Spamhaus and Gmail

Today’s been chock full of phone calls and dealing with clients, but I did happen to notice a bunch of people having small herds of cows because Spamhaus listed www.gmail.com on the SBL.
“SPAMHAUS BLOCKS GOOGLE!!!” the headlines scream.
My own opinion is that Google doesn’t do enough to police their network and their users, and that a SBL listing isn’t exactly a false positive or Spamhaus overreaching. In this case, though, the headlines and the original article didn’t actually get the story right.
Spamhaus blocked a range of IP addresses that are owned by Google that included the IP for www.gmail.com. This range of IP addresses did not include the gmail outgoing mailservers.
Spamhaus says

Some Google-owned server IPs hosting severe malicious spam problems – specifically Google’s “Google Docs” service – do get rightly listed in the Spamhaus SBL when Google does not take action fast enough to stop the serving of malicious sites via Google Docs. Such listings act as pointers to the abused resource but do not in any way affect Google’s Gmail service or any Google outbound mail service.

Spamhaus goes on to talk about the responsibility providers have to police their userbase and the fact that large providers who are not policing their users are cost shifting to the rest of us.

We at Spamhaus surely understand the challenges that the cloud service providers face. These problems are not easy to solve and the scale and complexity of the systems involved certainly does not make things easier. What we are puzzled by is how the rest of the internet has to keep carrying the burden of this abuse. The companies that host these services all without exception make hundreds of millions of dollars each year. They employ some of the best and brightest engineers. Surely they can spend a little of their immense resources on making the internet they rely on for their business, a better and safer place.

Unfortunately, Google doesn’t seem to see any value in policing their customers and users. If they can’t make a buck at it, then it doesn’t get done. And if Google’s costs of doing business are shifted to other companies, so much the better. Good for Spamhaus for standing up and pointedly telling Google they can’t keep supporting spam and spammers.

Is your data secure?
Social Networks and Email

Related Posts

Winning friends and removing blocks

I do a lot of negotiating with blocklists and ISPs on behalf of my clients and recently was dealing with two incidents. What made this so interesting to me was how differently the clients approached the negotiations.
In one case, a client had a spammer slip onto their system. As a result the client was added to the SBL. The client disconnected the customer, got their IP delisted from the SBL and all was good until the spammer managed to sweet talk the new abuse rep into turning his account back on. Predictably, he started spamming again and the SBL relisted the IP.
My client contacted me and asked me to intercede with Spamhaus. I received a detailed analysis of what happened, how it happened and how they were addressing the issue to prevent it happening in the future. I relayed the info to Spamhaus, the block was lifted and things are all back to normal.
Contrast that with another client dealing with widespread blocking due to a reputation problem. Their approach was to ask the blocking entity which clients they needed to disconnect in order to fix the problem. When the blocking entity responded, the customer disconnected the clients and considered the issue closed. They didn’t look at the underlying issues that caused the reputation problems, nor did they look at how they could prevent this in the future. They didn’t evaluate the customers they disconnected to identify where their processes failed.
The first client took responsibility for their problems, looked at the issues and resolved things without relying on Spamhaus to tell them how to fix things. Even though they had a problem, and is statistically going to have the occasional problem in the future, this interaction was very positive for them. Their reputation with the Spamhaus volunteers is improved because of their actions.
The second client didn’t do any of that. And the people they were dealing with at the blocking entity know it. Their reputation with the people behind the blocking entity was not improved by their actions.
These two clients are quite representative of what I’ve seen over the years. Some senders see blocking as a sign that somehow, somewhere there is a flaw in their process and a sign they need to figure out how to fix it. Others see blocking as an inconvenience. Their only involvement is finding out the minimum they need to do to get unblocked, doing it and then returning to business as usual. Unsurprisingly, the first type of client has a much better delivery rate than the second.

Read More

Spammer loses in the court of public opinion

Columnist Mike Cassidy of the SJ Mercury News dedicates his column today to explaining how horribly a spammer named Michael Luckman is being treated by Spamhaus.
The gist of the story is that Mr. Luckman thinks that because it is legal to purchase lists and send mail that there is nothing anyone can do to stop him from doing so. Unfortunately for Mr. Luckman, this isn’t actually true. Simply complying with the law does not mean that spamming behaviour has to be tolerated by ISPs. What’s more, ISPs have a lot of power to stop him.
His recipients’ ISPs can stop him. Filtering companies can stop him. And his upstream can stop him. In fact, Mr. Luckman’s upstream is GoDaddy, a company that has an abuse desk that is one of the toughest on the Internet. They do not tolerate spamming at all and will disconnect customers that are spamming whether or not there is a SBL listing involved.
Sure, Mr. Luckman is complying, or says he’s complying, with CAN SPAM. But that doesn’t change the fact that he is violating his contract with GoDaddy. Given that admission, I am extremely surprised that the reporter focused so exclusively on Spamhaus’ role in this, without mentioning GoDaddy’s abuse enforcement or that Mr. Luckman has to comply with contracts he signed.
Most reputable marketers agree that sending mail to purchased email addresses is spam. Most recipients agree that mail they didn’t ask to receive is spam. Even the reporter agrees that Mr. Luckman is a spammer. Compliance with CAN SPAM doesn’t mean anyone is required to accept his mail, nor provide him with a connection to the rest of the internet.
This is a lesson Mr. Luckman is having problems learning. Instead of fixing his process so he isn’t sending spam, he contacts a reporter to plead his case in the court of public opinion. Sadly for him, most people hate spam and won’t defend a self admitted spammer against a blocking group. In fact, over 80% of the people who have voted in the “has Spamhaus gone too far” poll have said no. What’s your vote?

Read More

Alphabetical spammers

There have been a couple posts recently about a paper presented at the Fifth Conference on Email and Spam (CEAS). The paper showed how addresses beginning with different letters get different volumes of spam.
But this post is not really about the paper, although it is an interesting academic review of spam, it is more about a memory that the discussions triggered.
Long ago I was handling the abuse desk at the very large network provider. This was in the days before Feedback loops, so every complaint was an actual forwarded email from a recipient. Generally, we saw a couple dozen complaints about any individual spam problem. Not a huge volume by any means, but that meant that any volume of complaints was significant.
One afternoon I started seeing a spike in complaints about a customer who never received complaints before. I started looking a little deeper and discovered we had around 50 complaints about this mailing, many from people I knew, and all from individuals at domains that started with A. This was one of the few times we actually pulled the plug in the middle of a mailing.
I still remember going to my boss suggesting this was something to take action on now because we had over 50 complaints and they were still in the A‘s! The customer was mortified that the guaranteed opt-in list they purchased was so bad and promised never to spam again.
Have a good weekend everyone.

Read More