Slashdot Mirror


Verizon's Aggressive New Spam Filter Causing Problems

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.

48 of 311 comments (clear)

  1. There seems to be some mixup... by winkydink · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I went to the referenced URL and it sure looks to me like, using the
    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?

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by Billosaur · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Also, the discussion over at Google currently has a whopping 6 entries.

      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 wondered if the tech knew what a router was.

      If this goes on long enough, you can bet there will be a pretty strong backlash and the last thing Verizon needs is egg on its face. They'd hate to see customers flocking to cable and dumping their DSL, especially if those customers take their phone service along with them.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by winkydink · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps the "we" that decided to run the story could have devoted a bit more time writing or editing the article synopsis? Perhaps even make it factually correct wrt to the ability to whitelist multiple domains/ip addrs with a single request (which the summary says must be done one by each)?

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    3. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by GreggBz · · Score: 2, Informative

      I admin a small ISP and I can tell you that the postmaster inbox had about 25 emails this morning with "I can't email xxxx@verizon.net." Additionally, we've had a few irates in the call center today. This was enough to rattle the nerves a bit, and I actually spent a few hours searching through the logs to see if we were naughty, since the whole thing seemed pretty arbitrary and there was no abuse evidence provided from Verizon. After seeing this, I'm slightly relieved it's not our fault. I took some time to fill out the whitelist form this morning anyway..

      The issue (from our domain at least), has apparently resolved itself as of about 7AM EST, 2 hours prior to me filling in the boxes.

    4. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by evilbessie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well this is really not news to me. I work for an anti-spam company (not a very good one) and I personally noticed this first occur about 12-18 months ago. At that time Verizon decided to block pretty much all oversees mail. Being based in the UK caused no end of issue, although I seem to recal having PTR records did help some.

      So they have been evil again, wow, i'm shocked truely shocked.

      enjoy

    5. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by ModExec · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a Verizon DSL custmoer, I can attest to there being a problem. For the past 18 months, Verizon has refused to pass along listserv messages forward to my verizon.net inbox from my university email account. Emails from individuals that are addressed to my univeristy made it through the spam filters fine. But emails from my university's listserver were blocked. All of them.

      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 ... Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable. Whitelisting will not help. They will need to correct the config on their mail server." This made no sense to me, to my school's IT department, and even to the Verizon tech who tried to interpret the notes. Apparently, what these notes meant to say was the university's servers did not comply with some sort of internet standards for mail routing. Despite there being a legitimate use for the messages, Verizon would not create an exception in the hallowed standard to accomodate the forwarded messages. Verizon's OSC recommended that I tell my school's IT department that it was their servers that did not comply with the standard -- that if they wanted Verizon to accept their forwards, they needed to reconfigure their listservers. This was incredible. For what it was worth, I relayed this to my school's IT department. Not surprizingly, they have made no changes. Why fix what works with 99.9% of the ISPs out there? Whoever said Verizon was using brute force tactics to do business has hit the nail right on the head.

      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

    6. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by tgd · · Score: 2, Funny

      You wouldn't have.

      Zonk on the other hand would run it today, and again tomorrow.

      *ducks*

    7. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by (H)olyGeekboy · · Score: 2

      Funny you should mention this during one of my rare comment thread reads.

      The fact that the slashdot "editors" do absolutely no editing (spellchecking, corroboration, or clarification) before they post submissions is a real pain point. It was fine in 1998, when I first registered an account... but now with sites like boingboing making regular corrections/additions/issuing mea culpas on mistakes, slashdot doesn't shine quite as brightly.

      I understand they exist mostly as an article aggregator, instead of a legitimate journalistic endeavor, or even a full-fledged blog, but even fark.com edits their headlines when they're misleading or flat-out wrong.

      I'm not saying this is the case with this particular article, but over eight years, you see a lot of... stuff.

    8. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by aePrime · · Score: 2, Funny

      hours of talking to tech no-support

      I call BS. You're implying that you actually got through to Verizon's customer service.

  2. 28 minutes? by Jordan+Catalano · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's a trick for Verizon Online phone service: Call up, listen to menu items, then say -nothing-. Don't ask for an operator, don't enter in your phone number: just chill for about two minutes while the prompts repeat. In under three minutes, you'll be transfered to a live operator.

    1. Re:28 minutes? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bookmark this page. It will be your best friend.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:28 minutes? by LMacG · · Score: 4, Insightful
      [Full disclosure for the following comment -- I program voice response systems for a living. However, I only implement what they force me to, and sometimes that sucks.]

      From that page:

      We will soon publish a list of the best and worst mass-market consumer companies in the US based on how long it takes to get to a human on the phone and on the quality of support received.


      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.)
      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    3. Re:28 minutes? by radish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it's a straightforward "what's my balance" question I won't even call - that's what the website is for (if they don't have a decent website, I don't do business with them). The _only_ time I call companies (I'm a geek, real human-human conversation scares me!) is when there's something wrong I need to speak with someone about. Thus, any system which hinders that is a PITA.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    4. Re:28 minutes? by Alan+Shutko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I just need my card balance, I check the web site. I haven't _called_ for my balance in 8 years.

      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.

    5. Re:28 minutes? by dubl-u · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This "I only will deal with a human" attitude is pointless. Better to demand that corporations fix their IVR systems [...]

      On the contrary. When IVR systems suck less, I'll use them more. (There are a couple good ones that I actually use regularly.) But until then, the way I demand better IVR is bypassing them. So when you get asked why the IVR system isn't meeting goals, tell 'em that it's the sucky UI.

  3. Obviously... by terrahertz · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...you need to power-cycle your DSL modem, disconnect everything but a single ethernet cable from your modem to your PC, reboot your PC, count to 30 while hopping on one foot, and say the alphabet backwards first before anyone at Verizon will turn on their brains and acknowledge they have a problem. Plus...28 minutes on the phone?? Pffft. You don't get the "real" tech support until they keep you on the line for at least 60 minutes.

    Don't you know how they troubleshoot already?

    --
    Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
    1. Re:Obviously... by IAmTheDave · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Sir... Sir... I'm going to have to ask you to find your Start Button."
      "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.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    2. Re:Obviously... by Alioth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tech support scripts? Sounds like you were talking to a very short shell script!

  4. Verizon have been jerks for quite awhile by Abalamahalamatandra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I ran a bulk-sending system (legitimate!) to email Frontier Airline's frequent flyer members, and Verizon was the biggest single problem getting mail through. I don't think I ever did get them to accept our runs at all.

    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.

  5. Now thats rich. by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 4, Interesting
  6. I think that's a different job by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "I warned [a tech support supervisor] that VZ has a public relations problem but she was too clueless to understand."

    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.

    1. Re:I think that's a different job by CRMeatball · · Score: 2, Funny

      Having many friends who work in call centers for "tech support", they tell me this supposed "supervisor" is actually just the person sitting next to them.

    2. Re:I think that's a different job by CaptCovert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's much easier to cause a problem than to solve one. Sure, you could start a 'PR Nightmare' in a low-paying customer-facing position, but you're not empowered in the slightest to actually solve them. It's not as if the 'supervisor' in a tech support centre has the authority or influence to actually change anything, especially in a company as large as Verizon. Just as important to PR as sales? Not really. Sales (executives in the larger companies) get to actually change PR. Tech support merely tows the line....

    3. Re:I think that's a different job by VGR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Verizon keeps the support centers completely isolated from any of Verizon's actual workings. I'm pretty sure the support people have no ability to contact anyone at Verizon, no matter how far a call is "escalated." This way, Verizon can happily ignore complaints and/or drag its feet as much as it wishes. What are us customers going to about it? Verizon is an entrenched monopoly. It owns the lines. Except in some very rare cases, our only choice is to suck it down.

      What you say is true, of course. It's not the fault of the support center. But there's no one else who can take the heat, and Verizon has set it up that way deliberately. I'd rather we continue to fume at the support center until it becomes clear to them that they're being screwed by Verizon corporate as much as we are. Eventually Verizon will get a reputation for only being able to retain unskilled idiots in their support center, which will hurt their name brand. Which will hamper their attempts to branch out into other areas of business where they're not a monopoly.

      --
      The Internet is full. Go away.
    4. Re:I think that's a different job by venicebeach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      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 solve the problem themselves, they should take reponsibilty for finding someone who can. We should hold each individual we contact responsible as a representative of the company.

    5. Re:I think that's a different job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most of the people in her position are, in fact, employed by an outsourced call center - likely either in Canada or in Dallas/Ft. Worth; At best, they are the people who managed to make people /feel/ /better/ (not necessarily solve the problem) and get them to hang up quickly - over a period of nine months to a year, and are then bumped to a level II tech.

      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. I interviewed for a position /at verizon/ and when the offer letter turned up, told them "No, I have ethics" - after they illegally told several of my co-workers that they could not be hired because of a non-existent no-hire agreement, and they all took other job offers, at lower rates. Not to mention the European "spam blackhole" which ate everything from Europe, period - no explanations and the whitelisting process never actually worked.

      The upshot is: The tech you talk to on the phone has few or no options for actually solving your problems, it is actually contrary to his job interest to invest time in solving your problems, and the supervisors also have no power and are the ones most proficient in convincing people quickly that there is no problem, no jabba yo wadda.

      And I have little option but to remain Anonymous Coward - Verizon & the outsourcers have really dim views of people being critical of their lack of ethics.

    6. Re:I think that's a different job by CRiMSON · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Problem is, it's a outsourced call center, Verizon gives 2 shits about the call center. The person in the call center is a script reader trained to read a script and answer questions, if they can't it goes to someone without a script (tier 2) who may seem more important, but is general just as a helpless (not at helping you, but at actually doing anything, cause I'm sure verizon has pretty much cut communication to the point, a couple reports are fed up daily, like this is now a big issue, we had 70% call volume for Y issue).

      So the mail team at verizon runs off and does this spam change, they don't notify anyone, and if they do, you can bet your wallet the outsourced contracted call center will not get a memo stating the change. (should they? yes, you figure it would do nothing but help, but we all know every company does everything perfect 100% of the time).

      So your going to fire the call center guy who is probably hearing this from the people on the phone who are now yelling cause of lost email, etc. When this person has no power, no way to change a thing. (accept maybe your password). Kinda harsh.

      --
      oogly boogly!
  7. Resistance is useless by amstrad · · Score: 2, Funny

    Attempts to contact Verizon to verify claims have been met with resistance.

  8. looks good: wish AT&T would learn from Verizo by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This sytem from Verizon is a step in the right direction. AT&T's spam blocking is totally lame, wish they would learn a thing or two from their competitors. I do admin my own domains but keep my at&t for special purposes. It is possible to filter over 99% of spam through a combination of techniques.

  9. Update on the blocking by aviancarrier · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sometime this morning two of my email addresses got whitelisted and could get through again to Verizon Online. Earlier in the morning I received form emails from Verizon's whitelist group saying they have attempted to contact the blocked company/domain.

    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.

    1. Re:Update on the blocking by AFCArchvile · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      This has been posted a bit in the main thread, but I'll restate it: the "customer service supervisor" you were talking to may have very few, if any, connections to Verizon corporate. For almost all large-scale customer service operations (where there are thousands or even millions of customers, and hundreds or thousands of customer support calls each month), the main company outsources their customer service department to an outside company (not necessarily overseas; there are a lot of companies that operate call centers within the US and Canada). This is because it would be too expensive for the company itself to hire the 24/7 staff, the call center telephone switchboard infrastructure, the office space, etc. to host its own customer service department. The staff under these companies are trained in the product (at varying levels of completeness, unfortunately), and have the customer service calls routed to their call center, where they attend to them. If the first customer service representative is unable to satisfy the issue with the tools at hand, they escalate to the next level, which could be ANYONE (a regular-hours engineer specialising in the issue, a call center representative with more experience in the product, or yet another pool of customer service representatives). Customer service trees can grow to have many levels, so if your issue actually did go to the top, you might be on the phone for hours or days at a time (or more likely, have to leave your number and be called back at some time).

      Customer service operations are "outsourced" because the company providing the product does not want to spend the money to develop their own customer service infrastructure when they could just contract another company to use an existing infrastructure to receive service calls after an agreed-upon training curriculum and procedure policy. This is becoming a lot more common these days since businesses have been looking at ways to cut costs from every aspect of business, usually with disregard to the company's long-term well-being and public image. And of course, these call centers are only connected by their contract to the company producing the product, so there really is no way for them to relay company image issues, short of a weekly call statistics report.

      Well, that about covers it; welcome to the brave new world of consumer products and services. This is the price of lower prices.

      --
      "Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
  10. verizon's response by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Funny

    Emails to Verizon to find out more information have gone unanswered...

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  11. Messages in bottles. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seems like it.

    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.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Messages in bottles. by nuzak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > I used to send all my email out of my own mailserver, out of my home firewall/router/"box-in-a-closet" machine.

      > 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 /16 alone. Sorry that it's come to residential accounts being treated like second class citizens, but we gave this class of account YEARS to clean up its act, and it's only gotten worse.

      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

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    2. Re:Messages in bottles. by dekemoose · · Score: 4, Informative

      A large number of mail providers arbitrarily block any mail originating from net blocks identified as being used by "consumer" ISP's for dynamically assigned IP addresses. It's kind of lame, but also very effective at stopping large amounts of spam. Use your ISP's mail server as a smart host, or (if you don't trust the clue level of your ISP) one of the many SMTP relay services out there, I believe DynDns does one.

  12. ISP Blocks by kingradar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just a quick note, I run an email service, and I've had the most problems getting past blocks from:

    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.

  13. Verizon? PR problem? You don't say! by AFCArchvile · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I warned her that VZ has a public relations problem but she was too clueless to understand.


    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. 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.

    --
    "Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
  14. that's sort of a ridiculous attitude by bunions · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Saying a phone line tech support manager is bad at her job because she can't do anything about an engineering 'feature' in under two days is impossibly naive.

    --
    there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
  15. Huh? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is Verizon blocking any of it's customers' mail by default and then putting the onus on them to fix any problems that arise in the first place? This should be an opt-in service for those who want to make sure they don't miss anything.

  16. Are you in the right? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative
    My company implemented my blocking methods and saw an instant reduction in spam from a deluge to a tiny trickle. The three most effective filters are:

    1. Requiring HELO,
    2. Rejecting non-FQDN HELO strings ("foo.bar" will get you in, but "myleetmailserver" won't), and
    3. Rejecting HELO strings that blatantly lie (you're not "localhost" or my public IP address, no matter how many times you ask).

    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?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  17. I'm SO happy... by mediis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...that I no longer work for the VZ mail team. And I can say, without a doubt that I'm VERY happy that I don't sit next to the Spam Cop... I know he reads /. and he would be VERY pissy for the next week or so. I may be burried in work, but at least I'm not burried in public ire.

  18. Re:looks good: wish AT&T would learn from Veri by rmadmin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, this system from Verizon is junk. It blocks legitimate email constantly. We currently have 2 businesses in the same building. For some reason, Verizon is constantly blocking one of our business domains from the other business domain. And no amount of phone calls or emails or removal requests have done anything for us. We will shortly be moving to a new provider.

  19. Not that simple. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Sorry, but the guy you replied to is doing nothing wrong and is going out of his way to make sure his server plays nice?
    It isn't about doing something "wrong".

    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.
    And you accuse him (or her) of being an idiot and tell him it's all his fault anyway?
    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.
    1. Re:Not that simple. by (negative+video) · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The more concessions you expect from all of them, the more problems you'll face.
      The complaint here was that certain ISPs are saying "Thank you, esteemed peer, for sending this valuable message which we will now deliver." when what they really mean is "Bugger off, spammy scum. Your message? Ha! We spit in the general direction of your message, which we will delete as soon as we finish wiping our ass with it." The behavior is singularly unhelpful.
  20. Re:Ah, yes, the "mailing list" defense by jopasm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow. A complete and total geek response. A totally useless geek response. It's very very obvious that's you've never dealt with large numbers of "ordinary" users. RSS means they have to a) install new software b) configure new software c) remember to launch the new software and check for new messages.

    It's not a solution, it's just a new problem.

    --

    ObTagLine: The more you run over the 'possum, the flatter it gets.

  21. Re:looks good: wish AT&T would learn from Veri by walt-sjc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, no, the system from Verizon (VOL) is not a step in the right direction.

    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. Instead of deploying well known and effective anti-spam solutions, they are just blacklisting up a storm, and utilizing broken home-grown "sender verification" systems. Meanwhile, the spew of filth from VOL's own network continues to infest the rest of the internet unabated.

    VOL's problem with unreliable email service is VERY VERY well known to its customers - check the internal Verizon newsgroups. VOL's customers continue to complain constantly, as they have for nearly 2 years now, about missing or delayed email - but nobody at VOL is listening (or cares.)

  22. Pesky Supervisors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    Error "550" has a couple of causes. The cause that you're experiencing is what is called a "whitelisting issue". Unfortunately, Tech Support has nothing to do with this process. Its entirely managed by the Verizon Anti-spam team. You can access and fill out a form at www.verizon.net/whitelist.

    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 has otherwise been responsible for sending spam to the Verizon network.

    2. Your server is misconfigured. An improperly configured webserver will cause this problem every time. VOL, when receiving an email from a web server, attempts to check the validity and credentials of the sender on the originating SMTP server. If your server fails to respond with an appropriate timeframe or responds incorrectly, your server will be immediately placed on the "black list"

    I'd like to note that Verizon has had this (exact same) anti-spam procedure in place for almost a year and a half. I'm still going to say this is "much ado about nothing".

    Unfortunately, I probably shouldn't attach my name to this one. I'll post this AC and see if anyone cares to mod up the reason why you're receiving this error.

    AC

  23. Verizon are clueless. by Homestar+Breadmaker · · Score: 2

    You can't check the validity of the from address of mail. They blacklist people who's mail servers return tempfails for fuck's sake.