Update October 2005: This has finally reached a conclusion, though not one I am happy with. See below for details.
Recently, my church started having mail that they sent to ntlworld customers bounced back with errors such as:
SMTP error from remote mailer after end of data:
host smtpin.ntlworld.com [212.250.162.8]: 452 Message rejected:
retry timeout exceededTo cut a long story short, it turns out that NTL have recently started using the SORBS blacklist in order to refuse to accept any email sent by people using ISPs that are blacklisted on SORBS. Their stated justification for this is that they do not have sufficient resources to filter junk email (spam) in any other way (for example, scoring systems such as used by Hotmail), and that the amount of spam is causing an unacceptable load on their servers, which leads to poor performance for everyone.
Unfortunately, St Nic’s ISP is on the SORBS blacklist. This is through no fault of St Nic’s, and we have been active in trying to get it removed, so far to no avail. (UPDATE: We’re off the blacklist now – see below.) The SORBS record can be seen here.
I have decided to keep a journal of my battle with NTL to persuade them to use a more responsible way of controlling spam, one that does not deny to customers the service that they are paying for. Most recent developments are at the top.
I’ve written back to the ombudsman to say that I cannot accept her final decision, since it does not address the central issues of my original complaint, but that I will not be taking this any further. Here is my final letter of 21 October.
So that is the end of that. And on 6 November, goodbye to NTL for good.
The ombudsman from OTELO has given me her final decision, which says that she finds that the further representations I made do not warrent any change to her provisional conclusion. I’m very disappointed with this. Her letter does not address any of the points I made in my previous submission. Tellingly, she writes
The use of ‘SORBS’ to identify and subsequently block the problem domains in question is clearly a commercial decision taken by ntl, and so not one in which I can become involved.
I couldn’t disagree more. Effectively, she is saying that the level of service provided by NTL is outside her remit (at least in this particular case). It makes me wonder what the point of an ombudsman is.
Not directly linked to this saga, but I received a letter from NTL this week informing me that they are changing the billing process so that I will go from paying for my broadband access in arrears to paying in advance. This letter arrived on the same day as the first bill in which the change takes effect. Thanks for the advance warning, NTL.
I’ve not seen such a patronising letter for a long time. Apparently I am not intelligent enough to realise that this is not, I repeat, not an increased charge, merely a change in the way they bill me. Well it’s nice of them to point that out for me.
Anyway, this is the last straw. I’m already paying well over the odds for broadband with NTL, so I’ve sent them a letter to cancel my service and I’m transferring my telephone back to BT. I haven’t decided who to have provide me with ADSL broadband yet, but at least with ADSL I have a choice.
No word yet from OTELO. I notice that NTL have improved their webmail service by adding new ‘spam options’. You can now choose to have spam deleted immediately, send spam to a webmail spam folder for 7 days, forward to your inbox without filtering, or forward to your inbox labeled as spam.
I’ve selected the latter option, but so far I've had only a very few spam emails come through labelled as spam – and they were indeed all spam. (I’ve also had a few spam emails not identified by NTL’s system.) This could mean that I’ve been very successful in keeping my email address from the spammers. Or it could mean that NTL are still indiscriminately using RBLs to block email coming into their network, based purely on their origin rather than content.
As far as I can tell, there is still no information forthcoming from NTL about this. I hope that the outcome of my complaint with OTELO will resolve this question once and for all.
I have asked OTELO to reconsider their verdict. Specifically, I have asked the ombudsman to adjudicate on the ‘collateral damage’ question – that is whether it is acceptable for NTL to be blocking some legitimate email in their attempts to reduce the amount of spam. I also made it quite clear that I am not doing this to get compensation. Here is my letter of 9 June.
OTELO wrote to me on 3 June with their provisional conclusions, but there was an error in the submission from NTL, plus I felt that OTELO had not addressed the substance of my original complaint.
Here is OTELO’s provisional verdict. The notes handwritten on are mine.
No response (again) from NTL. So I’ve now submitted my complaint to OTELO who are investigating it. They say that cases are currently taking 6–8 weeks.
Apparently the last letter from OTELO was a mistake. They’ve now advised me that I should write to NTL’s “Customer Concern” department asking for a “full and final response”. Here is my letter of 30 March. The address is:
Customer Concern
Concord House
Concord Business Park
Threapwood Road
Wythenshawe
Manchester
M22 0EY
Received a puzzling letter from OTELO saying that they sent me a form to sign 21 days ago and I need to return it soon or my case will be closed. I’ve emailed them back asking “what form?”
Received a letter from OTELO today asking for copies of my correspondence with NTL, which I have now provided.
Time’s up for NTL. I submitted my initial request to OTELO today for them to investigate my complaint about NTL. The form had a limit of 2000 characters. I expected to have to attach supporting evidence, but it appears that this comes later once OTELO have decided whether the complaint falls within their remit. Here is my submission.
I was allocated reference number 83123. We’ll see what happens now.
I was contacted today by Neil, a founder of the former site nthellworld, which was shut down by NTL, and who now runs Cable Forum. He sent me a link to NTL’s Code of Practise (NTL themselves have still not responded to my request for a copy). Many thanks, Neil.
In a nutshell, it works like this: If I am not satisfied with NTL’s response to a problem I’ve been having with them, I make an official complaint to them (address below). If after 12 weeks I have not reached a resolution with NTL, or before that if I get a letter from them saying that they are unable to take the issue any further (a ‘deadlock’ letter), I can take my complaint to OTELO for them to investigate. OTELO are NTL’s Alternative Dispute Resolution agency, approved by the regulator Ofcom. NTL have an obligation to comply with whatever verdict OTELO reach.
Well, the 12 weeks expires on 15 February…
Nearly a month later and no reply from NTL. I’m sending them a brief letter asking again for their Code of Practise and details of their official complaints procedure.
WebFusion have managed to get their mail server off the SORBS list! I’m still going to pursue NTL over their mis-use of SORBS. I don’t want decisions over what email I am allowed to received being made by an unaccountable organisation.
My response back to NTL (PDF). I have offered them the olive branch of placing St Nic’s mailserver on a whitelist, rather than completely abandoning SORBS, but I have also requested that if they take that route then they also provide a mechanism by which I (and therefore other customers) can get additional servers that we require whitelisted. I have also asked for their official complaints procedure and Code of Practise in case they refuse to help.
WebFusion are trying to get the St Nic’s server de-listed, but SORBS currently won’t accept the WebFusion details. So the business user manager is trying to pay the required $50 ‘fine’ (which goes to a SORBS-nominated charity) with his personal credit card. We’ll see if that works. SORBS say that delisting is carried out within 24 hours of payment being made.
I’m still trying to find time to write back to NTL. Meanwhile, I’ve found some interesting information from the SORBS web site in their Using SORBS section. It looks like NTL are using the spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net zone (at least). This is a list of hosts that have been noted as sending spam to the administrators at SORBS, plus whole blocks for service providers that SORBS consider to be doing too little to combat spam. Addresses are added on a ‘three strikes and you are out’ basis.
Another brush-off (PDF) from NTL. I received a reply to my letter and a complaints reference number 123511. Essentially it tells me that NTL "will not stop using these blacklists".
Today I wrote the this letter (PDF) to the complaints address I was given by Steve.
Today, I received a telephone call from Steve (x6359). He seemed much more knowlegable than previous people I had spoken to, and credit must go to NTL for responding quickly to my complaint. He explained that they are now blocking all email from servers listed on the SORBS blacklist, and that this is why the emails from St Nic’s are not getting through. I asked if he could unblock St Nic’s ISP’s mail server and he said that that was not possible. I asked who was responsible for the policy of using SORBS. He answered that it was a policy from the chief executive, and that there was no chance of getting it changed. I asked to speak to the chief executive, but he told me that he is in New York and would not speak to me. When I asked how I should progress this issue further, he gave me the following address to write to:
Internet Complaints
NTL
Matrix Court
Swansea Enterprise Park
Swansea
SA7 9BB
Having received their email (basically fobbing me off), I made an official complaint to NTL through their website (see here). I received the automated reply the same day and a reference number ON121182.
I received this response from NTL technical support by email. Their story is that everything is working properly. The reason the emails are not reaching me is that they contain viruses. (This is quite certainly not the case!) Annoyingly, they provided no reply address or reference number to enable me to persue the matter further.
Armed with some bounce messages, I tried calling the alternative number, but there was no answer. Eventually it stopped ringing and the line went dead. I returned to the original support number and finally got through to Scott. He did not seem to be knowledgable enough to understand the problem, but finally I think I got the message across. I was on the phone for nearly one hour before he told me that NTL technicians would look into the problem and contact me within 24-48 hours.
Phoned NTL technical support (0845 650 0121). After waiting on hold for more than 15 minutes, I spoke to a lady and explained the problem. She asked me to obtain a copy of some of the bounce messages and to phone back. She gave me an alternative telephone number that should get a faster response – 0845 658 0211.
Following message sent to NTL via their support web site
Email sent by others from outside NTL is subject to delays of 2-5 days in reaching my inbox, and sometimes is just returned to the sender without being delivered to me at all.
This problem has been reported to me by a friend who obtains his internet access through Pipex. Many of his messages sent to ntlworld customers in Nottingham are being returned to him after a few days of unsuccessful delivery attempts. He tells me that he is not currently experiencing this problem with ntlworld customers in other parts of the country.
Please would you look into this and take steps to improve the reliability of email delivery.
I never received any response to this email other than the automated one.