Beware of ISP 'spam' filtering

I recently changed ISP, and shortly thereafter I began to get complaints
that emails sent to me were being bounced.

The reason for this turned out to be that the ISP was using a crude
rejection system, so that any sender IP found on anti-spam blacklists were
simply rejected with no notification to the intended recipient.

My email setup works by having a single destination of my own domain,
emails being redirected according to address (e.g. (E-Mail Removed),
(E-Mail Removed)) from there to where I actually want them. This is so that
when I change ISP (and email provider) I don't have to make any changes to
my stationery, or tell people to change their address books. The forwarding
provider had got itself on one of these lists (it is now removed, after I
told them of the problem).

There was no way to opt out of this Draconian filtering, this was the
default. After kicking up a fuss, I now have (for a fee!) a bypass so that
my eail doesn't suffer in this way.

It is also easy for Big Brother to manipulate the listings, to get
politically sensitive sources effectively blocked from communicating with
their sympathisers. Frightening.

So beware of this over-simple system, which suits ISPs and governments
because it is easy to implement and manipulate, but is not particularly
good for users who are savvy enough to handle their own email systems.
Check it out BEFORE changing ISP.

--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.

On 16 Sep 2006, Joe Soap wrote:

>My email setup works by having a single destination of my own domain,
>emails being redirected according to address (e.g. (E-Mail Removed),
>(E-Mail Removed)) from there to where I actually want them.

>There was no way to opt out of this Draconian filtering, this was the
>default. After kicking up a fuss, I now have (for a fee!) a bypass so that
>my eail doesn't suffer in this way.

I don't understand why you'd have to pay any fee, as you could *bypass*
your (unnamed) ISP's filtering, by setting some other mail destination. It
is quite easy to find one which is free (Googlemail, Yahoo) for the mail to
your domain and then only the ISP bills/service info would go to ISP mail.
Might be an idea to name the ISP, too, so others learn which is using this
filtering and charging you to "opt out" of that filtering (some have a
charge to *add* such filtering... )

--
Change to DSL Max the way I did: switch ISP <http://www.dslmax.info/>

In response to what NoNeedToKnow <(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On 16 Sep 2006, Joe Soap wrote:
>
>>My email setup works by having a single destination of my own domain,
>>emails being redirected according to address (e.g. (E-Mail Removed),
>>(E-Mail Removed)) from there to where I actually want them.
>
>>There was no way to opt out of this Draconian filtering, this was the
>>default. After kicking up a fuss, I now have (for a fee!) a bypass so
>>that my eail doesn't suffer in this way.
>
> I don't understand why you'd have to pay any fee, as you could
> *bypass* your (unnamed) ISP's filtering, by setting some other mail
> destination. It is quite easy to find one which is free (Googlemail,
> Yahoo) for the mail to your domain and then only the ISP bills/service
> info would go to ISP mail. Might be an idea to name the ISP, too, so
> others learn which is using this filtering and charging you to "opt
> out" of that filtering (some have a charge to *add* such filtering...
> )

I don't want any more freebie email outfits, I have had too much trouble
with them in the past. YMMV, but it's not an option for me. I pay an ISP
for connection that includes email, and I want it to work. As for paying
for that crappy system, words fail me...


--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.

On 16-Sep-2006, Joe Soap <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

> I pay an ISP
> for connection that includes email, and I want it to work. As for paying
> for that crappy system, words fail me...

IMHO ISP's contract to provide a mail service, for which you pay.
If they don't deliver your mail then they are in breach of contract.
I doubt if their T&C's says we wont deliver your mail if it doesn't
suit us.
Potentially they might be in breach of contract and responsible for
consequental damages, like you had been notified of a change
of a meeting venue and you made a wasted journey.
Bit like the Post Office saying we won't deliver mail that "We"
think is junk in order to save money.
It's not for the ISP to presume what's junk, such filtering, if
any, should be an opt in, not an opt out.

In response to what <(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On 16-Sep-2006, Joe Soap <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
> wrote:
>
>> I pay an ISP
>> for connection that includes email, and I want it to work. As for
>> paying for that crappy system, words fail me...
>
> IMHO ISP's contract to provide a mail service, for which you pay.
> If they don't deliver your mail then they are in breach of contract.
> I doubt if their T&C's says we wont deliver your mail if it doesn't
> suit us.
> Potentially they might be in breach of contract and responsible for
> consequental damages, like you had been notified of a change
> of a meeting venue and you made a wasted journey.
> Bit like the Post Office saying we won't deliver mail that "We"
> think is junk in order to save money.
> It's not for the ISP to presume what's junk, such filtering, if
> any, should be an opt in, not an opt out.

I tried arguing along those lines. Response was:

1. We supply Internet connectivity, and email is a bolt-on extra.
2. Website states that spam/virus protection is included (but it does not
specify the mechanism).
3. Most if not all ISPs use this system (I disputed this, but got nowhere).
4. It's the forwarding site's fault, for being on the blacklist.
5. Thousands of other users haven't complained (they wouldn't, if they
don't know their mail is being tampered with).

--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.

On 16 Sep 2006 Joe Soap wrote:

>I don't want any more freebie email outfits, I have had too much trouble
>with them in the past. YMMV, but it's not an option for me.

OK, so it boils down to you wishing to forward to the ISP's mail service,
not route it to some other, and you're willing to pay the ISP to allow you
to do something out of the ordinary (or rather, against their regular way
of handling mail). Still be worth mentioning them, so others can avoid!

>I pay an ISP for connection that includes email, and I want it to work.

Well, I can see what you want, and personally I too would be unhappy if
an ISP had decided 'for me' that they knew best, and implemented some
policy on filtering without me having any control. The term "work" will
apply for both of you - in their case dropping blacklisted mail is just a
faster way to limit the growing load. Checking tens of GB of junk mail
for viruses etc is just going to gobble up processor power or funds if
outsourced and then storing that junk mail is yet another massive
waste of resources.

I decided on the other route, and didn't then need to worry about any
crazy policy they might adopt the following month, or year. I certainly
wouldn't have been one to pay them to allow me some special option,
if I knew I could use other services at no additional cost.

As it happens I do use a paid-for mail service which allows a lot of
flexibility (as one of the other posters pointed out) and within the mail
filtering that a Claranet customer can use, is the ability to create their
own rule for what to do with 'blacklisted' mail (I send it all to GMail -
25xx items in that "bit bin" mail account right now).

I guess we can agree to differ on whether to bother with an ISP's mail
service (especially one which implements policies without veto or even
telling their users - some time back Freeserve had its own policy of
just dumping {with no error message} any mail sent to 25+ users
whether the addresses were in the CC or BCC field... their policy
but never appeared to be disclosed).

--
runbox.com - 10 GB of mail storage and 1 GB for files...
30 day free trial... <http://2238.runbox.com/>
Can accept mail for your domain and apply filtering...
Point your MX record to mx.runbox.com and use POP/IMAP...

In article <Xns9840BC2E4F041tityifvbdfgvbzdfdf@127.0.0.1>,
Joe Soap <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

>I tried arguing along those lines. Response was:
>
>1. We supply Internet connectivity, and email is a bolt-on extra.

So why don't you BUY your email solution from an independant vendor? There
are 100's about. Expect to pay from £30pa to £10pcm. That way you can
chop & change connectivity ISPs till your hearts content and you keep the
same email address, same email servers, etc.

Gordon

In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
NoNeedToKnow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

>I guess we can agree to differ on whether to bother with an ISP's mail
>service (especially one which implements policies without veto or even
>telling their users - some time back Freeserve had its own policy of
>just dumping {with no error message} any mail sent to 25+ users
>whether the addresses were in the CC or BCC field... their policy
>but never appeared to be disclosed).
>

Freeserve/Wanadoo/Orange also had/has a policy of filtering out any
email with attachments with many (undocumented) filename extensions.
--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

In response to what Alan <(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
news:Mn+(E-Mail Removed):

> In message
> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> NoNeedToKnow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>>I guess we can agree to differ on whether to bother with an ISP's mail
>>service (especially one which implements policies without veto or even
>>telling their users - some time back Freeserve had its own policy of
>>just dumping {with no error message} any mail sent to 25+ users
>>whether the addresses were in the CC or BCC field... their policy
>>but never appeared to be disclosed).
>>
>
> Freeserve/Wanadoo/Orange also had/has a policy of filtering out any
> email with attachments with many (undocumented) filename extensions.

That MIGHT be OK, IF they tell you what they are doing AND notify you when
they have done it AND give you the option to retrieve the mails from
wherever they have dumped them. Otherwise, it belongs where the sun don't
shine.

--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.

In response to what Gordon Henderson <(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
news:eehfc2$n4i$(E-Mail Removed):

> In article <Xns9840BC2E4F041tityifvbdfgvbzdfdf@127.0.0.1>,
> Joe Soap <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>>I tried arguing along those lines. Response was:
>>
>>1. We supply Internet connectivity, and email is a bolt-on extra.
>
> So why don't you BUY your email solution from an independant vendor?
> There are 100's about. Expect to pay from £30pa to £10pcm. That way
> you can chop & change connectivity ISPs till your hearts content and
> you keep the same email address, same email servers, etc.

You are surely not suggesting that I should pay, additionally, someone else
for something I have already bought (I thought)?

--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.