Re: Website link for 212.67.202.126

Hello.

On 29/09/05 00:17, John Nuttall wrote:

> In any given week, I send about 200-300 emails via Pipex. 99.999% of them
> reach their destination. In fact your 'trap' is the only blocked email I
> have ever experienced, therefore, by simple logic you have got it wrong.
> 
> You suggest:-
> The IP has just been
> 
>>relisted because you're still running an open relay.  As described on
>>the listing page, you have a user 'admin' with an easy-to-guess password
>>and have SMTP AUTH enabled, leading to an open relay.  Spammers have
>>been using this relay method for some years now.
> 
> 
> I am not the user 'admin' - nor do I know the admin password.

The really bad thing is that I know (and world+dog too), despite I
should not and may not know...

> Why the hell would I want to contact Pipex? With my email normally working
> fine, there is no reason to contact them - this is an issue for you.


> 
> Using another email account, I have informed the recipient of the blocked
> email, that it was blocked by your site, and I will publish the full
> transcript of this on my web site.
> Legal action is still pending, and I suggest you resolve the issue as fast
> as possible - you are wasting my time and costing me money.

I repeat again: please address this issue to the techical persons
maintaining Pipex servers mswmx1.hosting.pipex.net and
mswmx2.hosting.pipex.net. They ignore minimal security requirements and
bring their production mailservers into blacklists.

I believe, the proper contact is either Pipex network security officers
or Pipex quality control departament. You may try to reach them via
helpdesk.

best,
Alexey

> 
> John Nuttall
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Lobanov (dsbl) [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: 28 September 2005 08:00
> To: John Nuttall
> Cc: 'DSBL'
> Subject: Re: [DSBL-Contact] Website link for 212.67.202.126
> 
> Hello.
> 
> On 28/09/05 10:49, John Nuttall wrote:
> 
> 
>>I am not the administrator of this server - I rent space from Pipex who
> 
> host
> 
>>my legitimate digital camera site - your grumble is with Pipex, not me.
> 
> 
> Fine. So, the whole mail delivery problem must be solved by Pipex. The
> only problem is if they know about this problem. Have you contacted them?
> 
> Alexey
> DSBL volunteer
> 
> 
>>John Nuttall
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ian Gulliver [mailto:[email protected]] 
>>Sent: 28 September 2005 00:31
>>To: John Nuttall
>>Cc: [email protected]
>>Subject: Re: [DSBL-Contact] Website link for 212.67.202.126
>>
>>
>>
>>>Why the hell is your site blocking email ? I have a legitimate request
>>
>>from
>>
>>
>>>an end user and cannot reply to him. I run a commercial site and your dumb
>>>blocking system, for which I never had the fucking courtesy of an email,
>>
>>is
>>
>>
>>>now blocking me.
>>
>>
>>I'm writing this not sure of your relationship to
>>mswmx1.hosting.pipex.net (212.67.202.126).  I will assume, for the
>>purposes of this message, that you are the administrator of this server.
>>
>>You should have found and solved the problem before requesting removal,
>>as you were warned to by the removal system.  The IP has just been
>>relisted because you're still running an open relay.  As described on
>>the listing page, you have a user 'admin' with an easy-to-guess password
>>and have SMTP AUTH enabled, leading to an open relay.  Spammers have
>>been using this relay method for some years now.
>>
>>If 'admin' can do anything more than SMTP AUTH (i.e. access the system
>>by some other method), your server was likely compromised by now as
>>well; crackers are, in most cases, the only people faster than spammers
>>at finding such weaknesses.  Your best course of action is likely to
>>reinstall the whole system from scratch, and implement strong password
>>requirements and checking in the future.
>>
>>You'll be able to request removal again in 7 days from the DSBL website;
>>this will give you plenty of time to find and fix the problem.  Please
>>make sure to read the full removal page before clicking "I verify the
>>above are true" next time.
>>
> 
> 
>