MessageLabs trapped on anti-spam list

 

SORBS blocks outbound mail of MessageLabs customers.

Customers of Symantec-owned managed email provider MessageLabs suffered intermittent problems with outbound email last week, after the IP address range of its mail servers was blacklisted by anti-spam service SORBS.

MessageLabs was included on the list after the SORBS system identified spam email originating from MessageLabs mail servers.

Affected MessageLabs customers discovered that their outbound messages were not received by any recipient that subscribed to the SORBS service.

Sources in contact with iTnews said that the problem began on Friday October 29 and continued into last week.

Sent emails were bouncing back with a 'non-deliverable' message, some describing in greater detail that the MessageLabs server had been included on the SORBS list.

One CIO has decided to unsubscribe from MessageLabs' service as soon as contractually possible, and in the meantime, is directing outbound mail through the company's mail gateway to ensure it is sent.

"In other words, I am using only half of the [MessageLabs] service I am paying for," he said.

"There should be mechanisms in place for MessageLabs to remove offending customers from being able to send spam. MessageLabs should not be allowing customers to send spam through their servers."

The operators of MessageLabs and SORBS have both been given several days' opportunity to comment.

History

The incident is not the first time this year the two anti-spam services have clashed.

In June 2010, SORBS founder Michelle Sullivan wrote a fiery blog post accusing MessageLabs of not weeding out spam emails sent by its customers after its IP addresses were blacklisted.

Sullivan cited an email MessageLabs sent to its customers which accused SORBS of blacklisting "very aggressively" and of being uncooperative in efforts to resolve such issues.

"To become removed from the SORBS list, they charge a fee which will often be only a temporary de-listing before we get placed back on the list," the MessageLabs email reportedly said.

"As a result, we do not recognise them as a legitimate list provider and request any clients experiencing issues contact their intended recipients to advise of the problems caused by using the list."

Sullivan said the email was "quite patently designed to mislead users of SORBS into believing that MessageLabs are the good guys and SORBS are the scum of the earth."

She said MessageLabs refused to negotiate with SORBS, which expected to be paid to delist large volumes of spam addresses originating from MessageLabs servers.

"MessageLabs keep getting relisted in the SORBS database because they are contracted by their customers to deliver all messages they send," she said in her blog post.

"This appears to be the basis of their 'right' to send spam. SORBS disagrees, spam is spam, and if you as a provider do not implement effective outgoing spam filtering, you will be restricted on delivery options at some time."

SORBS caused controversy last month after a database error caused entire ISP IP address ranges to be blacklisted.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


MessageLabs trapped on anti-spam list
"@Francis - I've said it before and I'll say it again.. The DNSBL's (Black Lists) DO NOT BLOCK mail. The receiving mail server is what is blocking mail. Why is this so hard for people to understand?..."
By realitybites
 
 
 
Comments: 9
asj
Nov 9, 2010 4:36 PM
Messagelabs, and most of the leading global email security SaaS providers have been blocked at one point or another by Sorbs. I think really the question should be -- what sort of organisation receiving email in 2010 relies on Sorbs as a reputable data source on which to solely decide on what email to accept? They are the ones who need to look at their technology choices.

--
Andrew Johnson,
Manage Protect.
www.manageprotect.com
packet
Nov 9, 2010 5:12 PM
In 2010 you would be wise to check against multiple blacklists. I've seen several cases of messagelabs IP addresses in several blacklists. If you find yourself in these blacklists, you spam or you haven't configured your system correctly. This is one of the biggest issues for SaaS in my opinion - the unknown and therefore big single point of failure it introduces.
Res
Nov 9, 2010 9:06 PM
@asj
In 2010 one would expect messagelabs to pull their finger out of their a## and get rid of their spammer clients, why should any DNSBL be accused of being the bad guy for listing spammer scum?

I for one am GLAD they were listed if they allow their miscreant "L" users to spew their diatribe out upon others.

and its not just SORBS blocking them and, as you said most other, they are all guilty of spamming clients at time and rightly so listed in those DNSBL's at the time to protect the rest of us getting their gutterscum spew.

Apart from the recent sorbs database messup, I've seen no false positives from them, just like the other 4 DNSBL's we use at MTA level.
Bryce
Nov 11, 2010 2:19 PM
I have had dealing with SORBS in the past and I can say they are difficult to contact or deal with, list IP's which are innocent, and generally anything but professional in their operation.

I think the concept of black listing is out of date, its time to move on to using intelligent Bayesian filtering systems.
badkiwi
Nov 12, 2010 7:49 AM
Don't send spam. Problem solved! My advice is to lift the Kimono when evaluating a managed email security service. If there is a chance that their filters are sending outbound spam then give them a wide berth. You need a clear SLA.
badkiwi
Nov 12, 2010 7:58 AM
These unfortunate ML customers have been affected by the blacklist event that they were subjected to by their email security provider. Unfortunately they are have contracted to ML and cannot leave easily as they have bound themselves up to with annual contracts (are ML a true cloud provider in these circumstances? (Not are not turn on turn off service)
Rastaman
Nov 12, 2010 2:49 PM
The latest on this story is Messagelabs now blame their customers for getting compromised by hackers. Hang on a minute who is Messagelabs owned by?????
Francis
Nov 15, 2010 11:50 PM
This whole issue raises a whole raft of important and interesting Questions.
Let us start with who is a Spammer.
Is it a properly constituted community group who have an axe to bear against their council for say Garbage service or road maintenance.
Is it a properly constituted community group protesting to State Government because of poor road design culminating in Death Maiming or suffering of road users, or one of the myriad of other legitimate society issues.
In such cases Politicians of all parties should be fair game, as they are the representatives of such constituents and should not be cut off from their constituents legitimate concerns lest of all it be seen as a breakdown of communications between our electorate and democratic institutions. This on the other hand is opposed to what I would call real Spammers, flogging cheap Viagra, Pornography, Phony imitation watches or the perpetual Nigerian schemes trying to snare the unsuspecting into a scheme to get several million out of the country.
The next stage is that the sender of any of these E-Mails is never asked for a please explain before they are black listed to determine their legitimacy. Further it is often difficult if not impossible to find some one to write to, if you are legitimate and ned to clear your name before you are blocked. In one case I was involved with a recipient of my E-Mails complained that he was not receiving my messages because one of these Anti Spam organisations was blocking my E-Mails without either his or my knowledge.
So the question must be asked, who are these Anti Spam Blocking Organisations, What right do they have to block E-Mail and what checks do they carry out first before blocking messages.
More importantly what regulation is there of these organisations to ensure that they operate within a properly structured regime and only block real spam.
Otherwise for instance they could do irreparable damage to real community organisations attempting to make their views known with their political leaders, as just one example. But worse still when they apply a blanket ban between a legitimate sender and receiver, eg, organisation member without any form of redress, obvious or otherwise.
This is not to say that such filters are not necessary, but to ask what legitimacy they have and what checks and balances are in place and if necessary come under effective regulation.
realitybites
Nov 16, 2010 2:49 PM
@Francis - I've said it before and I'll say it again.. The DNSBL's (Black Lists) DO NOT BLOCK mail. The receiving mail server is what is blocking mail. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

The receiving mail server can use these DNSBL's to determine if a message has a high probability of being spam. It is up to the administrator of the receiving mail server to decide what action they want to take place, dependent on the results of the DNSBL lookup. The problem is mail server admins use these lists to block outright. Where in reality a DNSBL lookup is just one tool that can be used to determine a mail's 'spamminess'.

Edited by realitybites: 16/11/2010 02:52:13 PM
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  20%
 
No
  80%
TOTAL VOTES: 507

Vote