Slashdot Log In
Verizon's Aggressive New Spam Filter Causing Problems
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:02 AM
from the annoyances-and-other-corporate-bothers dept.
from the annoyances-and-other-corporate-bothers dept.
aviancarrier writes "Verizon DSL has turned on a very aggressive spam filter that is blocking lots of long-time legitimate emails. Emails get bounced with an error: 'XX@verizon.net: host relay.verizon.net[206.46.232.11] said: 550 Email from your Email Service Provider is currently blocked by Verizon Online's anti-spam system. The email "sender" or Email Service Provider may visit http://www.verizon.net/whitelist and request removal of the block.' That whitelist web page lets you request one address at a time to be whitelisted with no guarantee for their response time to process it. I have tested multiple email sources and only one got through. As a VZ customer, I just spent 28 minutes on a call to tech support, eventually got a supervisor who knows nothing about the new spam feature, and would only agree to email a manager who doesn't work weekends about it. I warned her that VZ has a public relations problem but she was too clueless to understand." Many users have submitted this problem so it seems to be a pretty far reaching problem. There is also a discussion going on over at Google about this problem.
Related Stories
[+]
Ask Slashdot: How Pervasive is ISP Outbound Email Filtering? 281 comments
Erris writes "A member of the Baton Rouge LUG noticed that Cox checks the text of outgoing email and rejects mail containing key phrases. I was aware of forced inbox filtering that has caused problems and been abused by other ISPs in China and in the US. I've also read about forced use of ISP SMTP and outbound throttling, but did not know they outbound filtered as well. How prevalent and justified is this practice? Wouldn't it be better to cut off people with infected computers than to censor the internet?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
There seems to be some mixup... (Score:5, Interesting)
ISP form, you can request multiple domains and multiple IP addrs in a
single request.
Also, the discussion over at Google currently has a whopping 6 entries.
Much ado about nothing?
looks good: wish AT&T would learn from Verizo (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:looks good: wish AT&T would learn from Veri (Score:3, Informative)
Re:looks good: wish AT&T would learn from Veri (Score:3, Informative)
Imagine the impact to email in general if EVERY ISP and company use such a bonehead system. Everytime you sent email to a new person (customer / client,) you would have to *find*, then fill out some bizzaro web form. MAYBE in a week or so you will finally be able to send your email. Exactly how does this help things???
VOL's problem is that the group running their email service is a bunch of totally incompetant BOFH a-holes. Ins
Pesky Supervisors! (Score:3, Informative)
I've spent a fair amount of time tracking down the error that you're looking at. Its primarily caused by 2 things. Your server sends Verizon spam or its misconfigured.
1. Your server is a known open relay or h
Re:There seems to be some mixup... (Score:3, Insightful)
Much ado about nothing?
It has probably not reached epidemic proportions yet, but as a former Verizon DSL customer, it does not surprise met that their idea of SPAM filtering is to block most legitimate incoming traffic. They tend to have a brute force approach to technical problems. Their tech support has been spotty for a long time; I would sometimes get really sharp people who could scope something out in minutes, other times I wo
Re:There seems to be some mixup... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:There seems to be some mixup... (Score:5, Informative)
I called Verizon about it in January after I realized it was happening. I suspected it had been going on since I got my DSL service, but at the time just assumed that I had been unsubscribed from all of my school's listservs (because of some crazy mix up regarding my academic year, my switch from an undergrad to a law student, etc. Don't ask...). Verizon opened an Operation Control Services (OSC) ticket to look into the matter. After four months of investigating, dozens of calls, hours of talking to tech no-support, and five OSC tickets later, the matter still is not resolved.
During the time we were diagnosing the problem, OSC asked for the error code that my university received whenever it tried to forward messages. My college's IT department told me that they received an error 450 for every message: "Deferred: 450 Requested mail action not taken-Try later:sv11pub.verizon.net (from relay.verizon.net [206.46.232.11])." According to OSC, this meant that the Verizon mail server could not verify that the listserv messages being forwarded actually originated from the listserver domain. Given my school's list server set up, this makes perfect sense; users on the listserv may send an email to the server's listening account, which takes messages and creates a new message to blast the original message to all the listserv's recipients. The intermediate listening account seemed to be a legitimate way to relay messages to recipients.
Apparently, that didn't fly with the Verizon servers. OSC engineers thoroughly explained the problem in my account's notes, "Sender cannot be verified, which is the cause of their mail issue. NOTE: 451
But this is not the only problem at Verizon. One month ago, they had to suspend their entire "Block Senders" database because it got so large that the Verizon server couldn't process the messages through it. As I understand it, the database caused a number of hiccups, blocking hundreds of legitimate messages and letting through as many or more spam messages. To this day, Verizon has not reintstated users' "block senders" email option.
This is not to mention the fact that Verizon is notorious for not following up with its customers. Over the four months that I tried to get a resolution, only once did I ever receive a call from a member of the supervisor escalation group, informing me of any "progress." In an effort to keep myself in the loop, I would call the verizon tech no-support department, only to find that that my OSC ticket had been closed without notice and without resolu
Parent
Re:There seems to be some mixup... (Score:3, Funny)
I call BS. You're implying that you actually got through to Verizon's customer service.
Re:There seems to be some mixup... (Score:3, Funny)
Zonk on the other hand would run it today, and again tomorrow.
*ducks*
28 minutes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:28 minutes? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:28 minutes? (Score:5, Insightful)
From that page:
That's very nice, but it doesn't seem like a very intelligent way to measure customer service. As a trivial example, suppose you want to know your credit card balance. A decently programmed voice response system can give you that information quickly and clearly, and in much less time than it would take to get the same data from a human. If you're lucky, the IVR won't even try to sell you something that you don't need.
Yes, I know that there are times when the available pre-programmed options are not useful and speaking to a representative is the only option. But do you want to have to wait in queue for an agent who has to handle ninety-twelve "what is my balance?" calls before it's your turn? Now ask yourself why the call centers are being outsourced to overseas providers
This "I only will deal with a human" attitude is pointless. Better to demand that corporations fix their IVR systems, because they're not going away. (And maybe I'll get hired to write more VUI specs instead of having to implement what 'the business' thinks it wants.)
Parent
Re:28 minutes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:28 minutes? (Score:3, Insightful)
When I call in, it's because I have a problem or a question that isn't answerable by automated systems. After spending the last few years exploring phone trees exhaustively before finally saying "Yep, they can't handle it" and getting to a rep, I'm perfectly happy to rate companies on how easy that last step is.
Obviously... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you know how they troubleshoot already?
Re:Obviously... (Score:5, Funny)
"I have OSX"
"Sir... I understand, but I need to walk you through this. Please locate your Start button."
"You don't understand - I'm on a Mac, I don't have a Start button."
"Sir... You're not making this any easier. Once we go through this we can identify your issue."
"Actually, my issue is that my cable modem arrived without a power supply."
- Actual conversation I had with tech support. Long live tech support. Long live tech support scripts.
Parent
Re:Obviously... (Score:3, Funny)
Verizon have been jerks for quite awhile (Score:5, Interesting)
The big thing they already had in place was that they want to connect back on port 25 to the sending system AND make sure it responds initially with the same name it's using to send mail out. Not a bad thing overall, I suppose, but I can see how it would block quite a few messages from providers that use separate sending servers from their receiving servers. I finally had to set up SMTPFWDD on both outgoing servers to accept connections and silently drop any emails they get, that helped, but I think they still rate-limited heavily.
I'd say if you depend on getting your email, Verizon's not a good ISP to use.
from annoyances-and-other-corporate-bothers? (Score:2)
- Andrew
Now thats rich. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=ve
I think that's a different job (Score:5, Insightful)
Having worked in tech support for a large company, I can assure you that the position of supervisor for a tech support call centre really doesn't have nearly as much influence on coprorate public relations as you seem to think that it has.
Most of the people in her position would be surprised to find out that any one from the head office even knows that they exist, let alone cares about what they do or asks their opinion on issues like PR. It's normal to be annoyed when a company like Verizon screws up like this, but lashing out at the tech support staff just because they're the easist people to reach really doesn't help anybody.
Re:I think that's a different job (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I think that's a different job (Score:2)
that's sort of a ridiculous attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I think that's a different job (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think that's a different job (Score:3, Insightful)
What you say is true, of course. It's
Re:I think that's a different job (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. Part of the what is so frustrating about dealing with a company like Verizon is the massive diffusion of responsibility. It is almost impossible to get a hold of someone who is really responsible and accountable to you, because everyone's job is so specialized and compartmentalized. If they can't sol
Re:I think that's a different job (Score:3, Interesting)
I worked at one of these outsourcers. Most of the intelligent & ethical tech pros there were diligently finding other employment as fast as they could
Resistance is useless (Score:3, Funny)
Update on the blocking (Score:5, Interesting)
Regarding the person who accused me of being a spammer: No. Just a husband trying to email my wife's VZ account.
Regarding the "lashing" out at the customer service supervisor: I was trying to get her to help her own company out. The fact that she was not told anything about a new level of spam filtering nor had (she claims) a way to contact a manager on a weekend about a PR problem may be a standard problem for that level of supervisor, but I wanted to give her a way to be a hero internally and stop a PR problem from getting worse.
Re:Update on the blocking (Score:3, Insightful)
This has been posted a bit in the main thread, but I'll restate it: the "customer s
verizon's response (Score:3, Funny)
ISP Blocks (Score:2, Interesting)
AOL
Excite
Comcast
The easiest was AOL, they have a number you can call 24 hours a day to get removed (but it takes 48 hours for the removal to take effect). The other two have been blocking mail from my servers for two weeks. I have filled out contact forms, and left voicemails to no avail.
I haven't recieved a complaint about Verizon yet, but that could be because I have SPF records.
Such a hassle (Score:2)
Even if you let users manage it, about 60% of them won't have a clue, they'll bollocks it up for themselves, and they won't be able to distinguish between your web appliance and the OEM Norton Antispam which continually misconfigures itself again and again.
I wonder if we should just ban email altogether so that we can actually get some other work done.
Ironic (Score:2)
Generally speaking, I think it's a good idea to implement something like this, but the problem with Verizon is that they need to filter port 25 on their broadband IP space first and foremost, like AOL and Bellsouth and many other providers are starting to do.
Ultimately, what Verizon is doing is not a bad thing. It will force
Verizon? PR problem? You don't say! (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps she was too jaded from hearing customers complain that Verizon has a PR problem.
"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."
From what I've heard (and what I experienced from having their service in the second half of 2000), this is nothing new for Verizon. They're only interested in the money-making aspects of the telecom business, and drag their feet on everything else. The setup of this aggressive new spam filter was probably one of those "money-making" items, since it means far less spam traffic and decreased accusations of hosting spam bots. Of course, when customers start complaining that they can't send email to specific addresses, they have to deal with Verizon's understaffed, undercapable customer service departments, who will most likely be faced with fierce opposition from the suits in opposing the "grand money-saving, liability-reducing spam filter".
Also, keep in mind that when Verizon acquired MCI, they acquired UUNet, a tier-1 ISP with some serious spam problems of their own [infoworld.com]. I wouldn't be surprised if taking on UUNet's elephant-on-their-back was part of the rationale behind the new spam filtering policies.
Stop the presses! (Score:2)
google embracing and extending usenet? (Score:2)
Oh wow, now I see they are also hosting mailing lists as "groups" as well. Way to muddle the terminology; I guess that is the point. I hate marketing/advertising people.
And netmail.verizon.net now seems to be IE-only? (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you in the right? (Score:5, Informative)
More and more ISPs are starting to implement the same compliance checks. Would any of these reject your system's mail? Several of our customers had misconfigured outbound servers and we helped them fix their systems. We were only early adopters, though; if we hadn't caught the problem then a major ISP or five would have started rejecting their email without being so helpful.
Maybe VZ is in the right this time. Are you sure they're not?
Re:Oh no! Not again! (Score:2)
Messages in bottles. (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to send all my email out of my own mailserver, out of my home firewall/router/"box-in-a-closet" machine.
Recently -- like within the last six months or so, I've noticed an alarming number of domains that aren't receiving my emails. And no, I haven't been blackholed or otherwise put on anyone's shit list, nor am I running an open relay. The mailserver is perfectly well-behaved, standards compliant, and only relays from within my home LAN.
I also don't mass-mail or do any other sort of sketchy activity, I just always liked having my own mailserver and never having to worry about when my ISPs (or Google's, or my web hosting providers') was going to flake out on me. But it's becoming nearly impractical to do. I'm never sure if an email that I sent out has actually gotten through, or if it's just been silently eaten by some spam filter somewhere.
The worst offender that I've found so far is Comcast; I haven't been able to get any messages through at all to Comcast subscribers, and they don't provide back any sort of acknowledgment that a message has been blocked. Every time I send anything to them, it's firing a shot into the darkness.
I hate spam as much as anybody else (probably more than some); I'm in favor of using some of those Federal "computer crimes" laws -- the ones that have harsher penalties for electronically violating a system than if you walked in and stole it in person -- against spammers. See what 20 years of pound-me-in-the-ass prison followed by another 10 or 15 of no-computer probation (and consequent unemployment) does for their attitude. Or there are the always popular vigilante death squads, I could find a warm place in my heart for them, too. Either of those would be preferable to the current patchwork system of blacklists, whitelists, greylists, RBLs, and unilateral policies on the part of ISPs that break up the nature of the network.
Sending an email shouldn't be like tossing a message in a bottle into the ocean, but that's how it's getting to be with some ISPs.
Parent
Re:Messages in bottles. (Score:2)
Re:Messages in bottles. (Score:4, Insightful)
> The worst offender that I've found so far is Comcast;
Sorry, but you're sending email from a residential IP with a rdns of something like "dsl-123-234-12-56.dyn.myisp.net" and you're calling comcast the offender?
The days of running your own mail server on a residential account are over -- blame the thousands of zombie spammers on your
You can get mail hosting for like five bucks a month. It's the cost of spam. Deal with it, because we sure as hell are.
Signed,
the world's mail administrators
Parent
Not that simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the fact that there is nothing to distinguish his email server from any of the hundreds (thousands?) of zombies on that same network.
In cases such as this, the best solution is for the home user to over-comply. And that means learning about relaying and getting a relay account on a server that does not look like a zombie.This is not about anyone being an idiot.
This is about making it as easy as possible for the other competent email admins to see that you are not a zombie.
The more concessions you expect from all of them, the more problems you'll face.
Parent
Re:Not that simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Messages in bottles. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I'm not all that surprised (Score:2)
Just about any other service will let you filter on subject, header, body, filter out domain, etc.