On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, Michael wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:03:46 Drew Whittle wrote:

...

...

From their webpage;

421 Message from (x.x.x.x) temporarily deferred - 4.16.50 Last Updated: December 08, 2009

If you’re seeing the error "421 Message from x.x.x.x temporarily deferred - 4.16.50", in your SMTP logs (where x.x.x.x is your IP address), this indicates that emails from your mail server have been generating substantial complaints from Yahoo! Mail users.

It is not possible that this MX could be generating any complaints from Yahoo or Xtra users. I deliberately ran a test against a server that is only used for my personal email.

As for the remainder of your post - the status message did not refer to 'complaints' as the list of status messages on the page did, so with both of these points taken into account I do not feel it's reasonable for me to assume this is the issue, or that it is personal to our network.

Every time I hear the Yahoo 421 error come up - and it's been several times in various places, the responses tend to be: - Follow the URL's etc provided in the error messages as they usually do (eventually) provide a good result. - Keep your own nose clean. Verify that the host(s) you're getting the error from are infact, of solid reputation. Consider reputation-building measures such as SPF records. - Encourage any you can, to migrate _away_ from YahooXtra. The old 'vote with your feet' rule should be invoked whenever the service[1] justifies it. Mark. [1] 'Service' in this context should be read as both successful mail delivery 'on time', along with the ability to get good, solid, responsive support from your provider when they do have a problem. Noone's perfect, for sure, but the providers who provide 'good service' to their customers during mishaps tend to enjoy a certain loyalty... PS: There's a fair question in what Craig said, too; temporary deferrals are just that. How long's this been going on for, would you consider it an unreasonable amount of time? My own response is tainted by the sheer number of times i've seen comments like yours on various mailing lists...

On Sat, 2010-01-02 at 20:59 +1300, Michael wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:41:42 Mark Foster wrote:

...

Every time I hear the Yahoo 421 error come up - and it's been several times in various places, the responses tend to be:

- Follow the URL's etc provided in the error messages as they usually do (eventually) provide a good result.

1. The weird thing is that not all emails get this message.

2. Certainly if there were no deliveries to Xtra I'd have heard about it (Fix it!) from the company owner....

...

- Keep your own nose clean. Verify that the host(s) you're getting the error from are infact, of solid reputation. Consider reputation-building measures such as SPF records.

Check at dnsbl.info = clean

SPF = tick

I'm hoping that someone from Xtra can advise exactly what is going on.

Michael

You're a newboy I take it? If you get a response from mx1, then you stand a chance of getting answered. Any others get this response. You *might* stand more chance of getting answered by there clowns if you have SPF, Domain Keys, DKIM offered, but I haven't really noticed to be sure. In reality, mx1 is the only one that answers, AFAICT the others are just pretend MX's, refusing the bandwidth they can't handle at the moment. But that's just my inference from personal experience. Steve PS. Your Reply to: isn't rewritten on this mailing list ):

...

I'm hoping that someone from Xtra can advise exactly what is going on.

Michael

As Craig said previously it looks just like basic greylisting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greylisting), nothing sinister and nothing they are going to explain more. Whilst all the reputational suggestions before are useful I doubt they have any effect at all because greylisting doesn't use them.

regards Jay

Hi Jay, If you actually search for the specific error (4.16.50) on the URL given i the bounce, the result is this: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/errors/postmaster-21.html Note it specifically uses the phrase "emails from your mail server have been generating substantial complaints from Yahoo! Mail users" - ala people are hitting the 'report as spam' buttons and some internal Yahoo magic is being applied to the IP as a result. The page further suggests the use of this form to report "if you're seeing this error consistently over an extended period of time" - http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/defer.html . Whenever this comes up, someone mentions Greylisting. Greylisting delays are usually in the minutes; one assumes that by the time it's posted to NZNOG, the delays have become more noticable than that.[1] Given the number of times Yahoo and these sorts of errors have come up online before[2][3], i'd see it as far more of a reputation issue, to be honest. Andy D's post makes a lot of sense. Mark. [1] Yes, I know, risky assumption on occaision... [2] NZNOG at the following links: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2008-December/014891.html http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2007-August/013401.html http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2007-October/013526.html [2] NZLUG at the following link: http://www.linux.net.nz/pipermail/nzlug/2008-December/014926.html

Hi Mark On 6/01/2010, at 10:04 AM, Mark Foster wrote:

If you actually search for the specific error (4.16.50) on the URL given i the bounce, the result is this:

http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/errors/postmaster-21.html

Note it specifically uses the phrase "emails from your mail server have been generating substantial complaints from Yahoo! Mail users" - ala people are hitting the 'report as spam' buttons and some internal Yahoo magic is being applied to the IP as a result.

Thanks, I didn't read that far. It seems odd though that 4.16.55 and 4.16.56 error messages specifically mention complaints: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/errors/421-ts01.html http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/errors/421-ts02.html It seems to me that the reason given in your link above of "substantial complaints" is incorrect. Maybe the Yahoo techie who wrote that got confused with the other codes.

The page further suggests the use of this form to report "if you're seeing this error consistently over an extended period of time" - http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/defer.html .

Whenever this comes up, someone mentions Greylisting. Greylisting delays are usually in the minutes; one assumes that by the time it's posted to NZNOG, the delays have become more noticable than that.[1]

I don't think greylisting is well enough standardised to be able to say that. I've certainly seen it set at over an hour by default (though I can't remember where for now).

Given the number of times Yahoo and these sorts of errors have come up online before[2][3], i'd see it as far more of a reputation issue, to be honest. Andy D's post makes a lot of sense.

If it were reputational then SPF, reverse mapping etc would fix it, but they apparently do not. It may also be simple rate limiting, which would explain the variable lengths of delays. regards Jay -- Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840

Hi Jay, On 6/Jan/2010, at 10:17 , Jay Daley wrote:

On 6/01/2010, at 10:04 AM, Mark Foster wrote:

...

If you actually search for the specific error (4.16.50) on the URL given i the bounce, the result is this:

http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/errors/postmaster-21.html

Note it specifically uses the phrase "emails from your mail server have been generating substantial complaints from Yahoo! Mail users" - ala people are hitting the 'report as spam' buttons and some internal Yahoo magic is being applied to the IP as a result.

Thanks, I didn't read that far. It seems odd though that 4.16.55 and 4.16.56 error messages specifically mention complaints:

http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/errors/421-ts01.html http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/errors/421-ts02.html

It seems to me that the reason given in your link above of "substantial complaints" is incorrect. Maybe the Yahoo techie who wrote that got confused with the other codes.

I've had this happen on a recently (last 6 months) mail server, that was sending out less than 30 emails per day. I suspect that the reason the server was flagged (with the same error) is that the IP range may have previously being in a "dial-up" and/or DSL range.

...

The page further suggests the use of this form to report "if you're seeing this error consistently over an extended period of time" - http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/defer.html .

Whenever this comes up, someone mentions Greylisting. Greylisting delays are usually in the minutes; one assumes that by the time it's posted to NZNOG, the delays have become more noticable than that.[1]

I don't think greylisting is well enough standardised to be able to say that. I've certainly seen it set at over an hour by default (though I can't remember where for now).

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know for sure about Yahoos setup, but it has been suggested to me that Yahoo do not use greylisting at all. In the cases where I have noticed greylisting, the receiving mail server has been kind enough to include in the response that the message/IP has been greylisted.

...

Given the number of times Yahoo and these sorts of errors have come up online before[2][3], i'd see it as far more of a reputation issue, to be honest. Andy D's post makes a lot of sense.

If it were reputational then SPF, reverse mapping etc would fix it, but they apparently do not.

It may also be simple rate limiting, which would explain the variable lengths of delays.

I was discovering that a flush of the queue shortly after seeing that the mail was being queued up was delivered with a success rate of about 90%. I'm really responding to this as an indication of someone who has been through the process of filling out the forms with Yahoo and for finally reaching what appears to be a resolution - after filling out the forms approximately 4 times over a period of 2 to 3 weeks the "problem" has been resolved and the mail is currently being accepted by the Yahoo mail servers[0]. As an aside, our advice to our clients who were having the issue at the time was to move off the Yahoo platform (in this case @xtra.co.nz addresses) Regards, Warren. [0] - By this I mean that we receive a 250 notice from the Yahoo mail servers, not that the mail is successfully delivered to the end-users mailbox.

It's still happening.

There are NO complaints. This is a private mail server that's used for testing and my personal email. Everything is set up correctly and further it is now set up with DKIM and Domain Keys, as well as SPF.

Did you fill in the form at the URL I posted earlier? Either way, keep doing it.

It is listed on no DNSBL's and the PTR is set.

I am still getting this message: Jan 6 10:22:52 DELETED postfix/smtp[3832]: 5C82916CD378: host mx1.tnz.mail.yahoo.com[124.108.96.67] refused to talk to me: 421 Message from (DELETED) temporarily deferred - 4.16.50. Please refer to http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defer/defer-06.html

There's the URL for the record.

In response to Dave Mill's post all the mail servers involved are using Postfix which is about as RFC compliant as anything.

I don't think Dave was suggesting that his situ was the same as yours - just providing some potentially useful info for the group?

Studying the logs it would appear that some mail is getting through and it's a straight forward case of needing to be whitelisted.

Keep filling in that form.

Unfortunately no one from Telecom has replied yet to advise what the situation is as the link in the deferred message is rather vague.

I wouldn't be suprised if Telecom/Xtra have little or no influence these days, sadly, as they are the ones responsible for the move to outsourcing their email solution....

On 2010-01-05, at 13:53, Michael wrote:

It's still happening.

I have not been able to reliably send e-mail to certain Y! users for years. When I've attempted to bring this up privately with people I know personally at Y! the answer has been "yeah, we don't know how it works either". I get the impression that there's a point beyond which there's no monetary value in keeping tight operational control over the sludge-listing, since the result of doing nothing is to build pressure for people to shift their mailboxes to Y!, that being one of the increasingly few places from which you can reliably deliver mail to other Y! users. But perhaps I'm over-cynical. Also, the last time I cared about not being able to deliver mail to Y! users was at least a year ago. It may accelerate your path to enlightenment if you just step back and say "oh well" instead of continuing to ask questions or retaining hope of a fix. Joe

I have tried to sort this matter out with Xtra and Yahoo and have been fobbed off by both of them. This is crass considering (as most will remember) a few years ago Xtra successfully sued a local ISP operator for interfering with the proper delivery of email. The latest in this saga is that Yahoo is insisting on a website privacy policy. What the hell? I want to get my business and personal email delivered! This is EMAIL. They have an obligation to their customers and the internet in general to accept all legitimate email destined for their users, as we have to accept email from them. Could anyone affected by this please contact me off list about making a combined complaint to the Commerce Commission and any other appropriate avenue. Michael (disclaimer: the views in this email are entirely mine)

My latest update in this ongoing saga with Yahoo! Just to recap- 1. Mail server has never been implicated in any undesirable activities 2. Mail server uses DKIM, Domain keys, SFP, valid PTR + A records and current CA issued SSL certificate. 3. Mail server is not listed on any DNSBL as evidenced by dnsbl.info 4. Mail server has no other 'users'. In short totally kosher. Yahoo had previously claimed in writing that what we needed was a privacy policy on our website. So I put one up despite the fact it's totally irrelevant. No one can subscribe to any mailing lists on our website. Actually I don't even do mail outs at present. I wrote back and advised that a Privacy Policy had been posted and gave them the link. I received a cookie cutter style response moving the goalpost to la la land, now claiming they would not tell me what I had to do to get whitelisted and some total nonsense trying to fob off any non delivery problems onto the recipient. This is what they wrote: "This will not result in any kind of permanent block or defer or any other behavior.  These filters are solely based off of your mail servers' activity and recipient feedback." I know full well that no one has ever complained or blacklisted any email I sent to them. It is ENTIRELY ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PERSONALLY DIRECTED AND WELCOMED EMAIL. (Sorry for shouting... but I am peeved). In short I claim that their claimed "recipient feedback" in non existant in the case of our MX. And they further stated: "We cannot make exceptions to this rule without mailers going through the whitelist application/questionnaire process.  As of now, your mail server is ineligible for this service, so your mailings will continue to be reviewed in this manner." but they refuse to tell me what is required by us to complete their "whitelist" process: "Our apologies, but what specific changes we have made within our systems and what those systems are, how they work, and what they do cannot be disclosed to any 3rd party at this time, as this information is proprietary." In short this is nothing short of disgusting commercial banditry, stand over tactics, and cowboys like this need to be reminded about the ethos and expected behavior of large Internet companies is. I think it's ultimately not paying off for Yahoo because I have been in the industry long enough to recall when Yahoo was the search king and Google didn't exist. My how things have changed. Many of us advertise on Google, optimise our sites for Google and some of us even have Google on our cellular phones (In my case an HTC Magic with Android and Google). I have NEVER had a problem delivering email to Gmail addresses. Clearly "Don't be evil" has struck a chord with Internet users. I will also be cross posting this to other forums and I ask anyone who has been affected by this to contact me off list. Thanks. Michael (Opinions expressed within are entirely my own).

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:36:28 Michael Hutchinson wrote:

...

- Encourage any you can, to migrate _away_ from YahooXtra. The old 'vote with your feet' rule should be invoked whenever the service[1] justifies it.

I have had Yahoo/Xtra mail delivery problems before as well. If I had had a calmer head on me back then, I would have followed the sage advice quoted above (similar advice was given at the time, but I chose to troubleshoot instead..). Nowdays I would take a step back, tell the people involved to calm down, and suggested they move FROM Xtra to something that delivers mail in a reasonable fashion. This certainly would have got the E-Mail flowing more quickly in my case, although the problem with Xtra was _eventually_ resolved (we're talking 3 - 4 weeks later. Migrating 50 Mail addresses would have been a *LOT* quicker.).

I have sent them a polite and articulate response to their email, and the reply I got demonstrates that they didn't read a word I had written. What they are doing is totally ferral and if I had the same policy as theirs (Yahoo) I would have blocked them long ago, because I have noticed a lot of spam coming in is somehow connected to Yahoo clients. (conversely the mail server I am currently working with has never been involved in any incident as it's a single-company/personal MX) It's all very well to talk about moving people away from Xtra and certainly this scenario is adding to my body of evidence that I can use as justification, however until they choose to mend their ways and treat us as they themselves would like to be treated [1] or their clients get sick of the problem and move on, we are in a awkward situation. [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/05/orbs_death_alan_brown_replies/ I have the startings of a plan worked out to seek remedy on this situation and I would ask that anyone on this list who has been affected (either as ISP or client) who would like to add their case to contact me offlist. Michael (Views expressed within are entirely my own)

I think we should all give up on email.. this thread has gone on long enough.. I'd suggest switching to the message in a bottle approach.. and would recommend a lion red swapper crate bottle. -----Original Message----- From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Michael Sent: Tuesday, 26 January 2010 8:28 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Xtra temporarily deferred MX I have received some further responses from affected parties, most recently one from a well known mid sized ISP and another from a high profile website operator. If any affected party wishes to contact me off list and requests 'off the record' status this will certainly be respected. It has occurred to me that email from Xtra/Yahoo to affected parties is in itself possibly a form of spam. After all isn't that what most spammers do? Send email that can't be responded to... In this vein - is it ethical to treat email from Yahoo as spam, especially if the sender can't be reliably responded to ("take me off your mailing list etc....") I would be very interested in hearing other's perspectives on this. Michael (All opinions expressed are entirely my own). _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

At least with SBTP no one will EVER complain about SPAM. MMC On 26/01/2010, at 6:55 PM, Jodi Thomson wrote: On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 20:29 +1300, Craig Spiers wrote: I think we should all give up on email.. this thread has gone on long enough.. I'd suggest switching to the message in a bottle approach.. and would recommend a lion red swapper crate bottle. Well I applaud this idea in general I suspect we would wind up with SBTP (Simple Beer Transfer Protocol) Error 554 returned from the boundaries of Waikato, Otago and Mangatainoka ;-) cheers -- Jodi Thomson Systems Engineer Prophecy Networks Ltd P.O.Box 420 21 Browning Street Napier DDI: +64 6 8243901 Ph: +64 6 9742200 FAX: +64 6 9742201 Mob: +64 21 937684 http://prophecy.net.nz "Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before." _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog -- Matthew Moyle-Croft Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs Internode /Agile Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: mmc(a)internode.com.aumailto:mmc(a)internode.com.au Web: http://www.on.nethttp://www.on.net/ Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909

They are doing it to us now. *Sigh*. Final-Recipient: rfc822; blanked_out(a)xtra.co.nz Original-Recipient: rfc822;blanked_out(a)nzrs.net.nz Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Remote-MTA: dns; mx1.tnz.mail.yahoo.com Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 554 Message not allowed - UP Email not accepted for policy reasons. Please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defer/defer-04.html [120] Jay -- Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 02:51:16 +0000, Philip D'Ath wrote:

It would be so funny if Telecom Xtra became de-registered as a registrar because they were unable to act on NZRS emails because they refused to receive them.

Oh I can feel the TV coverage now.

Can't get better than that :) Anyone clicked on http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defer/defer-04.html recently ? mail/defer/defer-04.html redirects to mail/postmaster/index.html ... which contains a search box for entering your problem description. On entering 554 Message not allowed" it produces a page saying to visit the original defer-04.html page for help... AYJ

-----Original Message----- From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Jay Daley Sent: Monday, 1 February 2010 2:29 p.m. To: nznog Subject: Re: [nznog] Xtra temporarily deferred MX

They are doing it to us now. *Sigh*.

Final-Recipient: rfc822; blanked_out(a)xtra.co.nz Original-Recipient: rfc822;blanked_out(a)nzrs.net.nz Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Remote-MTA: dns; mx1.tnz.mail.yahoo.com Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 554 Message not allowed - UP Email not accepted

for

policy reasons. Please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defer/defer-04.html [120]

Jay

just my 2 cents to this lengthly thread. i used to run a rather large mail relay for customers (many of them yahoo actually) and had the exact problems. as we had some contractual relationship with those guys we had some kind of pressure to push them to whitelist us. as far as i remember the issue has nothing to do with "traditional" greylisting - it is a reputation system that takes mail volume plus internal spam ratings into relation. the problem is always the mail volume, you never get high enough with a small mail server to be listed and therefor always drop into the "new unknown and suspicious" category. mail delivery gets deferred and partly rejected. once you have enough volume you get complaints (some idiot marking your bill or registration mail as spam) and you get bad rankings due to that ... all in all it is a pain to work with never mind if you run a small or big mail server. refuse to use yahoo MX (sorry xtra) and the world is a better place cheers lenz On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Dave Mill wrote:

In case it is useful to anyone I tend to go through the following steps with customers (with their own mail server) who have issues emailing Xtra/Yahoo users. Your mileage may of course vary.

1) Check our mail logs if the mail is being relayed through us. Just to prove that Xtra are actually accepting the mail for delivery rather than bouncing it for any reason. Whilst I see the above complaints are about emails being bounced we tend to find they are often accepted but then never actually received by the recipient.

2) Explain that the emails that "aren't being receieved" are most likely in the Spam folder in the Yahoo webmail system. I believe these mails are generally there (I don't know for sure, I don't have an Xtra account for testing).

3) Check out reverse DNS. If a customer is running a mail server where the following don't match there will be issues: -MX record for customer's domain name -Name the mail server EHLOs as -Reverse DNS of the IP that the email originates from

Often once we change the reverse DNS from x-x-x-x.blah.sta.isp.net.nz to mail.customerdomain.co.nz things get a lot better.

4) From here we let the customer know that there is a form they can fill out (obtainable from Yahoo/Xtra) if they are having issues getting mail delivered to Xtra customers. Advise customer to get form from Yahoo/Xtra. (I don't know where this form comes from exactly but most customers seem to be able to get it pretty easily so it can't be that hard)

5) Customer phones us to get help with a couple of tricky questions.

6) Customer will generally either wait until they have submitted the form 2 - 3 times and at least a month has passed. After this all mail from their domain/mail-system is generally accepted and there are no more problems. At least until the customer alters their mail configuration to some degree.

Not ideal, but it is possible for someone having issues getting mails delivered to Xtra customers to get "their" issues resolved.

Wearing an ISPANZ hat I once tried to get people to speak out publically about these issues when they first popped up about 2 years ago now. I couldn't find a big corporate willing to be quoted (many were pissed, just didn't want to be quoted speaking out against Telecom) so we left it at that. ISPANZ may be happy to hear from you if you are a big corporate with issues emailing Xtra customers.

Cheers Dave

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Jay Daley wrote:

...

They are doing it to us now.  *Sigh*.

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- iWantMyName.com painless domain registration (finally)

We are an Ironport customer and have been for some time.

IronPort sell the hardware/subscription that use the list and bypass the list.

What are you referring to? There is no 'automatic whitelist for other Ironport customers' built in to the product. I don't even think you could create such a policy if you wanted to.

The cheapest way to get unlisted is just wait

This approach didn't work for us. We needed to raise numerous support tickets and jump through a few hoops first.

The quickest way is to sign up for ReturnPath and pay min 1000NZD

We actually looked into this at the end of last year. In our case, it would cost us significantly more than that (closer to 100k) for the volumes we send and even then you do *not* get guaranteed delivery with Yahoo!, Hotmail or any other mail provider. The best you can hope for is de-munging of HTML links and images that actually load in the webclient. We dismissed it as not offering value for money. There is a one-off non-refundable application fee and then a yearly subscription. You must follow their list of email "Best Practice" as a condition of entry (valid reverse DNS, SPF, DKIM signing etc etc) - which we are already doing incidentally.

The most expensive way is buying IronPort hardware, 2-4k NZD (then yearly subscriptions of around 1-2k NZD)

I can tell you with 100% certainty that using Ironport in itself is not enough to get you off any lists. We have had more than our fair share of deliverability issues with some large mail providers, which are thankfully all fixed (at the moment). Also those prices seem very low... :>

getting hardware or a subscription to ReturnPath would ensure emails get through.

No it wouldn't - if only life were that simple. Cheers Ross -----Original Message----- From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Brett Healy Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 10:23 a.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Xtra temporarily deferred MX I think what you are referring to is "Cisco->IronPort->SenderBase->ReturnPath" IronPort sell the hardware/subscription that use the list and bypass the list. SenderBase runs the reputation list ReturnPath runs Bonded Sender and people pay to by pass the list and the hardware (even if its spam) , those caught are spamming apparently face fines. The cheapest way to get unlisted is just wait (30mins to 7days depending on traffic) The quickest way is to sign up for ReturnPath and pay min 1000NZD (yearly subscription) The most expensive way is buying IronPort hardware, 2-4k NZD (then yearly subscriptions of around 1-2k NZD) NZRS are not listed with SenderBase, but getting hardware or a subscription to ReturnPath would ensure emails get through. If this all sounds like blackmail that's because it is, its a con and everyone is getting played. - Brett On 01/02/10 17:39, lenz wrote:

just my 2 cents to this lengthly thread.

i used to run a rather large mail relay for customers (many of them yahoo actually) and had the exact problems. as we had some contractual relationship with those guys we had some kind of pressure to push them to whitelist us. as far as i remember the issue has nothing to do with "traditional" greylisting - it is a reputation system that takes mail volume plus internal spam ratings into relation. the problem is always the mail volume, you never get high enough with a small mail server to be listed and therefor always drop into the "new unknown and suspicious" category. mail delivery gets deferred and partly rejected. once you have enough volume you get complaints (some idiot marking your bill or registration mail as spam) and you get bad rankings due to that ... all in all it is a pain to work with never mind if you run a small or big mail server.

refuse to use yahoo MX (sorry xtra) and the world is a better place

cheers lenz

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Dave Mill wrote:

...

In case it is useful to anyone I tend to go through the following steps with customers (with their own mail server) who have issues emailing Xtra/Yahoo users. Your mileage may of course vary.

1) Check our mail logs if the mail is being relayed through us. Just to prove that Xtra are actually accepting the mail for delivery rather than bouncing it for any reason. Whilst I see the above complaints are about emails being bounced we tend to find they are often accepted but then never actually received by the recipient.

2) Explain that the emails that "aren't being receieved" are most likely in the Spam folder in the Yahoo webmail system. I believe these mails are generally there (I don't know for sure, I don't have an Xtra account for testing).

3) Check out reverse DNS. If a customer is running a mail server where the following don't match there will be issues: -MX record for customer's domain name -Name the mail server EHLOs as -Reverse DNS of the IP that the email originates from

Often once we change the reverse DNS from x-x-x-x.blah.sta.isp.net.nz to mail.customerdomain.co.nz things get a lot better.

4) From here we let the customer know that there is a form they can fill out (obtainable from Yahoo/Xtra) if they are having issues getting mail delivered to Xtra customers. Advise customer to get form from Yahoo/Xtra. (I don't know where this form comes from exactly but most customers seem to be able to get it pretty easily so it can't be that hard)

5) Customer phones us to get help with a couple of tricky questions.

6) Customer will generally either wait until they have submitted the form 2 - 3 times and at least a month has passed. After this all mail from their domain/mail-system is generally accepted and there are no more problems. At least until the customer alters their mail configuration to some degree.

Not ideal, but it is possible for someone having issues getting mails delivered to Xtra customers to get "their" issues resolved.

Wearing an ISPANZ hat I once tried to get people to speak out publically about these issues when they first popped up about 2 years ago now. I couldn't find a big corporate willing to be quoted (many were pissed, just didn't want to be quoted speaking out against Telecom) so we left it at that. ISPANZ may be happy to hear from you if you are a big corporate with issues emailing Xtra customers.

Cheers Dave

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Jay Daley wrote:

...

They are doing it to us now. *Sigh*.

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

As far as the best way to stop yourself getting blocked by IronPort Reputation, it's actually quite easy - Don't send spam! Once you take out the concepts that most anti-spam products use such as dynamic IP lists/etc, the vast majority of the factors used to calculate your reputation are based on the volume of spam seen, both by other IronPorts as well as various spamtraps.

Now that's a funny one Scott. As someone who has controlled the particular IP of his smtp server for 5+ years, I can say without doubt that it hasn't sent spam in at least that long. And we were an early adopter of SPF. None the less, end users of certain ISPs don't get our email. What to do? Obviously with fewer than 20 accounts we're not going to build up a positive reputation in the world of email. Does that mean we're spammers? No. Do I feel blackmailed into paying my way out of this situation? Not yet, but getting there. -JB Ph: +64 4 978 7350 DDI: +64 4 978 7358 Fx: +64 4 978 7355 jon.brewer(a)araneo.net.nz