next »

[perkiset]

I am considering putting together a board for discussion of email spamming dispatch protocols that will successfully avoid hunters, traps and nets.

I'm actually kidding about the spam part, I am not involved in nor do I want to hang with spammers - but I have an awful lot of emails that I need to dispatch for my clients and I'd like to talk to others that are doing this and share techniques for avoiding traps, the spam folder and simply being dropped on the floor by ISP spam nets. I am finding it more and more difficult to get our for reals, opted in clients-of-my-clients eblasts delivered and read. And that's just not acceptable.

If you'd like to be involved, please let me know - If yes, I'll create a board and we'll go.

[nutballs]

because of my personal project I am working on, I will eventually need to blast very large volumes of opt in, legitimate, wanted, actually even asked for, emails. So eventually I will be interested in it, because hopefully i will need every trick in the book if everything is a success.

[jammaster82]

I can help however you need, just lmk.

[perkiset]

Thanks both, and for such quick response -

It's not really help I need JM, but moreso discussion about how the nets, deflectors and obsfucators keep us from delivering email.

For example: I'd like to do direct delivery from one of my boxes to avoid an SMTP relay entirely. I find that some ISPs deny me. Why? I don't know, has to do with their spam protocols. So I send through a contracted relay. But this makes me go way slower. I also understand that many direct relays use a spam trap first or second MX in a DNS record to try and throw spammers off... so what's the best bet? Take the last MX in DNS and try to send there? Or is there a more clever way to do it?

Enquiring minds want to know this stuff.

What I will do is share everything I'm currently doing with anyone that wants to talk through this stuff. I'd like to set up a sort of "best practices" for developing an email delivery platform that would be rather language agnostic (even though I'll be reworking mine in PHP).

[nutballs]

actually, on the greylisting subject.

I ran 5 MXs. all but 1 were bullshit.
#4 was real
my spam went to almost zero. but now i use gmail, so i dont care anymore about my inbounds. but just mentioning it, because it could be any of the MXs, and since proper process is to work your way up the MX tree based on priority, technically, a server could use that as a port-knocking method. Did they hit #10 the 20 then 25 then 30? if so, accept, if not piss off.

[vsloathe]

My development firm just shipped out a piece of software to a client that is built to ensure their opt-in list emails get through to the people on the list who use the popular free services (yahoo, gmail, hotmail, et al).

[perkiset]

actually, on the greylisting subject.

I ran 5 MXs. all but 1 were bullshit.
#4 was real
my spam went to almost zero. but now i use gmail, so i dont care anymore about my inbounds. but just mentioning it, because it could be any of the MXs, and since proper process is to work your way up the MX tree based on priority, technically, a server could use that as a port-knocking method. Did they hit #10 the 20 then 25 then 30? if so, accept, if not piss off.

Ah... so did your #10, #20, #25 etc refuse the mail, or how did they (the server) say no?

This is precisely the sort of stuff I'd like to grind together on.

[perkiset]

...a piece of software to a client that is built to ensure their opt-in list emails get through...

Ensure is a big word mang. Are you willing to discuss some of the methods?
Clearly, we don't want to obviate the need for your package - and there will certainly be folks reading that have no desire to code this all themselves.

[nutballs]

actually, on the greylisting subject.

I ran 5 MXs. all but 1 were bullshit.
#4 was real
my spam went to almost zero. but now i use gmail, so i dont care anymore about my inbounds. but just mentioning it, because it could be any of the MXs, and since proper process is to work your way up the MX tree based on priority, technically, a server could use that as a port-knocking method. Did they hit #10 the 20 then 25 then 30? if so, accept, if not piss off.

Ah... so did your #10, #20, #25 etc refuse the mail, or how did they (the server) say no?

This is precisely the sort of stuff I'd like to grind together on.

yea so in my case 1,2,3,4,5
4 accepted. 1,2,3,5 were pointed to other IPs I had, which would respond, but not to an MX query. so pings and such, but no MX.

i think an active refusal, means you do take mail, just not for that address, which means a bounceback to legitimate senders.

the reason it works for spammers is that they cannot wait around for the response, and they just blindly send generally. So a server with no mail system is gonna never reply back, but yet will be live to a ping. Its using the volume game against the spammer. they have to just spray without looking to make the volume they need.

[vsloathe]

Oh, I'm not at liberty to divulge a lot. The methods are the client's, we just wrote the software.

[perkiset]

Fair enough, I get it. But it'll be nice having your brains around here in the discussion anyway...

[Indica]

I am not involved in nor do I want to hang with spammers

 

[perkiset]

I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that

Right on Indi