Messaging Gateway

 View Only
  • 1.  554 5.7.1 IP on Symantec's Global Bad Senders list

    Posted Jul 11, 2017 05:10 PM

    I operate mail servers for a few entities and apparently my setup is flagged as snow shoe spamming. Looking that up, that is some pretty weak justification for outright banning my servers. It's just smart to have two domain and 4 mail servers setup to serve my users. My SPF records carefully list them and limit it legitimate email from 4 IPs. Yet, you see this as my load balancing my IP reputation across them. In a way you are entirely correct! Why wouldn't I want so slowly *increase* my IP reputation across these 4? I'm running legitimate services here so that is what you would do.

    Please reassess n1n2.solutions. I believe your assessment to be unfair and simplistic. This is keeping legitimate email from going to and from your end user.

     



  • 2.  RE: 554 5.7.1 IP on Symantec's Global Bad Senders list

    Broadcom Employee
    Posted Jul 12, 2017 05:00 PM

    The issue is not with having multiple servers and IPs, the issue is with delivering spam from multiple servers and IPs. This forum is not the place to report a false positive, you should submit a request at http://ipremoval.sms.symantec.com/lookup/.

    If you still have issues, please review this document for further assistance: https://support.symantec.com/en_US/article.TECH82881.html



  • 3.  RE: 554 5.7.1 IP on Symantec's Global Bad Senders list

    Posted Jul 17, 2017 03:19 PM

    @TSE-JDavis

    There is no issue with delivering spam, and your system is apparently well known to have false positives. If you guys are the ones claiming the SPAM, then you guys are the ones who need to SHOW EVIDENCE of the SPAM.

    This forum is the ONLY place you can report anything and have Symantec repond. That website is a dead end. Nobody ever responds, nothing ever gets done. That document you want me to review is ridiculous. WE ARE NOT BULK MAILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I would like contact information for whoever heads that dept. Your postmaster is MIA, which is a no-no when you operate email, and ludicrous when operate a RBL.

     



  • 4.  RE: 554 5.7.1 IP on Symantec's Global Bad Senders list

    Posted Jul 17, 2017 03:25 PM

    Do you guys have a legal department? I'm getting the impression that this cannot be accomplished without the courts getting involved and forcing one of your executives to fly out and speak with me.

    Which may sound ridiculous, but so is operating a real time block list for email and ignoring everyone who complains....



  • 5.  RE: 554 5.7.1 IP on Symantec's Global Bad Senders list

    Broadcom Employee
    Posted Jul 17, 2017 03:44 PM

    We do not operate a Real-Time Blacklist. We maintain a list of IPs that have been seen sending spam, that only our products use. The IP removal website does in fact function well and many entries get removed when they stop sending the offending content.

    This forum is for our customers to discuss our products and issues they encounter using them. This is not a place for mail administrators to discuss being blocked by our antispam service. If the recipients of your emails that use our service want to receive those emails, they can whitelist your IPs.



  • 6.  RE: 554 5.7.1 IP on Symantec's Global Bad Senders list

    Posted Jul 17, 2017 05:38 PM

    @TSE-JDavis

    We do not operate a Real-Time Blacklist. We maintain a list of IPs that have been seen sending spam, that only our products use.

    That's hilarious. You claim to not operate a RBL, but then just defined what a RBL is and that your products use it. I don't think you understand what a RBL is, as it doesn't matter whether or not I'm personally using it. What matters is that your customers that do use it, are using a substandard RBL that doesn't operate properly.

    The IP removal website does in fact function well and many entries get removed when they stop sending the offending content.

    That's contradicted by all the entries on this forum that lament that it doesn't function, and that nobody ever reponds. I NEVER sent any offending content in the first place. You don't get to sit there and act like I'm a "bad sender", claim I have sent offending content, and then have ZERO ways to prove it. Your postmaster is MIA, your RBL is operated by personnel in an ivory tower that act as if they don't need to respond to the entities they list. You absolutely do need to respond.

    This forum is for our customers to discuss our products and issues they encounter using them. This is not a place for mail administrators to discuss being blocked by our antispam service. If the recipients of your emails that use our service want to receive those emails, they can whitelist your IPs.

    I do not care. This forum is the only place that Symantec employees respond to complaints. Instead of just posting offensive advice for bulk mailers, which assumes all complainants have acted improperly and are spam operators, you could find out who is responsible for the department and possibly bring them here. You offer nothing useful beyond the copypasta you put out.

    Your removal tool does not work, your postmaster does not respond, and you act like irresponsible barbarians with respect to email servers and their proper operation. You should be ashamed of yourselves for operating a RBL in this fashion.

    I need whoever is responsible for the Symantec Global Bad Senders list to act responsibly and respond to my complaint. Either remove me from the list, or give me an example of spam coming from my servers.

    My servers are clean. Unlike your substandard RBL, dozens of the most popular RBLs do not have me listed. I cannot find any place that lists your RBL, which makes some sense since you are proprietary, but nonetheless, I'm not on any RBLs that I can find. So it is not me, my servers did not send any spam (or marketing emails in general), and you flagged our servers without cause. Which is also called a false positive.

    Can you get me the number of the legal department? I'd like to fax/send them an intent to sue. I bet if I sued you in small claims court for $25, you might respond to my complaint before having to put an executive on a plane to visit the wine country in Northern California. Either that, or they would appreciate the weekend trip :)

    We may found out, since nobody here in the forums wants to do anything but shift the blame and recommend non-working processes to get removed.

     

     

     

     



  • 7.  RE: 554 5.7.1 IP on Symantec's Global Bad Senders list

    Posted Jul 21, 2017 12:11 PM

    Why is it that arrogant Symantec employees reply that reports should be sent elsewhere?

    HELLO!!! I already submitted my blacklist request to be removed and they haven't done crap about it.

    I even left my email for them to contact me and show them my server is not sending any spam yet they never reply.

    I want Symantec to help me fix the problem (where there is NO problem) so my IP addresses can be allowed to send email.

    If sending a request for removal doesn't solve the issue WHAT DOES?

    Teo