Slashdot Mirror
AOL Sued For Over-Zealous Blocking
mik writes "America Online
has been sued by CI Host,
a Texas-based hosting company for defamation, interference with
contractual rights and unfair competition. CI Host
has been
awarded a temporary restraining order, though AOL has apparently not complied.
This may be the first such in a series of suits leading up to, perhaps, to class-action status relating to AOL's recent zealotry in
anti-spam policy
resulting in the presumption that shared-hosting providers are guilty (of spamming)
unless proven innocent."
I had the misfortune of having a dedicated server with them for 2 long years. The machine would lock up frequently, and i'd have to make a 30min call from Australia to the US to listen to their on hold crap so i could talk to a tech and then try and convince him to hit the big red button.
CI Host has a huge marketing and sales department and tiny tech support division. Dont you dare, ever, believe a word of their marketing crap. They suck. Pure and simple. They've cost me thousands because of the clients i've lost because of their incompetence. Some of the people are nice enough but they simply dont have the technical skills of other places.
I'm now with rackspace.com and they kick arse!
Don't be to quick to defend them.
0 27 3.html is another link.
http://www.forumhosts.com/cihost.htm for a taste of what these guys are like.
http://www.stevemaas.com/selbstbild/archives/00
Let's hope to god the EFF's and Timothy don't fall for their lawsuit stuff.
More of AOL's anti-spam zealotry is a good thing (I speak as someone who has had something like 10,000 emails blocked by them in the past few weeks).
Being as I at one time worked in the abuse capacity for a ISP. Although AOL may have over zealous policies as of late they do have a postmaster number which they could call and have the validity of the block checked. I had done this in the past and had resolution in ~24hours.
Just do a quick /. search to see what people think of ci host. I was a ci host customer back in 99/2000 when their whole accounting database was open to the internet, customer information and credit card numbers. There were $5000 of fraudulent charges on my check card around the turn of millenium from my information being readily available to any idiot with a web browser. The bank took care of everything but it was a pain the in ass.
Among other petty annoyances, AOL is incorrectly refusing connections from blacklisted hosts, as follows:
According to RFC 821 (sections 4.3 and 4.2.2), the server can respond to new connections in with a 220 ("let's dance") or a 421 ("go away, I have a headache") response. Not a 554 ("you're lousy in bed") code. Among other things, the manner in which they reject mail from residential IPs causes it to languish in the queue, rather than bouncing as it should if they intend to permanently refuse delivery.
I'm sure they do this intentionally so that it will look like your mail server is at fault ("sorry, couldn't get through") rather than theirs ("buzz off, I don't like your IP address").
I work for an ISP (holding the name for obvious reasons). We recently had a customer abuse our AUP by sending 3,000+ unsolicited emails with attachments to AOL customers in just one week (total emails reached ~18,000). AOL in turn blocked any and every email with attachments from our domain indefinitely. Our legal team is now trying to resolve this issue with them. Even though emails without attachments go through fine, it has become a huge inconvience for many our customers. I don't understand why they did not block the specific account only instead of our domain. The following is the rejection notice we receive when sending emails with attachments to *@aol.com: > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to mailin-02.mx.aol.com.:
> ... while talking to mailin-03.mx.aol.com.:
> >>> QUIT
You're citing an out-of-date RFC. 821 was superseded by RFC 2821, which makes it clear that 554 is a valid connection-opening response, to indicate that mail service is not available. (Indeed, 2821 spells out two codes for use at connection establishment -- 220 to accept, or 554 to reject access.) AOL is correctly using 554 to indicate that it will not provide mail service to your IP address.
A 4xx code would be improper in this case. 4xx codes indicate temporary failures. They mean that the client should queue its messages and retry them later, rather than returning a bounce message to the sender. That's not what is intended here -- the server doesn't want you to retry, it wants you to not try. A 5xx error code is correct.