more than 10 years ago | (#9318840)

First one is free and isn't likely to happen: ask your ISP to add a reverse DNS record which matches your forward DNS mapping. They'll bitch and whine and say you technically have a dynamic IP and if you want a static to upgrade. Sucks.

Second option: find out if your ISP will allow you to relay your email out through their mail servers. Many will, some won't.

Third option costs $15/year but will work in all cases. Go to pobox.com and sign up for one of their life-time emails. Then configure your MTA to use SASL and to relay all outbound mail to pobox.com's mail servers. I've used this for a few months now and have to say I'm really happy with it.

Re:Three options, one will work for you (1)

Ruddykins (644239) | more than 10 years ago | (#9320627)

I was about to suggest the 3rd option. It would probably be easiest.

My thought was get a cheap account on some low-use *nix box, talk to the admin, and get him to host mail-relay for your domain.com

*shrugs* - my .02 cents

Solution enclosed (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 10 years ago | (#9319491)

If you don't want MAPS to hinder your mailability, well, just ignore them. MAPS is a pain in the ass for anyone with a [too-small-to-bribe-maps-admins]-sized e-business. You get MAPS bounces all the time for no apparent reason, they just hate everyone.

The main problem is that sometimes, one man's spam is another man's treasure. I don't think it is up to a central authority to tell me what I can and can't read. I much prefer the client-side flavors of spam filtering, such as bayesian filters (of which a distributed system exists under the name Cloudmark). At least that way the mail still gets around, it is just pre-sorted as Ham, Spam or Unsure. I usually just wipe the "spam"-flagged mail, then quickly peruse the Unsure and Ham folders. In this scenario I am free to read "spam" mail if it happens to be a false-positive, or maybe I'm just curious about Cialis =)

Makes sense to me. (2, Funny)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 10 years ago | (#9320304)

they won't, not without upgrading to a MUCH more expensive package which gives me no benefit for a small-traffic server like this.

It gives you a big benefit, you get to send email to people.

Just go get a cheap webhosting account... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9320884)

You can get a hosting account for $4 a month in numberous places that will give you 150-250MB space, 15GB of transfers, unlimited email accounts, mysql, postresql, and even unlimited domains within that account (you read that right).

I'd love to host stuff on my local machine, but cable is too slow, and its just a pain in the butt, its easier to pay someone.

what wrong with using the reverse hostname? (1)

chargen (90268) | more than 10 years ago | (#9326846)

Who would want an address like this:

joe.user@CPE000d42345c2g-CT014250031146.cpe.net. ca ble.mybroadba ndisp.com

Short and to the point!

-Pete

sounds like another spamhaus victim (1)

emptybody (12341) | more than 10 years ago | (#9330590)

spamhaus blocks whole class B's
This has hassled me to no end.
They are cavalier about it and will not modify their mechanism to be more specific.

In short they suck.

SMTP Isn't The Only Blacklistable Protocol (1)

Vagary (21383) | more than 10 years ago | (#9331967)

I'm currently POSTing this from a host whose IP has been banned from /. The only crime I committed was inheriting somebody else's cable modem IP (they're semi-dynamic, just as in the story). Sure, I've emailed banned@slashdot.org, but I can't say I'm surprised that they never replied.

In the meanwhile, I browse /. through a proxy at my university, just as the submitter is told to relay SMTP. IP addresses are a horrible method of access control that is easily circumventable* and yet leads to false-positives. Repeat after me: there is no correspondance between IP addresses and machines; any system that assumes otherwise is a bandaid.

Ultimately, if you actually care where packets came from, you should force the sender to digitally sign them.

* If I had done something bad to /., I'd still be doing it through a mixmaster proxy or spoofing my IP.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>