[anti-abuse-wg] Mimecast.com

Hi Andre,

I don't think they are Evil Corp and this is little more than spam filtering on a role address (which you can debate ad-infinitum if you like). I did spot that your replies on this thread were flagged as spam by us and since we provide them some services I dug in a little more and can see that our systems had erroneously set the domain hostacc.com [1] as spammy so I have fixed that up for you and I reckon you should now be able to send your reports in to Mimecast without issue (or at least, without this issue).

[1] This appears to be what your sending IP resolves to and what it HELOs as.

-- 
James Hoddinott
Manager, Security Operations
Cloudmark


> -----Original Message-----
> From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of
> andre at ox.co.za
> Sent: 04 November 2015 09:19
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Mimecast.com
> 
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:27:42 +0530
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > First - I have a great amount of respect for Nat - he was a colleague
> > at IBM (where he used to be for years) before he left to join
> > Mimecast.
> >
> Okay, but maybe he is no longer there, etc. Even though one person is
> great, good, ethical, etc. it does not mean that the legacy, new
> management, etc is/are following that/those person/s
> 
> If Mimecast is now Evil Corp, people need to know and also
> people need to become more aware of the powers that offer
> "services" which is actually similar to what the mob offers a bakery in
> Chicago...
> 
> > That said - I am going to ask him to have someone investigate any
> > email you have sent mime cast, and why it bounced - or whether there
> > is an unfiltered alias you can resend your email to.
> >
> 
> Thank you so much!
> 
> I will update this list with whatever happens,
> 
> This being an abuse group, the various perspectives of the wide
> possibilities of abuse, as business models in one area, such as
> email, can knock on to others, like ipv4/6 etc.
> 
> andre
> 
> > > On 04-Nov-2015, at 1:59 PM, andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:48:51 +0530
> > > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Mimecast’s chief scientist is Nathaniel Borenstein - who originally
> > >> wrote the MIME spec.
> > >> They are legit.  I am not sure what is going on here.
> > >>
> > > thank you for the reference Mr Ramasubramanian, would you do me the
> > > kind favor of asking them:
> > > why they are blocking @188.40.114.80 - which is also the ip used to
> > > send emails to this list. - and then maybe tell us, in public what
> > > is going on?
> > >
> > > If they are not extorting money, then I surely must have abused
> > > them or their users? Or their system is broken, or what?
> > >
> > > but i think that they may not bee that legit? or they have changed
> > > their corporate goals? or there are new management, or something?
> > >
> > > Just from what you can see here:
> > > https://community.mimecast.com/docs/DOC-1369#554
> > >
> > > then they are bouncing with 554 to support@
> > >
> > > that is clearly not legit.
> > >
> > > or it is a serious flaw/broken system?
> > >
> > > they could bounce of course any way they like, but bouncing
> > > with something that is going to return is basically saying only one
> > > thing - there is no way to communicate with them, as when I
> > > do that is simply added to their block...
> > >
> > > that is not cool, nice, decent or even fair bahavior?
> > >
> > > andre
> > >
> > >>> On 04-Nov-2015, at 1:14 PM, andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hello,
> > >>>
> > >>> Has anyone of you had much/any dealings with this crowd:
> > >>> Mimecast.com ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Less than 1% of our email volume exchanges with them, and
> > >>> yesterday after complaining about abuse/UBE from them and
> > >>> receiving no response, escalated to @telstra and then all of a
> > >>> sudden they are returning all email in a loop:
> > >>>
> > >>> support at mimecast.com
> > >>>   host service-alpha-inbound-b.mimecast.com [91.220.42.231]
> > >>>   SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
> > >>>   554 Email rejected due to security policies -
> > >>>   https://community.mimecast.com/docs/DOC-1369#554
> > >>>
> > >>> Then, when I email them from a different server, it goes through
> > >>> the first time and viola, the second email, same block, on the
> > >>> "new" server"
> > >>>
> > >>> From their website: They provide email filtering services, this
> > >>> feels like they are extorting money from me, which I will not pay
> > >>> of course.
> > >>>
> > >>> But, have any of you had any similar experiences? As they are
> > >>> providing this type of "service" to some of our @gov departments
> > >>> as well as other large companies, I will have user blowback - what
> > >>> do I tell my users? We are blocked because we dared complaining?
> > >>> or we are blocked because we do not pay?
> > >>>
> > >>> any advice will be appreciated, obviously this type of behavior
> > >>> breaks email and the larger the "protectors" become, the more
> > >>> control they have...
> > >>>
> > >>> tia
> > >>>
> > >>> andre
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>