Re: Microsoft JMRP (Mail) Admin Needed

[Mike Hale <eyeronic.design () gmail com>]

"<rant>I'm not sure why it's necessary to have all these individual
"feedback loop" processes anyway. Why can't everyone just send spam
reports to the Abuse handles on the relevant WHOIS record?</rant>"
Because that only works for organizations who actually do the right thing
when they get complaints.  That's a poor way to fight spam.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager () wiktel com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 20:41 -0800, Michael J Wise wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Richard Laager wrote:
> >
> > > I'm trying to sign up for Microsoft's Junk Mail Reporting Program.
> > > Multiple representatives keep sending me more-or-less form responses
> > > saying they can't add my dynamic …
> >
> > Stop right there.
> > Are the IP addresses you are sending mail from Dynamic?
> > Do you *own* those addresses?
>
> We're an ISP. Let me use an example (with private IPs):
>
> We have 10.0.0.0/20 from ARIN. Of that, 10.0.0.0/24 is for our servers,
> and the rest is used for dynamic pools for residential customers. So
> we've listed the following ranges in the PBL:
>    10.0.1.0/24
>    10.0.2.0/23
>    10.0.4.0/22
>    10.0.8.0/21
>
> I want to enroll 10.0.0.0/20 in Microsoft's JMRP. They give me a canned
> answer about 10.0.1.0-10.0.15.255 being "on a spam list".
>
> > Mail should never be coming from Dynamic IP addresses.
>
> That's why I've listed my dynamic ranges in the PBL!
>
> So yes, nobody *should* be sending mail from these ranges. But if a
> customer sends spam from one of those ranges anyway, I still want to
> know about it, so I can notify them to cleanup their infected computer
> (and disconnect them if necessary).
>
> Also, there are a handful of individual IP exceptions to the PBL
> listings for specific customers with static addresses who are running
> their own mail servers. Because of that, and the fact that subnets get
> reassigned from time to time, it'd be best if Microsoft would accept the
> supernet listing from me, as it'd be one less thing to have to worry
> about updating every time we make an IP assignment change.
>
> <rant>I'm not sure why it's necessary to have all these individual
> "feedback loop" processes anyway. Why can't everyone just send spam
> reports to the Abuse handles on the relevant WHOIS record?</rant>
>
> Richard


-- 
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0