Free Microsoft Outlook Resources & Whitepapers

your IP has been found on a block list!

Hello Everyone
I used http://www.exchange-genie.com/2007/12/exchange-2007-anti-spa m/
I did configure the spamhaus provider in my anti-spam as spam provider
and i sent e-mail as the article shows: to : nelson-sbl-test@crynwr.com
the reply was:

I connected to 172.16.0.1 and here's the conversation I had:
220 server-01.mydomain.com Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service ready at Mon, 30 Mar
2009 08:37:01 +0100
helo sbl.crynwr.com
250 server-01.server.kw Hello [192.203.178.107]
mail from:
250 2.1.0 Sender OK
rcpt to:
550 5.7.1 Recipient not authorized, your IP has been found on a block list
Terminating conversation

I did check for my IP : http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip= X.X.X.X
and the result
IP Address Lookup
172.16.0.1 is not listed in the SBL
172.16.0.1 is not listed in the PBL
172.16.0.1 is not listed in the XBL

It was yesterday listed in the block but i removed it.
Can any one advice what should I do to remove my IP and protect my Exchange
2007 box ?
Where else i should look for black listed IPs ?

Thank you

Ahmad Sabry


Post your answer or comment

comments powered by Disqus

Related Results

  1. Your IP has been found on a block list!
  2. 5.7.1 Recipient not authorized, your IP has been found on a block list
  3. Not able to send ANY emails due to a blocked list
  4. Blacklisted or exchange setting?
  5. My exchange randomly rejects emails from yahoo
  6. Edit Exchange 2007 error messages
  7. Your mailbox has been temporarily moved on Microsoft Exchange serv
  8. Your mailbox has been temporarily moved on Microsoft Exchange Server - Outlook 2007
  9. Your mailbox has been temporarily moved on Microsoft Exchange Server - Outlook 2007
  10. Your mailbox has been temporarily moved on Microsoft Exchange server
  11. "Your mailbox has been temporarily moved on Microsoft Exchange Server"
  12. OWA - No digital ID for signing has been found
  13. Your mailbox has been temporarily moved ...
  14. Integrated Authentication WILL NOT work if the CAS is on a server with other roles installed as well
  15. What does "Error HRESULT E_FAIL has been returned from a call to a COM component" mean?
  16. Outlook inbox has disappeared and has been replaced by a folder labelled "ItemProSearch."
  17. Microsoft Outlook Calendar Issues: Recurring meeting disappearing from organizer's calendar after a change has been made to a single instance
  18. Reminder comes up every time I open outlook, even though the appointment has been changed to a future date.
  19. Only attach a file to one person on a distribution list?
  20. Setup out of office on a distribution list
  21. Setup out of office on a distribution list
  22. How to investigate Return Receipt for an email that has not been s
  23. Outlook should automatically delete emails from blocked list
  24. M I-5,Persecuti on , MI 5 are A fraid to Adm it The yre Be hind t he Persecuti on
Hello Everyone
I used http://www.exchange-genie.com/2007/1...007-anti-spam/
I did configure the spamhaus provider in my anti-spam as spam provider
and i sent e-mail as the article shows: to : nelson-sbl-test@crynwr.com
the reply was:

I connected to 172.16.0.1 and here's the conversation I had:
220 server-01.mydomain.com Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service ready at Mon, 30 Mar
2009 08:37:01 +0100
helo sbl.crynwr.com
250 server-01.server.kw Hello [192.203.178.107]
mail from:
250 2.1.0 Sender OK
rcpt to:
550 5.7.1 Recipient not authorized, your IP has been found on a block list
Terminating conversation

I did check for my IP : http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip= X.X.X.X
and the result
IP Address Lookup
172.16.0.1 is not listed in the SBL
172.16.0.1 is not listed in the PBL
172.16.0.1 is not listed in the XBL

It was yesterday listed in the block but i removed it.
Can any one advice what should I do to remove my IP and protect my Exchange
2007 box ?
Where else i should look for black listed IPs ?

Thank you

Ahmad Sabry

Hello to eveyone,

I am using Outlook 2003 on a Windows XP noteook with is connecting to the internet via an Internet Pen with the italian provider TIM. The pen is working properly and also the email (send and receive via outlook) so it means that is set correctly.

However sometime when I send a message (either when I am in Italy or not) I have problem to send emails as they bounce back and the following message is received. It's strange because in the same day for example I try to send in the morning and I get it bounced back, than I try after 10 hours and it doesn't bounce back. Moreover sometime I receive immediately the flw message back, sometime I receive it after a couple of days...

QUOTE

This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:

Each of the following recipients was rejected by a remote mail server.
The reasons given by the server are included to help you determine why
each recipient was rejected.

Recipient: xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
Reason: 5.7.1 Recipient not authorized, your IP has been found on a block list

Recipient: xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
Reason: 5.7.1 Recipient not authorized, your IP has been found on a block list

Please reply to
if you feel this message to be in error.

UNQUOTE

and this text message attached to the bounced email:
QUOTE

Reporting-MTA: dns; fep08.tim.it
Arrival-Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 21:18:46 +0200
Received-From-MTA: dns; user1 (217.200.168.46)
Final-Recipient: RFC822;
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mail.s1022587-283.ptasp.com (62.28.40.152)
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1 Recipient not authorized, your IP has been found on a block list
Final-Recipient: RFC822;
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mail.s1022587-283.ptasp.com (62.28.40.152)
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1 Recipient not authorized, your IP has been found on a block list

UNQUOTE

Hope someone can help me because I am getting crazy..

Ciao
Armando

About 2 days ago a problem occurred where I am now not able to send ANY emails.
The same error message comes up no matter what address I am trying to send to. The message is so immediate that it appears that it is not getting out of my machine i.e. not going out over the network to another server. I think it is a problem within my outlook program. The error message is:

Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.

Subject: Booking Confirmation SN 0188 OPT1 Sunday 9 September
Sent: 08/09/2012 12:33

The following recipient(s) could not be reached:

Sifiso Nkosi on 08/09/2012 12:33
550 5.7.1 Recipient not authorized, your IP has been found on a block list

I am able to send these messages if I copy and paste them to a separate gmail account.

I hope someone can help. I have a feeling it is virus related.

Regards

Graham

Hi There,

I have an issue which I am not sure how to fix. A client of ours can not send emails to us as she is getting the failure message below. I can not see that our exchange server IP 217.155.3.18 Blackisted, however is it possible our exchange is blocking her IP?

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

Trevor.Jones@SynergyIt.co.uk
SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO::
host mail.synergyit.co.uk [217.155.3.18]: 550 5.7.1 Recipient not authorized, your IP has been found on a block list

------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------

Return-path:
Received: from [82.69.18.164] (helo=acera07ead0d35)
by smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk with smtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from )
id 1NGEVq-0005wC-KH
for Trevor.Jones@SynergyIt.co.uk; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:26:38 +0000
Message-ID:
From: "Mandy Cresswell Phillips"
To: "Trevor Jones"
Subject: testfinal2
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:26:29 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0057_01CA7435.5E43F0C0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0057_01CA7435.5E43F0C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

------=_NextPart_000_0057_01CA7435.5E43F0C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Hi

My exchange server periodically rejects emails from yahoo...sometimes it goes through, sometimes it doesnt.

Error message is that "Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 Recipient not authorized, your IP has been found on a block list [RCPT_TO]"

The thing is i've seen several of these messages and when looking through them, i notice they all have different IP's.

So my guess is that sometimes yahoo uses an IP that isn't on my blocklist and the mail comes in, and whenever it uses an IP on my blocklist the mail bounces.

1. How do i determine which of my blocklist providers is blocking it
2. Is there anyway to whitelist a domain on exchange (e.g. *.yahoo.com)

Has anyone faced this before?

Hi !

I use exchange 2007 , i used spamhaus as spam block provider, I need to
customize the rror message to add Extra clarifications and details to
contact us.
So how can I change the default error mesage: "550 5.7.1 Recipient not
authorized, your IP has been found on a block list" to something like this:
"Your IP x.x.x.x was rejected by the provider name xxxxxx..."

Any advice ?

Thanks.

Ahmad Sabry

I have clients connecting using Outlook 2007 Outlook Anywhere. They can make
their initial connection and use email for a couple days.

Then, when launching Outlook they get the following error:
Your mailbox has been temporarily moved on Microsoft Exchange server. A
temporary mailbox sists, but might not have all of your previous data.

You can connect to the temporary mailbox or work offline with all of your
old data. If you choose to work with your old data, you cannot send or
receive e-mail messages.
[Use Temporary Mailbox] [Use Old Data] [Cancel]

No mailbox changes on Exchange server. Suggestions were to do a email
repair from the profile. Whats strange, is even on my test accounts that
auto-discover just fine, cannot repair! It has a similar autodiscover
interface but fails to search for server settings.

I'm getting new error messages from my hotmail accounts on MS Outlook 2007 -
Your mailbox has been temporarily moved on Microsoft Exchange Server. A
temporary mailbox exists but might not have all of your previous data. You
can connect to a temporary mailbox or work offline with all of your old
data. If you choose to work with your old data, you cannot send or
receive e-mail messages.
Use temporary mailbox Use Old Data Cancel

I don't have any exchange server accounts under this profile - just hotmail.

I tried deleting the profile and creating a new one - the error comes back.

I tried cleaning ou the local settingsapplication datamicrosoftoutlook
and application datamicrosoftoutlook and recreating the profile - the
error comes back.

I tried deleting all the entries in the registry with my hotmail accounts
username - the error comes back.

I have all the patches for outlook 2007 applied - can't find squat on the
web for this error.

No matter which of the three boxes I select - the error comes back.

I suppose I could try uninstalling office and reinstalling but I'd like to
know the cause and solution.

If I remove the hotmail accounts from the profile, the error goes away - of
course then I can't check my e-mail so that doesn't help much.

I'm getting new error messages from my hotmail accounts on MS Outlook 2007 -
Your mailbox has been temporarily moved on Microsoft Exchange Server. A
temporary mailbox exists but might not have all of your previous data. You
can connect to a temporary mailbox or work offline with all of your old
data. If you choose to work with your old data, you cannot send or
receive e-mail messages.
Use temporary mailbox Use Old Data Cancel

I don't have any exchange server accounts under this profile - just hotmail.

I tried deleting the profile and creating a new one - the error comes back.

I tried cleaning ou the local settingsapplication datamicrosoftoutlook
and application datamicrosoftoutlook and recreating the profile - the
error comes back.

I tried deleting all the entries in the registry with my hotmail accounts
username - the error comes back.

I have all the patches for outlook 2007 applied - can't find squat on the
web for this error.

No matter which of the three boxes I select - the error comes back.

I suppose I could try uninstalling office and reinstalling but I'd like to
know the cause and solution.

If I remove the hotmail accounts from the profile, the error goes away - of
course then I can't check my e-mail so that doesn't help much.

We recently moved from in-house Exchange 2000 to a hosted Exchange 2007, we installed Outlook 2007 for the users and we used the exmerge tool to move all the mailboxes. The issue that we had now is that when the users start Outlook, they get the message that reads "Your mailbox has been temporarily moved on Microsoft Exchange server" A > temporary mailbox exists, but might not have all of your previous data. You can connect to the temporary mailbox or work offline with all of your old data. If you choose to work with your old data, you cannot send or receive e-mail messages. We usually connect to the temporarily mail box and everything seems to be okay. In one instance I removed all the mail profiel but one and the message goes away but then the remaining profile lost all the historical information in his Calendar, Tasks and contact. The question is how can I get rid of the message and not lose any information. Thank you in advanced.

Juan Decena

Exchange 2003, Outlook 2007

In Outlook, the Inbox folder does not show up under Mailbox - User Name. Starting with "Outlook Today" and clicking on the "inbox" like he can get to his messages.

In OWA the envelope icon shows up but instead of saying "Inbox" it had a URL like "http://video.google.com&search="...

I used exmerge to extract the data for the user, deleted the mailbox, then used exmerge to import it back.

"Inbox" now shows up in OWA but when Outlook is launched it gives this message:
"Your mailbox has been temporarily moved on Microsoft Exchange Server. A temporary mailbox exists, but might not have all of your data. You can connect to the temporary mailbox or work offline with all of your old data. If you choose to work with your old data, you cannot send or receive e-mail messages."

Did I miss a step somewhere?


When trying to send a signed or encrypted email in OWA I get the following error:

No digital ID for signing has been found. If you have a smart card-based digital ID, insert the card and try to send the message again. You can also try sending the message without a digital signature.

If your digital ID is not trusted by the Exchange server, you cannot use it to sign messages. For more information, contact technical support for your organization.

 

Environment:

- Exchange 2007 on Windows 2003 Server 64 bit

- client computer has windows xp sp3 + IE 8

- exchange server uses a self-signed certificate. I also added the certificate to the Trusted CA (on the server AND on the client computer)

 

Things we checked/tried

- user certificate is installed on the client machine. The user can send signed message with Office Outlook 2003/2007 on the same machine

- we tried adding the user certificate on the server Trusted CA (although I don't think it should work like this). Didn't work

- we enabled on IIS->Default Site->Digital Certificate Options, "accept client certificate". Didn't work

- we also tried mapping on IIS the user certificate with the user account; no luck!

- searched the whole week on the internet for a solution, nothing so far

 

Any ideas on how we can debug this is greatly appreciated!

Thanks 

 

I made a remote connection to a client's pc (Win XP Pro) and uninstalled MS
Office 2003 Standard, and then installed MS Office 2007 Pro Plus from a
install point on a server (MS Server Standard 2003 SP2). The uninstall and
install seemed to go fine.

But when I opened the client's Outlook 2007, I get the following message:

--------------
Your mailbox has been temporarily moved on Microsoft Exchange server. A
temporary mailbox sists, but might not have all of your previous data.

You can connect to the temporary mailbox or work offline with all of your
old data. If you choose to work with your old data, you cannot send or
receive e-mail messages.
[Use Temporary Mailbox] [Use Old Data] [Cancel]

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

The Exchange Server is 2003 SP2, running on Windows 2003 Standard SP2. The
client is running 1 additional smtp email alias.

I have tried turning off cacheing and restarting Outlook -- turning back on
cacheing and restarting outlook. It didn't help.

Any ideas?

I'm having difficulty with integrated authentication enabled on the Outlook Web Access on a single server Exchange 2007 setup. It just prompts for username/password, and then fails with an error message 'authentication required' I found this article on the internet.

"The problem I have found, is that Integrated Authentication WILL NOT work if the CAS is on a server where other roles are installed as well (documentation). You will need to have a CAS only server for Integrated Authentication to work when authenticating to OWA. If you are using Integrated Authentication when the CAS is installed on a server in which other roles are installed, it’ll prompt you for a password as if you were using Basic Authentication. This integrated authentication limitation is only when you are accessing OWA. Integrated Authentication will still work just fine for CAS-CAS Proxying/Redirection purposes."

This is exactly the issue I have on my Exchange 2007 server. Is the statement above true?

Our Exchange SP1 has been installed on a Windows 2008 Standard server.

We have a problem where on some systems (always Vista) a call to
IRibbonUI.Invalidate() throws an exception who's Message is:
Error HRESULT E_FAIL has been returned from a call to a COM component.

What does this mean?

thanks - dave

david@at-at-at>@windward.dot.dot.net
Windward Reports -- http://www.WindwardReports.com
me -- http://dave.thielen.com

Cubicle Wars - http://www.windwardreports.com/film.htm


My Outlook inbox disappeared and has been replaced by a folder labelled "ItemProSearch."  What can I do to reverse this? 

Additional information--four new folders have inexplicably turned up in my "Documents" folder:  archive; archive1; Outlook1; and Backup-(2010-09-21).ipd.  Even before that, I seemed to have too many archive folders. 

Also, when I add items to my blocked sender list, the sender isn't blocked, and I continue to get junk mail from the same address.  Is this related?  And, whether or not it's related, how can I fix that?


The issue: Microsoft outlook Calendar - Recurring meeting disappearing from organizer's calendar after a change has been made to a single instance

As the meeting organizer, I change the date of a single instance of a recurring meeting.  I am also a delegate to another calendar and receive the update to the meeting invitation I just changed in my inbox for the delegator, accept it and the updated meeting invitation appears on the delegator's calendar. Other attendees on the same meeting invitation do not receive the update. The recurring meeting/calendar item has disappeared from my calendar. A reminder appears at set time for the meeting which has disappeared yet the meeting invite itself is not showing on my calendar.

Reminder comes up every time I open outlook, even though the appointment has been changed to a future date. I've just upgraded from 03 to 07.

Is it possible to attach a file to only selected addresses on a distribution
list? In other words on a lsit of sasy 10 people only attach an excel
spreadsheet to three of them.

Hello, is it possible to put an out of office reply on a distribution list? The challenge I am having is if an email is sent to a distribution list they will not get individuals out of office replies and I dont know how to setup an OOO on a distribution list.

Thanks

Hello, is it possible to put an out of office reply on a distribution list? The challenge I am having is if an email is sent to a distribution list they will not get individuals out of office replies and I dont know how to setup an OOO on a distribution list.

Thanks

Outlook 2003 (SP3), Exchange Server 2003 on Windows Server 2003 R2 standard

In Outlook, both 'Read receipt' and 'Delivery receipt' has been turned on.

A 'Delivered: Return Receipt' has been delivered to the inbox of a user (A).
-----------------
Your message

To: Jo Bloggs
Subject: RE: xxx
Sent: 08/02/2008 09:36

was delivered to the following recipient(s):

jo.bloggs@domainname.co.uk
-----------------

It raises some concern as user inform me that an email has never been sent
to this business contact in recent weeks, and no email has ever been sent
with that subject title. Checking of the Journal Mailbox confirm this is
true.

The email header of the return receipt email was checked from the user's
machine. It appears to be generated from the business contact's company.
I.e. "From: Mailer-Daemon:ext.domainname.co.uk". Using Message Tracking
Center in Exchange System Manager, other previous genuine return receipts
from the same email address can be found.

Now the concern is how could the user receive a return receipt for an email
that has not been sent, but more worry about the content of that
inappropriate email the receipent (might) received and believe it was sent
from the user.

If someone (internal) has sent an email using the user (A)'s account, then
the outgoing email would still be logged in the journal mailbox, but this
could not be found. Is it possible that someone (external) could construct
an email, send it to "jo.bloggs@domainname.co.uk" and got their email
software to believe it was originated from us?

Please could you advice how this could be investigated further? Many thanks
in advance,

I came here to make the exact same suggestion and wanted to say I can't
believe all the grief you were given.

Outlook essentially divides junk email into two classes: 1) Messages that a
computer algorithm "thinks" MIGHT be junk, and 2) Messages that I personally
specify as junk. It's perfectly reasonable for me to want to review
decisions made by a computer program but also tell Outlook that I don't want
to see anything from macys.com ever again.

As Outlook scans for incoming junk email, the program obviously can
distinguish between these two classes of junk messages. All of the pieces
are already in place to provide the requested functionality except the option
to only permanently delete "User Specified" junk.

Like one of your detractors, I have a background in software development and
was a manager of software developers for over 15 years. Not counting time
for testing this enhancement, I would question the integrity of Outlook’s
software design if this particular enhancement consumed much more than one or
two man-days of development time.

Finally, it strikes me a somewhat ludicrous to deny the validity of this
enhancement request by saying that the Blocked Senders List is essentially a
waste of time. If that is the case, then take away the Blocked Senders List
entirely. But as long as it exists, it’s inexcusable not to provide this
easily-accomplished enhancement.

"Erik F" wrote:

Once again you're missing my point. I know that I can set up rules to delete
items from specific addresses or domains. However, I should not HAVE to set
up a rule for every single person/company/domain that sends me annoying email
and is on my blocked list. That is what the blocked list is for, so this
should happen automatically. Outlook already provides 95% of the solution by
letting you maintain a blocked list and easily adding addresses/domains to
that list. The only piece that is missing is the final step of automatically
deleting items from addresses/domains on your blocked list.

Alternatively, there should be a way to create a rule to delete items from
addresses/domains that are in your blocked list. Currently you can only
specify specific addresses, mailing lists, or domains. I haven't found a way
to set it to delete from items in the blocked list. If there is a way to do
this, it isn't obvious.

Diane - I appreciate all of your input in this matter. It's very helpful to
me and to others that may read this down the road. It's obvious that you
know a lot about this subject by the fact that you are a Microsoft MVP.

However, I believe that technology (software) should adapt to how people
want to do their work, not make people jump through hoops and adapt the way
they work to the technology. Obviously there has to be some give and take in
this area because software developers cannot account for every person's
idiosychracies. I am a software developer myself, so I know this fact very
well.

I'm sure your years of experience with Outlook have taught you how to
accomplish a lot of things with rules. But they can't do everything that
everyone would like. Microsoft has put a lot of work into Outlook, and I'm
sure they have spent a lot of time working on the junk mail stuff as well.

All I'd like to see is for them to complete the circle on this one little
thing and make a way to automatically delete items from addresses/domains
that have, for whatever reason, been put on your blocked list. Whether this
is an option in the junk email options dialog, or an easy to set up rule, I
don't care. It just needs to be available.

"Diane Poremsky [MVP]" wrote:

you can set up rules to delete mail from addresses or domains.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Author, Google and Other Search Engines (Visual QuickStart Guide)

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Join OneNote Tips mailing list: http://www.onenote-tips.net/

"Erik F" wrote in message
...
I understand that trying to block spam using the blocked list is not very
effective because spammers change the address they use so often. However,
that was not the point of my suggestion (notice that I never once
mentioned
spam). My point is that if you do have an address or domain already set
to
be blocked, and an email arrives from one of them, you should be able to
set
an option that would delete it automatically.

Besides, some might claim that companies that won't stop emailing you are
sending you a form of spam. Since these companies are probably using the
same address each time, the blocked list IS effective at blocking their
messages. It's just very annoying to have to keep deleting them over and
over again.

"Diane Poremsky [MVP]" wrote:

FWIW, the blocked list is a useless waste of time for all but a few
addresses (like from annoying people or companies that won't stop
emailing
you).

For more information on using Safe and blocked lists, see
http://www.slipstick.com/emo/2005/up050120.htm#rules
http://www.slipstick.com/emo/2004/up040930.htm#safe
http://www.slipstick.com/emo/2004/up040722.htm#safe

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Author, Google and Other Search Engines (Visual QuickStart Guide)

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Join OneNote Tips mailing list: http://www.onenote-tips.net/

"Erik F" Erik

MI5 are Afraid. to Admit They're Behind the Persecution

MI5 have issued a formal denial of any involvement in my. life to the
Security Service Tribunal, as you might expect them to;. but, more
importantly, the persecutors have never denied. that theyre from the
Security Service, despite several years. of accusations from my corner on
usenet and in faxed. articles. I am not surprised that the Security Service
Tribunal found "no determination in your favour". I. am however a little
surprised that the persecutors have refused to. confirm my identification
of them; by doing so, they implicitly admit that my guess. was right.

"No determination in your favour". says the Security Service Tribunal

In. 1997, I made a complaint to the Security Service Tribunal, giving only
the bare outlines of my case. I do not. think it would have made very much
difference if Id made a much more detailed complaint, since the. Tribunal
has no ability to perform investigatory functions. It can only ask MI5. if
they have an. interest in a subject, to which MI5 are of course free to be
"economical with the truth". A couple of. months after my complaint the
Tribunal. replied that;

The Security. Service Tribunal have now investigated your complaint and
have. asked me to inform you that no determination in your favour has been
made on. your complaint.

Needless to say. this reply didnt surprise me in the slightest. It is a
well established fact that the secret service are a. den of liars and the
Tribunal a toothless watchdog, so to see. them conforming to these
stereotypes might be disappointing. but unsurprising.

It is noteworthy. that the Tribunal never gives the plaintiff information
on whether the "no. determination in your favour" is because MI5 claims to
have. no interest in him, or whether they claim their interest is
"justified". In the 1997 report of the Security. Service Commissioner he
writes that "The. ambiguity of the terms in which the notification of the
Tribunals decision. is expressed is intentional", since a less ambiguous
answer would indicate to the plaintiff whether he were indeed. under MI5
surveillance. But. I note that the ambiguity also allows MI5 to get away
with lying to the question of their interest in. me; they can claim to the
Tribunal that they have. no interest, but at a future date, when it becomes
clear that they did indeed place me. under surveillance and harassment,
they can claim their interest was "justified" - and. the Tribunal will
presumably not admit that in their previous. reply MI5 claimed to have no
interest.

"He doesnt know. who we are"

In early January. 1996 I flew on a British Airways jet from London to
Montreal; also present on the plane,. about three or four rows behind me,
were two young men, one. of them fat and voluble, the other silent. It was
quite clear that these two had been planted on the aircraft to. "wind me
up". The fat youth described the town in Poland. where I had spent
Christmas, and. made some unpleasant personal slurs against me. Most
interestingly,. he said the words, "he doesnt know who we are".

Now I find this particular form of words. very interesting, because while
it is not a. clear admission, it is only a half-hearted attempt at denial
of my guess that "they" = "MI5". Had my guess. been wrong, the fat youth
would surely have said so more clearly. What he. was trying to do was to
half-deny something he knew. to be true, and he was limited to making
statements which he knew to. be not false; so he made a lukewarm denial
which on the face of it means nothing, but in fact acts as a. confirmation
of. my guess of who "they" are.

On one of the other occasions when I. saw the persecutors in person, on the
BA flight to Toronto in June 1993, one of the. group of four men said, "if
he tries to run away well. find him". But the other three stayed totally
quiet and avoided eye contact. They did so to avoid being. apprehended and
identified -. since if they were identified, their employers would have
been. revealed, and it would become known that it was the secret services
who were. behind the persecution.

Why are MI5 So Afraid to admit. their involvement?

If you think about it, what has been going. on in Britain for the last nine
years is simply. beyond belief. The British declare themselves to be
"decent" by definition, so. when they engage in indecent activities such as
the persecution of a mentally ill person, their decency. "because were
British" is still in the forefront of their minds, and a process. of mental
doublethink kicks. in, where their antisocial and indecent activities are
blamed on the. victim "because its his fault were persecuting him", and
their self-regard and self-image of decency remains. untarnished. As
remarked in another article some time. ago, this process is basically the
same as a large number. of Germans employed fifty years ago against Slavic
"untermenschen" and the Jewish. "threat" - the Germans declared, "Germans
are known . to be decent and the minorities are at fault for what we do to
them" - so they were able to retain the view. of themselves as being
"decent".

Now suppose. this entire episode had happened in some other country. The
British have a poor view of. the French, so lets say it had all happened in
France. Suppose there. was a Frenchman, of non-French extraction, who was
targeted. by the French internal security apparatus, for the dubious
amusement of French television newscasters, and tortured for 9. years with
various sexual and other verbal abuse and taunts. of "suicide". Suppose
this all came out. into the open. Naturally, the French authorities would
try hard to place the blame. on their victim - and in their own country,
through the. same state-controlled media which the authorities employ as
instruments of torture, their view might. prevail - but what on earth would
people overseas make of their. actions? Where would their "decency" be
then?

This is why MI5. are so afraid to admit theyre behind the
persecution. Because if they did admit responsibility,. then they would be
admitting that there was. an action against me - and if the truth came out,
then the walls would come tumbling down.. And if the persecutors were to
admit they were from MI5, then you can be sure. I would report the
fact; and the persecutors support would fall away, among. the mass media as
well as among the general public.. When I started identifying MI5 as the
persecutors in. 1995 and 1996 there was a sharp reduction in media
harassment,. since people read my internet newsgroup posts and knew I was
telling the truth. The persecutors cannot deny. my claim that theyre MI5,
because then I would report their denial and they would be seen as liars. -
but they cannot admit. it either, as that would puncture their campaign
against me. So they are forced to maintain a ridiculous silence on. the
issue of their identity, in. the face of vociferous accusations on internet
newsgroups and faxed. articles.

Have MI5 lied. to the Home Secretary?

In order for the Security Services to bug my home, they would either. have
needed a warrant from the. Home Secretary, or they might have instituted
the bugging without a warrant. Personally I think it is. more likely that
they didnt apply for a warrant - I cannot see any. Home Secretary giving
MI5 authority. to bug a residence to allow television newscasters to
satisfy. their rather voyeuristic needs vis-a-vis one of their
audience. But it is possible that the Security Service presented a. warrant
in. some form before a home secretary at some point in the last nine years,
for telephone. tapping or surveillance of my residence, or interception of
postal. service.

So the possibility presents itself that. a Home Secretary might have signed
a. warrant presented to him based on MI5 lies. Just as MI5 lie to the
Security Service Tribunal, so they might have lied to a. Home Secretray
himself. MI5 and MI6. are naturally secretive services former home
secretary Roy. Jenkins said, they have a "secretive atmosphere
.... secretive vis-a-vis the government as. well as [enemies]". Jenkins
also said he. "did not form a very high regard for how they discharged
their. duties".

It was only a few years. ago that MI5 was brought into any sot the
extraordinary thing. is that British media organisations like the state-
and taxpayer-funded BBC take such an active part. in the MI5-inspired
campaign of harassment. We have after all heard of. MI5 trying to bribe
broadcast journalists; but surely there must be a. substantial number who
are not bought. or blackmailed by the Security Services, and who take part
in the "abuse by newscasters" of their own volition? The BBC is. supposed
to. be independent of the government of the day as well as the
Establishment. in general. While perhaps it is childish to think that the
BBC is. anything other than effectively state-controlled, the degree of
collusion between the BBC and the British Secret Police. MI5 is something
you. would not find in many countries. Individual tele-journalists in other
countries would have enough self-esteem not. to allow themselves to be
controlled by their secret police - seemingly, BBC. broadcasters like
Martyn Lewis and Nicholas Witchell have such a low opinion. of their
employing organisation that. they see no wrong in dragging the BBCs
no-longer-good name. through yet more mud, at the mere request (whether
supported. by financial or other inducements) of the British secret Police,
MI5.

And when challenged,. these broadcasters LIE about their involvement, with
just as little shame as MI5 themselves. The BBCs Information dept. have
said. that;

"I can assure you. that the BBC would never engage in any form of
surveillance activity such. as you describe"

which. is an out-and-out lie. Buerk and Lewis have themselves lied to their
colleagues in the BBCs Information department. over the "newscaster
watching", but unsurprisingly they. refuse to put these denials in
writing. Doubtless if the. "newscaster watching" ever comes to light, Buerk
and Lewis will then continue to lie by lying. about these denials. So much
for the "impartial" BBC, a nest of liars bought and paid for by. the
Security. Services!

It is obvious that the persecution is at. the instigation of MI5 themselves
-. they have read my post, and only they have the surveillance technology
and media/political access. Yet they have lied outright to the. Security
Service Tribunal. Similarly,. BBC newscasters Michael Buerk and Martyn
Lewis have lied to members of their own. organisation. The continuing
harassment indicates they are all. petrified of this business coming out
into the. open. I will continue to do everything possible to ensure that
their wrongdoing. is exposed.

2009

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem


Not finding an answer? Try a Google search.