Blocked emails from Church website

Share discussions around the Classic Local Unit Website (LUWS).
User avatar
pbarrus
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:47 am
Location: Sacramento, California

Blocked emails from Church website

Postby pbarrus » Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:34 pm

:eek:
I've encountered a new problem. Comcast is blocking all emails generated from our Stake Website. I just added an event on our calendar, checked off the appropriate notification boxes and then got the following from Comcast:

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<........@comcast.net>
(reason: 554 IMTA27.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast
216.49.176.52 Comcast BL004 Blocked for spam. Please see
http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18628)
<........@comcast.net>
(reason: 554 IMTA27.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast
216.49.176.52 Comcast BL004 Blocked for spam. Please see
http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18628)
<........@comcast.net>
(reason: 554 IMTA27.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast
216.49.176.52 Comcast BL004 Blocked for spam. Please see
http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18628)
<l........@comcast.net>
(reason: 554 IMTA27.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast
216.49.176.52 Comcast BL004 Blocked for spam. Please see
http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18628)
<........@comcast.net>
(reason: 554 IMTA27.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast
216.49.176.52 Comcast BL004 Blocked for spam. Please see
http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18628)
<........@comcast.net>
(reason: 554 IMTA27.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast
216.49.176.52 Comcast BL004 Blocked for spam. Please see
http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18628)

----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mx2.comcast.net.:
<<< 554 IMTA18.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast 216.49.176.52
Comcast BL004 Blocked for spam. Please see
http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18628
... while talking to mx1.comcast.net.:
<<< 554 IMTA27.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast 216.49.176.52
Comcast BL004 Blocked for spam. Please see
http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=SecurityMail_Policy18628
554 5.0.0 Service unavailable

When I went to the Comcast website to view their Policy18628, it said:

Mail to Comcast is rejected and is returned with an error message containing the code BL004. What does this mean?

Our filters have determined that email from your mail server has been sent in patterns which are characteristic of spam. In an effort to protect subscribers, your mail server has been blocked from sending email to the Comcast network. Mail servers are typically shared by many users so it may be the case that another party using your mail server has sent spam, even if you have not.



How do I get my IP removed from the blocklist?
It is important that your email administrator is aware of their outbound spam problem to avoid being blocked by Comcast in the future. When contacting your email administrator, you should include the error message contained in the email which alerted you to this problem. This error message contains important information to help your email administrator resolve this issue. Removal requests can be sent to www.comcastsupport.com/rbl and will require the IP address of the blocked mail server. Requests submitted through this form are monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to ensure a timely response.




Question: Is 216.49.176.52 the IP address of the Church's email server? Is this the IP that I need to register?


I also got a couple of more messages from Comcast and they listed

216.49.176.51 as the IP not the 216.49.176.52

See the following example:

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<........@comcast.net>
(reason: 554 IMTA03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast
216.49.176.51 Comcast BL004 Bl)

This is going to affect a lot of the members of our Stake if we can't get email notification out to them.

I just need to know what IP address to register, so that our members can receive emails.

Sister Phyl

JamesAnderson
Senior Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:03 pm

Postby JamesAnderson » Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:17 pm

I heard at a tech talk that the Church servers handle about a million total emails in a week, coming and going.

But spammers, including those who 'botnet' computers, typically send out millions from one concentrated location very quickly, like hours, in hopes of getting their spam through to as many others as they can before getting cut off. I see that daily from two spammers right now. Both are selling counterfeit goods and things like that illegally on the net. Both consistently send large quantities of spam from the same ISP (not Comcast, some overseas provider who has been botnetted) and their IP addresses.

Comcast to their credit has done a complete turnaround in the last few months as far as dealing with spam and spammers, so it looks like in your case that a few adjustments may need to be made, they will make them if you ask, they may realize 'Oh, we need to make an adjustment here', and fix the issue.

Comcast has been a lightning rod on some things lately, and is in very hot legal trouble with the US FCC over other net management tactics relating to access to websites and web and Internet services and other functions done on the Internet, in some cases it is alleged that some ISPs are favoring one service, or site, or one user, over another, This was in the news last week, and the head of the US FCC said they would not hesitate to take action in the future against ISPs, and others, over things like this. Comcast, based on their advertising alone, appears to be the dominant ISP in Utah, although Qwest is there along with all the better-known names and alot of smaller ones.

There are certainly needs for legitimate network management, and that to ensure a pleasant end-user experience, and the FCC proceeding is to hopefully find a fair solution to these problems while ensuring the legitimate and lawful use of the Internet remains unrestrained.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20762
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:21 pm

Just as a note, I've removed all the email addresses that were exposed in the posting. It didn't seem to be a good idea to have that in a public forum.

User avatar
childsdj
Community Moderators
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:51 am

Postby childsdj » Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:44 pm

Are only Comcast users getting the rejections? I assume everyone in your ward does not use Comcast for an ISP. This is a problem that has come up in the past and it continues to be a problem. When emails are sent from LUWS, the ISP's that lock down alias addresses filter messages.

I will try and get someone to respond to the problem on this post and maybe comcast can work with you on easing some restrictions.

JamesAnderson
Senior Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:03 pm

Postby JamesAnderson » Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:03 pm

Thanks DJC, that seems reasonable.

I encounter unintentionally overaggressive spam filters and antispam firewall boxes (e.g. Barracudas, Postini, etc.) all the time, that could be all this is, and it would not surprise me in the least if all it is is an overaggressive filter at Comcast's end.

Not everyone uses the same provider, in my ward alone I see alot. AOL, Sisna, Comcast, Qwest, and a variety of others), so it would help to know if this is happening elsewhere. The reason for that is that the IP could have ended up on a blacklist due to a forgery of an IP in a spam run.

User avatar
pbarrus
New Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:47 am
Location: Sacramento, California

Postby pbarrus » Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:54 pm

So far, it only seems that Comcast has put the hammer down just this week. I've never received an email like this before. One of our people who works at HP doesn't received our emails because their email system won't let in aliases.

Sister Phyl

User avatar
ShirtsDre
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:53 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

SPF: Sender Policy Framework

Postby ShirtsDre » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:37 am

I've been notified that one of the biggest reasons email being sent from LUWS is seen as spam is the use by ISPs of an SFP or Sender Policy Framework. This is an enhanced spam tool that apparently looks at the "from" email address and compares it with the sending ip address (email server) and can tell that it isn't actually coming from the "from" email address and so it blocks it.


We are currently implementing some server-side records that will tell ISPs that we are a legitimate email relay server vs being seen as an open relay server. It may take some time to get this resolved.

I will check into the comcast issue.
-- Learn from the past. Prepare for the future. Live in the present. -- President Thomas S. Monson

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20762
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:03 pm

BillyBoJimBob wrote:This is an enhanced spam tool that apparently looks at the "from" email address and compares it with the sending ip address (email server) and can tell that it isn't actually coming from the "from" email address and so it blocks it.


This is a result of trying to send emails using the web master's address. Unfortunately not all members know who the web master is so they may ignore the message.

What about sending emails with a send-only email address that's more official with a "reply to" using the web master's email?

User avatar
ShirtsDre
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:53 am
Location: Utah
Contact:

send-only with reply-to

Postby ShirtsDre » Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:30 pm

RussellHltn wrote:What about sending emails with a send-only email address that's more official with a "reply to" using the web master's email?


We are working on getting a send-only email address alias created and using the Web Master's email address in the "reply to" section. This will hopefully be released within the month.
-- Learn from the past. Prepare for the future. Live in the present. -- President Thomas S. Monson

JamesAnderson
Senior Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:03 pm

Postby JamesAnderson » Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:12 pm

Putting in place the SPF's are considered 'best practices' in mail server administration. I've seen discussion of the subject of SPF's elsewhere, and implementing SPF's allow the legitimat email to get through while the spammer, who often spoofs email addresses, does not.

That usually should solve the issue in most cases, if it doesn't then it's likely an overagressive firewall or other mail filtering program. And that is not always considered the fault of the program's user either, so don't be too quick to blame Comcast or any other provider for mail delivery issues, but again, if it does end up being something on any given provider's end, it can usually be easily resolved.


Return to “Classic Ward & Stake Sites (LUWS)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest