[Iowa-dx] blocked email
Hart, Holly J
holly-hart@uiowa.edu
Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:03:37 -0600
Thank you for forwarding this. This is the first sensible *and* non-conspi=
racy possible cause I've seen, and this may help quell a lot of concerns.
Some have suspected at least part of this is relaetd to the telecom immunit=
y issue, and that progressive organizations are being targeted. Whether tr=
ue or not, it seems to be the case that progresssive organizations are targ=
eted by spammers and phishing, but maybe that's grown throuhgout the politi=
cal spectrum? AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Comm=
unications
<http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091307Z.shtml>
Whatever the cause, it would be very nice to learn that this is only growi=
ng pains!
Holly
________________________________________
From: iowa-dx-admin@lists.gp-us.org [iowa-dx-admin@lists.gp-us.org] On Beha=
lf Of Wendy Barth [peacenik@usa.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 4:23 AM
To: Iowa Greens Discussion List
Subject: [Iowa-dx] blocked email
The Internet commerce community has launched a strong defense against phish=
ing, which is necessary for the security of on-line banking, bill-paying, s=
hopping, etc. As a side effect, non-profit users of the Internet have been =
blind-sided by new authentification procedures which have recently been ad=
opted, and consequently we are inadvertently being blocked as spammers. See=
this press release for a description of new email verification procedures=
now being adopted:
http://www.aotalliance.org/news/releases/AOTA-authentication.html
see also:
https://www.senderscore.org/<https://www.senderscore.org>
http://www.returnpath.net/<http://www.returnpath.net>
http://www.aotalliance.org/
As part of the "Internet ecosystem" it looks like we need to do what the in=
ternet marketers are doing. I totally support efforts to block phishing - a=
s all legitimate users of the Internet should. I believe it will be straig=
htforward for our ISP to adopt the use of these new identifiers as describe=
d in the AOTA document above. It is unfortunate that the business class fai=
led to communicate their plans with the rest of the Internet ecosystem. Bu=
t we know how hard it is to get the public's attention these days. This is =
most likely an example growing pains as the Internet evolves to support all=
types of speech (including commercial speech) rather than a deliberate ma=
licious attempt to disrupt our work.
Wendy Barth
Co-Chair, Iowa Green Party
------ Original Message ------
Received: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:03:50 PM CDT
From: "Wendy Barth" <peacenik@usa.net>
To: <abuse@mediacomcc.com>
Subject: Fw: Returned mail: delivery problems encountered
Your customer, Kelley Putnam <kputman@mchsi.com> received the bounce below =
when trying to send an email to me, peacenik@usa.net. The technical support=
staff at my email provider had this to say about the bounce:
The information you provided indicates that the sender of the email in ques=
tion is being blocked by a third-party blocklist utilized by USA.NET to red=
uce the amount of spam our customers receive.
To resolve this issue, an administrator from the sender's domain will need =
to contact http://sendersupport.senderscore.net/ directly in order to be re=
moved from this block list.
If you need further assistance regarding this issue, please reply to this m=
essage or contact us at:
800-448-4374 (Domestic)
303-876-4019 (International)
Thank you for using USA.NET!
Sincerely,
Jerry
<support@usa.net>
ref:00D36cSn.50033oIOk:ref
Neither of us are spammers, and we don't deserve to be punished. Please use=
your considerable clout to get this straightened out as soon as possible. =
I email with several others who also use mchsi.com , this could be a big pr=
oblem.
Thank you,
Wendy Barth
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <mailer-daemon@sccmmhc92.asp.att.net>
To: <kputman@mchsi.com>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:05 PM
Subject: Returned mail: delivery problems encountered
>A message (from <kputman@mchsi.com>) was received at 12 Oct 2007 20:05:19
>+0000.
>
> The following addresses had delivery problems:
>
> <support@usa.net>
> Permanent Failure:
> 550_Mail_from_204.127.203.212_refused.__%09Please_refer_to_http://senders=
upport.senderscore.net_for_an_explanation.
> Delivery last attempted at Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:05:19 -0000
>
Full Header:
Received: from sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (localhost[127.0.0.1]) by
sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (sccmmhc91) with ESMTP id
<20071012042345m9100pt9fhe>; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:23:45 +0000
From: "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <mailer-daemon@sccmmhc91.asp.att.net>
Subject: Returned mail: delivery problems encountered
Message-ID: <20071012042345m9100o6t00e@sccmmhc91.asp.att.net>
X-TM-AS-Engine-Type: TMASE
X-TrendMicro-AntispamAddin-Checked: 1
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: TMAS_OE-3.53.0.1042-3.6.1039-15478002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--7.992-5.000-31
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
Date: 12 Oct 2007 4:23:45 +0000
To: <kputman@mchsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report;
report-type=3Ddelivery-status;
boundary=3D"----=3D_NextPart_000_000C_01C80C5E.77828240"