# Quadranet Needs to BAN SMTP. Spammer UTOPIA.



## drmike

So for a long time I was blah about Colocrossing because they were, and sort of continue to be a spam source that needed reigned in.


Now currently Quadranet is blowing up on Senderbase.  See: http://www.senderbase.org/static/spam/#tab=3


They are SECOND on the Top          25         50         100      Spam Senders by Network Owner for the Last Day . They've been there up at the top for a good long while.


See also: http://www.senderbase.org/lookup/org/?search_string=QuadraNet


I'll say this, Quadranet needs to get to cleaning up the mess on their network.  It is time to take the lead we sprung on Colocrossing and BLOCK SMTP traffic by default.


I am being lazy, cause I am busy, but soon, I am going to rip through the ranges if I don't see something change over at Quadranet.


Spamhaus isn't much on Quadranet currently, but expect that to change. They have 11 listings:
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings/quadranet.com


Spamhaus is great for pruning matters way late and after much escalation.  Meaning they are slow to this party, much slower than should have been.


How bad is it?  Pfft. Cleantalk.org says this:


155.94.128.0/17
32768 IPs  
8445 IPs seen
*7660 of those IPs were SPAMMING*
meaning 23.37% of the IPs in that fat range are spam use.


To put that in context, every 4th house in your neighborhood has bad shit happening in it.


Of course there are other ranges soiled too...  And I get the whole VPS provider excuse... But it's simple enough to block SMTP that even Colocrossing did it... allegedly... (unsure why they still remain a spam factory)


----------



## Munzy

8 Nov 2015


10 Nov 2015





12 Nov 2015





You can block Quadranet via enjen.net's asn-blocklist. Currently I see that Quadranet has 3 ASNs. (link) 


Blocklists: (8100) (29761) (62639)


----------



## AndrewM

DrMike,


I appreciate your concern. QuadraNet is and always has been dedicated to maintaining a clean network and we are committed to ensuring that this problem does not get out of control. We have been diligently working to mitigate the recent outbreak that you are noticing, and I can assure you that QuadraNet is not now and has never been a spam friendly provider. 


It is not a necessity for QuadraNet to block SMTP on a network wide level because we do not cater to spammers, and as such we are in no position to have to block this at a network wide level and inconvenience our customers. 


QuadraNet is a proactive provider when it comes to abuse and it is not something we take lightly, though spam can plague any network and it has shown to affect even the largest ones (RE: IBM/Softlayer + Spamhaus). 


We appreciate your feedback and I assure you this is something that is being worked on.


If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me here or by email (andrew.moore[at]quadranet.com)


Thanks,


----------



## DomainBop

> How bad is it?  Pfft. Cleantalk.org says this:



Quadranet's AS29761 has an 87.64% spam rate at CleanTalk...



> ASN, Organization name    Country    Detected IP addresses    Spam active IP addresses    Spam rate
> 
> 
> 33    AS29761 QuadraNet, Inc    United States US    26 051    22 843    87.69%



 ...which is a hell of a lot better than the 92.64% of Incero IPs which are used for spamming  https://cleantalk.org/blacklists?record=54540 



> ASN, Organization name    Country    Detected IP addresses    Spam active IP addresses    Spam rate
> 1    AS54540 Incero LLC    United States US    2 882    2 670    92.64%



or the 92.91% of ColoCrossing IPs which are used for spamming



> ASN, Organization name    Country    Detected IP addresses    Spam active IP addresses    Spam rate
> 
> 
> 10    AS36352 ColoCrossing    United States US    49 017    45 543    92.91%





The comment and botnet spammers that Cleantalk measures are probably a bigger threat and more costly to companies that get hit by the crap coming out of crappy dirty networks like those three but because there is really no penalty, i.e. no comment spam blacklist that can cripple a provider if they get put on it (as there is for email spam where Spamhaus SBL's can deal severe blows to the worst offenders) , most providers and their abuse departments basically ignore the problem because hey they're making a good profit from those comment spammers.  Yeah, a provider can brag about their white star at Spamhaus for proactive measures they take against email SPAM like one of the providers mentioned above does but it doesn't necessarily mean they have a clean network as those high Cleantalk spam rates show.  



> And I get the whole VPS provider excuse



I don't get it because that was a completely bullshit excuse Biloh made up.  I blame that excuse on winter weather in Buffalo because a recent study showed that gloomy weather impairs cognition.



> A recent study, conducted at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, found that people were almost three times as likely to have impaired cognition after gloomy weather compared to those in sunny climates
> 
> 
> source: http://www.selfgrowth.com/print/768669



Ideally I'd like to see the laws changed so that companies that run dirty networks could be fined for the crap coming out of their networks because I don't think it's fair that the companies that get hit with the crap coming from these networks should have to bear the brunt of the cost (mitigation costs, lost productivity, etc, etc, etc) while the fuckwads like CC et al who are responsible for hosting the crap profit from it.


----------



## qps

@DomainBop The CleanTalk percentages are not accurate.  Quadranet has 341,504 IP addresses announced (per bgp.he.net), but CleanTalk says they only have 4095 (for AS8100), with 3000 with problems.


3000/4095 compared to 3000/341000 is a big difference.


----------



## drmike

AndrewM said:


> I appreciate your concern. QuadraNet is and always has been dedicated to maintaining a clean network and we are committed to ensuring that this problem does not get out of control. We have been diligently working to mitigate the recent outbreak that you are noticing, and I can assure you that QuadraNet is not now and has never been a spam friendly provider.



I appreciate the time you took @AndrewM to reply.   I know you are one of the nose-to-the-grind workers there.  Your paycheck probably doesn't get fatter when shit flows out of Quadranet.   But I am certain when someone is playing on the network but not paying for that luxury, you are one of the people who has to clean things up.



> QuadraNet is not now and has never been a spam friendly provider



Careful before you choke on your popcorn.  QN has long been slapped about and prior name of the place was infamous for spam. 


I'd rain on parades and set fires on this matter with pastes or quotables, but the burn would be worse than major hemorrhoid flare up.  I know for a fact QN is selling to mailers and only cares if IPs hit Spamhaus.  If they do not, zero f--ks given.  Now, where in the company this is accepted, I don't know.. But it is and it puts money in the bank over there.



> It is not a necessity for QuadraNet to block SMTP on a network wide level because we do not cater to spammers, and as such we are in no position to have to block this at a network wide level and inconvenience our customers.



Inconvenient it really isn't...  It's rather normal these days.  It's something I whined about a while back, but hey, it just makes sense.   I don't know the last time I've need to send email out via SMTP normally.  Every mail provider takes stuff in with checksums, locked systems, access lists, different ports, etc. Everyone seems to use 3rd party systems to broadcast their email since it is such a PITA otherwise and beyond customers control on reputation, fails, etc.  Why should a bare metal type place have an open network like this today where the implications could be large long term Spamhaus dingings to your sensibility?



> QuadraNet is a proactive provider when it comes to abuse and it is not something we take lightly, though spam can plague any network and it has shown to affect even the largest ones (RE: IBM/Softlayer + Spamhaus).



IBM/Softlayer got targeted by Brazilians, allegedly.  Perhaps their spat of free giveaways weren't such a good idea?  Like free $500 credit, free startup $1k, etc.  Their solution?  Same one, block SMTP network wide, put allowed on an ACL.


Unsure what it says if we compare things here... Sure Softlayer is big... So are many other entities compared to Quadranet.. and everyone else isn't lighting up lists for bad behavior.  Token example of a big co getting screwed while their management failed to address things doesn't minimize the mess going on at QN. If anything it says mass vs. mass that QN is out of ratio for vile actors on network.


Okay, while I am on comparing the top cats, let's look at Senderbase, a credible source for email bad behavior.


#1 = Vietnam Posts and Telecommunications Group -  owned by the Vietnamese Government, and the national post office of Vietnam. Second largest company in Vietnam.  Owns the largest cellular company in Vietnam.  More than 20,000 employees. Annual revenue of $6.5 billion.   Senderbase volume of 7.7


#2-3 = *Quadranet --- *Senderbase volume of 7.5-7.6 


I'll stop there without putting numbers and going on more rambling... Point should be obvious.


----------



## drmike

qps said:


> @DomainBop The CleanTalk percentages are not accurate.  Quadranet has 341,504 IP addresses announced (per bgp.he.net), but CleanTalk says they only have 4095 (for AS8100), with 3000 with problems.
> 
> 
> 3000/4095 compared to 3000/341000 is a big difference.



I'll toss my hat in on this, because it has long troubled me with Cleantalk and the numbers.


It appears that CleanTalk detects IPs whenever someone running their software / addon / mod submits an IP.   Assuming my side that such is not a blind lookup, but actually something problematic that gets flagged and thus submitted.  Meaning those IPs - total they have, are all the IPs that have been either queried or submitted for that ASN.  


If anyone runs a CleanTalk addon/plugin/whatever feel free to chime in.


What this says though on some ranges is those ranges might be solely provided for spamming or as providers like to play often, it's just a customer gone wild or hacked.  I see some really problematic ranges but I am busy and sitting on my hands


----------



## DomainBop

qps said:


> @DomainBop The CleanTalk percentages are not accurate.  Quadranet has 341,504 IP addresses announced (per bgp.he.net), but CleanTalk says they only have 4095 (for AS8100), with 3000 with problems.
> 
> 
> 3000/4095 compared to 3000/341000 is a big difference.



CleanTalk only counts the IPs that are recorded by their anti-spam plugins  on member sites so the total IPs they show for a provider are only a fraction of the total IPs in any given AS.  So using Quadranet as an example: 4K of its 341K IPs visited sites using the CleanTalk plugin and 3K of those 4K IPs engaged in malicious activity.


----------



## drmike

drmike said:


> #1 = Vietnam Posts and Telecommunications Group -  owned by the Vietnamese Government, and the national post office of Vietnam. Second largest company in Vietnam.  Owns the largest cellular company in Vietnam.  More than 20,000 employees. Annual revenue of $6.5 billion.   Senderbase volume of 7.7
> 
> 
> #2-3 = *Quadranet --- *Senderbase volume of 7.5-7.6
> 
> 
> I'll stop there without putting numbers and going on more rambling... Point should be obvious.



Sorry to quote myself, borderline insane.


Now just imagine if we scaled up a Quadranet or Colocrossing to that income level -- to that player level in an economy...  


I think at that point we'd all be buried under 15 feet of virtual and real spam and the internet would break.. or most of us just would unplug.


The ratio here is of reason-ability.  


Clearly QN handily profits from guys who should be dragged from behind a vehicle for a few country miles.  If you don't, have at it, get to whacking them and booting them.  GO ahead.  Prove it... Get your numbers way down.  I'll even note the effort and applaud you...  Results thing.


----------



## Munzy

It definitely made me rethink a purchase from quadranet, which I was looking at.


----------



## DomainBop

AndrewM said:


> It is not a necessity for QuadraNet to block SMTP on a network wide level because we do not cater to spammers, and as such we are in no position to have to block this at a network wide level and inconvenience our customers.



Looking at Spamhaus' Top 10 tonight I see one provider (#7) which owns a "cloud" company that does block outbound SMTP (customers must submit an authorization form to lift the block).  Their inclusion on the Top 10 raises questions about the effectiveness of SMTP port 25 block policies that can be waived by opening a ticket and promising to be good...



> inconvenience our customers.



Redstation's policy probably fits that description.  They force all dedicated server customers to route all email traffic through Redstation's email relay service servers and strictly limit the number of emails that can be sent.  Redstation's IP range used to be a cesspool before they instituted this policy (I had their ranges blocked for a few years) but the new policy seems to have cleared things up.  


Their policy definitely isn't friendly to hosting providers though, and it would force any business that sends a lot of transactional emails to use a 3rd party service.



> Redstation provides a free premium relay with 500 daily emails for your primary IP and 100 daily emails for additional IPs with every dedicated server


----------



## drmike

DomainBop said:


> Looking at Spamhaus' Top 10 tonight I see one provider (#7) which owns a "cloud" company that does block outbound SMTP (customers must submit an authorization form to lift the block).  Their inclusion on the Top 10 raises questions about the effectiveness of SMTP port 25 block policies that can be waived by opening a ticket and promising to be good...



Nice, I see Choopa on that list.


I've never noticed Choopa blocking SMTP as a policy.  I think they only do that on Vultr.  Thus, the mess they have on their Choopa ranges.


----------



## DomainBop

drmike said:


> Nice, I see Choopa on that list.
> 
> 
> I've never noticed Choopa blocking SMTP as a policy.  I think they only do that on Vultr.  Thus, the mess they have on their Choopa ranges.



I scanned a few of those listings and they seem to be mainly Vultr IPs and a few listings for one of Choopa's larger customers ReliableSite (not to be confused with Choopa's brand ReliableServers).  Another case of cheap VPS attracting the wrong emailing crowd.


----------



## drmike

DomainBop said:


> I scanned a few of those listings and they seem to be mainly Vultr IPs and a few listings for one of Choopa's larger customers ReliableSite (not to be confused with Choopa's brand ReliableServers).  Another case of cheap VPS attracting the wrong emailing crowd.



Hahaha well I am truly dumbfounded... Perhaps their blocking at Vultr is on the node itself and something not uniformly rolled out across everything... or they could just be endorsing mailers... Too much of that still, play to pay.


It raises a huge question mark and only way out of that question is someone fat fingered configs style excuse.


----------



## Munzy

Another day, another great pic:


----------



## drmike

DomainBop said:


> I scanned a few of those listings and they seem to be mainly Vultr IPs and a few listings for one of Choopa's larger customers ReliableSite (not to be confused with Choopa's brand ReliableServers).  Another case of cheap VPS attracting the wrong emailing crowd.



Choopa is down to 5 listings on Spamhaus. Good cleanup in past 12 hours there...
Quadranet is still riding 11 listings.
Colocrossing has *just* 5 listings...


I am blah about Spamhaus listings with this group.  Some of it is same bad actors on ranges.  Senderbase spells it more clearly.


*Senderbase sezzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...*
Ranked 23rd - Choopa - 7.0 email volume today, 7.0 email volume past 30 days
Ranked 3rd - Quadranet - 7.6 email volume today, 7.7 email volume past 30 days
Ranked 9th - Colocrossing - 7.4 email volume today,  7.4 email volume past 30 days

Not to worry, I see other familiar faces on there at the top too...  Unsure why folks can't keep their nets clean when running real business.  I mean I understand having shit stuffed in ranges when no care given, no workforce, lucky to even have outsourced tickets in the lowest bid location across the biggest pond.  I'll start to assume more of these shops are that if it continues....  Or if there is a workforce it's skeleton and abused to death with more way more task load than clock time.


----------



## Munzy

Fun fact, quadranet sends more mail then all of facebook.


----------



## DomainBop

Munzy said:


> Another day, another great pic:





Maybe they need help identifying the source of some of those spam emails --> http://www.senderbase.org/lookup/org/?search_string=QuadraNet


Multiple IPs with poor rep for jcmailer.com and cjsender.com, home pages for both sites are a login page for Imnica Mailer.  ImnicaMail is a budget email marketing service hosted by Quadranet. The service seems to be heavily market on Warrior forum and other similar marketing forums (_you know, the ones that will help you get a #1 ranking on google and become rich overnight without any effort!_), and according to comments on Web of Trust, spammers are attracted to it by its low prices (and its $1/30 days trial offer). https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/imnicamail.com


SenderBase web reputation for mail.cjsender.com: POOR SenderBase web category: ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES http://www.senderbase.org/lookup/host/?search_string=mail.cjsender.com .  All of the IPs in the /24 that cjsender.com  is hosted on have poor reputations http://www.senderbase.org/lookup/ip/?search_string=66.63.179.138  (Imnica has several other IP blocks in addition to that one)


If you're a hosting company like OC3networks and you have a customer running a "double opt-in" email marketing service that is a magnet for spammers you're probably going to end up with a bunch of IPs with a poor reputation. They also have a customer that runs a mail filtering service (it provides spam and virus filtering, greylisting services) which probably accounts for some of Pacifi-Crack's high daily email volume.  The IPs assigned to the mail filtering service seem to have good to neutral reps at SenderBase so probably not much spam coming from those IPs.



> DomainBop said "CleanTalk only counts the IPs that are recorded by their anti-spam plugins  on member sites"



Their WordPress plugin has 30,000 active installs.  They also have plugins for most of the popular CMS and forum scripts (including IPB), and Magento


----------



## RosenHost

We were with Crissic. After QuadraNet acquisition, our mails are now also ending up in spam folders of recipients. I hope this gets resolved soon


----------



## Munzy

Another lovely day, and another lovely pic.


----------



## drmike

Been a week since the last screen cap.. and we have much of the same...


----------



## drmike

... and now Quadranet is #1 on Senderbase...  Congrats to QN for all the effort.  I think it's time for a press release.


----------



## wlanboy

Doesn't look to well for QuadraSpam...


Will have to move out of that net.


----------



## AuroraZero

This does not surprise me really, and would be the reason I dropped my Crissic account like a hot potato when they took over there. Sometimes it is just not worth the head ache and grief you get from new owners. It is easier to set up shop on a new clean system some place else.


----------



## drmike

wlanboy said:


> Doesn't look to well for QuadraSpam...
> 
> 
> Will have to move out of that net.



Well, I just talked the other day with a provider in QN LAX, and they are having constant issues with ranges from QN on various blacklists.  Not their customers who are the issue, but other Quadranet customers soiling the larger ranges.  Collateral damage in essence,  the effects of having your data living in a crime infested IP neighborhood.


Lots more folks out of necessity are going to migrate away from Quadranet. 


Right now on Senderbase, QN is #2 for Domains at 83.   QN is #1 for Last Day Volume at 8.1.


----------



## Licensecart

Well what do we expect with their buyouts  but yeah they are the new ColoCrossing and who thought we'd say that. If they don't clean it up a lot of hosts will just block their IPs and then they'll have legit un-happy customers.


----------



## RusFoster

I remember when they use to be decent and care about their network. Decent response times and hardware. Shame how things appear to of change over the years


----------



## willie

What does this mean about blocking IP's?  Blocking email or complete nullrouting?  I have a Crissic vps that has been working pretty well but I don't send any email from it and don't plan to.  I could see not renewing it but it has around 9 months before expiration so I'm wondering what problems I'm in for if I keep using it til then.


----------



## Licensecart

willie said:


> What does this mean about blocking IP's?  Blocking email or complete nullrouting?  I have a Crissic vps that has been working pretty well but I don't send any email from it and don't plan to.  I could see not renewing it but it has around 9 months before expiration so I'm wondering what problems I'm in for if I keep using it til then.



Adding the ranges in a blacklist (block list) so if someone visits on a VPN / Sends email they get rejected.


----------



## eva2000

drmike said:


> ... and now Quadranet is #1 on Senderbase...  Congrats to QN for all the effort.  I think it's time for a press release.



wow that's just crazy how things change !


----------



## QuadraNet.Dustin

drmike said:


> ... and now Quadranet is #1 on Senderbase...  Congrats to QN for all the effort.  I think it's time for a press release.



@"drmike"


First off, we aren't the only ones on this list, so keep watching the list and hammer us only. Evidently you have a problem with us.


If it is due to recent buyouts, then I'd like to tell you I'm sincerely sorry you lost your job as "marketing" at Crissic. Ever since, you've been a sour one. Also I'd say it would be very nice that you shared with the community your involvement with *many* VPS companies, as you "silently" work for many brands and or offer your services to them on the down low. While OK to do so, you shouldn't have to hide it 


As for senderbase, this list is going to change daily, and we're doing our best to eliminate any spammers on our network. 


Nothing more needs to be said from our end in this thread, and anyone seeking abuse support, or wishes to report spam on our network please e-mail [email protected]


----------



## drmike

QuadraNet.Dustin said:


> @"drmike"
> 
> 
> As for senderbase, this list is going to change daily, and we're doing our best to eliminate any spammers on our network.



Hey, you guys are first and been riding top 3 for weeks if not months.  No grand scam in making you guys number one, you folks earn that rank on a daily basis.  I don't own Cisco so, be assured there is no fiddling with your rank to meet my needs.  I just wish you'd clean the place up and have competence in house doing what is necessary.  You have the staff, either they are on leashes and abuse is cash and off limits or folks are incompetent.  There is no excuse for abuse at this level.



> First off, we aren't the only ones on this list, so keep watching the list and hammer us only. Evidently you have a problem with us.
> 
> 
> If it is due to recent buyouts, then I'd like to tell you I'm sincerely sorry you lost your job as "marketing" at Crissic. Ever since, you've been a sour one. Also I'd say it would be very nice that you shared with the community your involvement with *many* VPS companies, as you "silently" work for many brands and or offer your services to them on the down low. While OK to do so, you shouldn't have to hide it



As for the other pointed finger,  I don't think it's any secret that I've offered services to companies in this industry for a number of years.


Prior to that buyout I mostly gave you lads a free ride ticket.  Not like folks didn't drop bunches of data about abuse and issues at QN, cause they did.  Figured Adam was good people so I let you guys slide.  Should have been on QN's case years back.


I AM ON YOUR SHIT NOW NOT BECAUSE OF YOUR IP WHORING, BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT GOES ON WITHIN YOUR ASN IS HIGH LEVEL OF BAD. 


You want me to turn my head and cough/ignore, clean up the abuse.  That simple.


----------



## drmike

Right now. http://www.senderbase.org/static/spam/#tab=3


Who else do we see?  Global Frag, Colocrossing, Sharktech...  <--- ya'all are getting lumps of coal for Christmas too.


----------



## Licensecart

drmike said:


> Right now. http://www.senderbase.org/static/spam/#tab=3
> 
> 
> Who else do we see?  Global Frag, Colocrossing, Sharktech...  <--- ya'all are getting lumps of coal for Christmas too.



120% increase ouch


----------



## drmike

Licensecart said:


> 120% increase ouch



120% is a lot but the way they factor numbers at Senderbase is not linear.  The math is greatly multiplied.  You go from a 7.0 to an 8.0 it isn't like you sent 1 million more pieces of spam.  It's like you sent 7 million and then tossed at least millions more on top.


I need to document the formula so we can estimate the sheer volume we are speaking of.


----------



## Munzy

Happy 2016 everyone, quadranet still is at the spam spam spam game..... ugh!


----------



## DomainBop

Munzy said:


> Happy 2016 everyone, quadranet still is at the spam spam spam game..... ugh!



All that SPAM is probably a result of lazy idiots (_it takes 2 friggin' seconds to press the update button on W_P) having their blogs compromised because they're running very old WordPress versions that have several critical vulnerabilities.  Here's an example of one of those sites running outdated software on the Quadranet network. The site's IP address is blacklisted by Barracuda (see http://www.barracudacentral.org/reputation?r=1&ip=72.11.150.114 ) and is running the very outdated  WordPress 4.2.4  http://www.ilanmishan.com/readme.html .  


WordPress versions 4.3 and earlier are vulnerable to a cross-site scripting vulnerability when processing shortcode tags (CVE-2015-5714). Reported by Shahar Tal and Netanel Rubin of Check Point.

A separate cross-site scripting vulnerability was found in the user list table. Reported by Ben Bidner of the WordPress security team.

Finally, in certain cases, users without proper permissions could publish private posts and make them sticky (CVE-2015-5715). Reported by Shahar Tal and Netanel Rubin of Check Point.

-------------------------------------------

WordPress versions 4.4 and earlier are affected by a cross-site scripting vulnerability that could allow a site to be compromised. This was reported by Crtc4L.

-----------------------------------------------

WordPress versions 4.4.1 and earlier are affected by two security issues: a possible SSRF for certain local URIs, reported by Ronni Skansing; and an open redirection attack, reported by Shailesh Suthar.


----------



## drmike

DomainBop said:


> All that SPAM is probably a result of lazy idiots (_it takes 2 friggin' seconds to press the update button on W_P) having their blogs compromised because they're running very old WordPress versions that have several critical vulnerabilities.  Here's an example of one of those sites running outdated software on the Quadranet network. The site's IP address is blacklisted by Barracuda (see http://www.barracudacentral.org/reputation?r=1&ip=72.11.150.114 ) and is running the very outdated  WordPress 4.2.4  http://www.ilanmishan.com/readme.html .



Well anything is possible, but usually unlikely. I never understand why people leave things online, unused and lingering...


Quite funny that Ilan's blog is busted up example.   We can't blame him though, I don't think he understands English very well (so was said in moons past).  You know malware like Word-de-Press-ion is all about manual in English. 


Not to worry though, on the very same IP = http://supercrazybananas.com/readme.html = WP Version 3.5


^^^ I kid you not.


----------



## graeme

drmike said:


> I don't know the last time I've need to send email out via SMTP normally.



I do, and most of clients do, if only to send and error reporting and web form emails to ourselves. Admittedly it would not be terribly difficult to send it, but I have not bothered so far.



drmike said:


> Everyone seems to use 3rd party systems to broadcast their email since it is such a PITA otherwise



True, but that bothers me. Instead of it being an open service everyone can run, we are are being gradually being pushed towards a smaller number of providers able to deliver email. The more we deliver through a few suppliers, the more willing everyone will be to blacklist anyone other than the biggest suppliers, the more pressure there will be to use the biggest suppliers in a vicious circle. We could easily end with only a handful of organisations able to reliably deliver email, which is worrying in terms of both privacy and competition.


----------

