Sent an email out to a list of folks and got bounces from University of Cincinnati and Hotmail.
Hotmails error:
Connected to 65.55.92.184 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 550 SC-001 Mail rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy reasons. Reasons for rejection may be related to content with spam-like characteristics or IP/domain reputation problems. If you are not an email/network admin please contact your E-mail/Internet Service Provider for help. Email/network admins, please visit http://postmaster.live.com for email delivery information and support
UC’s Error:
Connected to 65.54.188.78 but sender was rejected.
Stephen, what is the purpose of your reply? Obviously there is an issue. Did you bother to click the link I provided? Or read the errors I sent in my initial post.
Getting a ‘there is no problem’ reply when there is in fact a problem doesn’t help.
Just because you can find a report that says everything is fine doesn’t overrule the fact that I got the errors I got, which say that the mail4 IP is not trusted.
No indeed it means that to overall of the internet it is NOT blacklisted or untrusted. Almost all such systems use senderbase for IP reputation services. If there saying contrary, THEIR service is at fault, not ours.
Live uses Symantec, which now is making any application made in visual studio have an alert that says it is untrusted and may be a virus, just because every custom app says it is untrusted and a virus doesn’t meant it is, it means symantec sucks.
Stephen,
My email is UNUSABLE until this is fixed. That is not a problem for Symantec, but for JodoHost.
Symantec > JodoHost
Hotmail > JodoHost
So, like with any issue of this nature, the smaller company must figure out how to get around it. I know Hotmail has a system in place to get around this…
And I’m not buying the, any product made in Visual Studio comment… do you really think Microsoft would allow that for their protection system?
You don’t have to ‘buy’ what i am saying, I have friends dealing with it right now, trying to get Symantec to have some sense. you can compile any sample apps in one of the most compatible versions of visual studio (6.0) and it will report from symantec’s AV that the file is ‘suspect’ until a certain amount of people report it as ‘trusted’.
You can scan the same file on virustotal.com which scans from dozens of engines, and only syamtec’s engine says anything at all.
I was not saying this to say that we will do nothing, you need to submit a ticket and we will see what can be done. I was saying it to say that there is NOT a widespread problem on the server, and it is not blacklisted by any major source anywhere. Nor is it a ‘suspect’ or ‘bad reputation’ mail server.
A simple MS sample app, will trigger this warning to a user, making them fear the app, even if there is NOTHING wrong at all.
It is new, and it is BAD. It is Symantec way of doing things!
BTW I am bringing this up as I know about it first hand, and it may not be an issue for some large distributed software for ‘two days’ to be ‘untrusted’ but for someone that makes their livelihood based on custom apps run by 2-3 people at a max, their app doesn’t have the user base to be ‘trusted’. You also have the issue with people that have symantec/norton getting this having such fear of seeing this notice that they do not know they need to report it as trusted, you end up with a big loop of problems when you go to such systems, and this is exactly what they do with email and why it is an issue. instead of taking spam reports, most everything is spam until proven otherwise by ‘reputation’ to them.
Edited to add: Please don’t take me as being rude in these/this reply. I just find dealing with Symantec to be a real pain, and they are never logical in their thinking. i hope from my expanded thought here, and the links you can see why they can drive someone mad trying to deal with them. when you are dealing with a company that bases things on their own criteria that is really not published or available for analysis, does not send abuse reports to correct problems when they happen, it is a bit hard to correct what they see as a problem when they will not tell you as such.
I was not saying this to say that we will do nothing, you need to submit a ticket and we will see what can be done. I was saying it to say that there is NOT a widespread problem on the server,
Then say that. All your reply did was say, no problem here. Say, we are aware of the issue and it is due to this reason and we are trying to figure out a way to get around it. Your first reply did not say anything worthwhile.
and it is not blacklisted by any major source anywhere. Nor is it a ‘suspect’ or ‘bad reputation’ mail server.
We’ll have to disagree on this one. A major university and Hotmail sound pretty major to me.
Though, as Praveen said, he replied via the ticket I opened after I was told to open one on this thread… I tried this email again and it now seems to work.
Praveen, can you please elaborate on what changed?
We found that spamming was going from one mail account. We changed password of that mail account and notified the reseller. After that we changed outgoing ip of the mail server.
If you look again at what I said, I said there is addressing the message given by the server which is based on reputation of the IP, I was refuting that the mail server is a ‘bad reputation’, as it simply is not. Hotmail and a major university, while they affect your usage, is not a major blacklist or reputation problem. I apologize that such affects you, but it is not a widespread issue. We strive very much to keep mail servers clean, most of the issues of late are actually happening due to trojans or virus infections that I have seen. Cisco/senderbase is biggest player in the ip reputation business, so it is a major player if you are having ip reputation issues, it will show there.
what Praveen did, and we can do in the short term is simply a workaround, not an end solution, which takes days, and sometimes a week to resolve. Akshay had already addressed the need to send a ticket for the matter, so I was just adding about the fact that the IP reputation is indeed not ‘bad’.
Really it is something I take seriously that we have strict policy and anti spam practices, so maybe I took their message a bit too much
Another error message today:
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail4.g********.com.
I’m afraid I wasn’t able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I’ve given up. Sorry it didn’t work out.
*@cinnug.org:
Connected to 66.228.127.205 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 554 Sending address not accepted due to spam filter
This is the complete info, and already sent. Looks like the IP is back to where it was when this started. Though now we have a new list saying it is a spamming machine.
That is not complete info, if you sent it in ticket that is fine however.
I see nothing new on blacklists there, so not sure what you mean by that comment. They are not mentioning which blacklist they are using if any, as it is normally in the error if that is the case.
That is all the info I have. Go back to the original link I gave in this thread and look at the new list that the server is on. Previously it was on Barracuda.
The results are exactly as I saw them the day of the post, never saw anything else there, and since it was not in post what you had seen, I did not know otherwise.
What I really meant for complete info is there is a more complete header from their servers, ours, etc this is needed when working on mail server issues, you have posted the content of, but not headers and all.
I’ve moved this thread to the customer discussion forum.
ckincincy, I assure you we are doing the best we can to fix the situation.
We have been battling SPAM for many years (7 and counting), and it remains our biggest challenge. The problem with any shared mail server is that it can be abused - one person’s spam can affect the rest of the clients on that server. To reduce the potential for abuse, we screen our customers before accepting their business, and further require them to sign a statement if they plan to send larger volumes of email.
Despite these measures, it is possible for us to get blacklisted in different corners of the internet (due to varying spam policies). If this happens, we ALWAYS investigate and correct the problem. It is for that reason, sending a ticket (as Stephen suggested) is a faster way to deal with this issue as we can look at the headers, promptly identify the blocking mail server, the sending mail server and the potential spammer
