|
From
what I am reading yahoo not hotmail should not be listed. They accept mail
to the abuse address, they do not suggest using an alternate reporting method
and they respond to the reports?
Do you
know why they fail the no abuse test?
They
have accepted every mail I have sent to them.
Kevin
Bilbee
The RFC's for abuse and postmaster addresses
require more than just a functioning address or even an appropriate response
in certain situations. From the rfc-ignorant.org site regarding abuse
for instance:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-abuse.php
Given that, the listing criterium is that any domain for which
abuse@domain is rejected, times-out, or for any
other reason cannot be delivered, that shall be considered grounds for
listing, excepting as such that if the rejection is obviously based on some
criteria which reject the sender. (Unlike the rules regarding "postmaster"
(for which only something like an ongoing mailbomb is an exemption
- see RFC2821), nothing requires the abuse
address to accept from everyone, so if someone has blocked a
particular host from sending mail to that server, that could conceivably
include blocking mail destined for the abuse address. However, if this
exemption is (no pun intended) abused (e.g., a site claiming that "abuse"
has elected to receive mail from only two other places), that site will no
longer be allowed to partake of that exemption.)
Also, based on the "resulting in delivery to a recipient appropriate for
the referenced service or role." criterion in section 1, there is an added
condition for listing, which is any domain which, upon receiving a report to
abuse@domain, refers the user to another address or a web form,
indicating that they MUST use that other method to report the complaint.
Certainly sites are welcome to suggest "better/optimized" methods of
communication, but they must acknowledge that the complaint will be acted
upon, as submitted to the main abuse@domain address.
---
Also, if it is provable that the abuse address is being
dropped in the bit bucket automatically (e.g:
>>> EXPN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<<
250 2.1.5 </dev/null>
That would also be considered a
violation of the RFC, and cause for listing. Note that
this must be clear-cut. Simply being unresponsive is
not (sufficient) evidence of the messages being
bitbucketed.
Domains are listed, as well as a wildcard under them, so that if mail is
received from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, it will match if
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> fails, as only the "root domain"
abuse address is required to work, according to the RFC.
As a rule of thumb, this would mean that the domain-level that would/should
be listed in a domain-name WHOIS registry is the level that must be capable
of handling abuse complaints.
If any of the valid MX servers for a domain have private, reserved, or
otherwise bogus IP addresses, then the domain would be listed. (E.g., given
an address of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, if the MX for example.tld is
mail.example.tld, and the A record listed in DNS for mail.example.tld is
127.0.0.1, then example.tld would be listed.)
IMO, it's always nice to
know the qualifications for being listed.
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
yahoo also has an abuse address. I send to them on a regulare basis and I
get their atuo response and within a few days I get a resolution.
Kevin Bilbee
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sheldon Koehler
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 11:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Increased AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc.
false positives positives
The real irony about this is [EMAIL PROTECTED] actually works! Go
figure...
Sheldon
Sheldon Koehler, Owner/Partner http://www.tenforward.com
Ten Forward Communications 360-457-9023
Nationwide access, neighborhood support!
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time
to pause and reflect." Mark Twain
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Tolmachoff (Lists)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Increased AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc. false
positives positives
It is known that AOL, Hotmail and Yahoo will often fail NOABUSE,
NOPOSTMASTER and REVDNS, as they are not setup nor do they care.
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Bramble
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Increased AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc. false
positives positives
It's just you :)
The From address is often forged. The address that matters the most is the
server from which the E-mail came, which is listed in the top of the
headers, i.e.
Received: from declude.com [24.107.232.14] by igaia.com with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-7.13) id A78F250118; Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:50:39 -0400
The information in that line in the messages you receive is what is
responsible for tripping most of the tests you indicated (real AOL trips
NOPOSTMASTER for instance). If you reverse lookup the IPs that you find
there, my bet is that they won't match the domains of the From addresses
they are using. The software and your filters are actually doing their job
very well if those messages are failing.
Matt
Paul Hung wrote:
Has anyone found that AOL, Hotmail, and Yahoo.com addresses have been
failing on the following tests: helobogus, nopostmaster, noabuse, revdns
These e-mails usually fail these four tests, and thus trigger my Weight10
rule. I performed a reverse DNS lookup on several of the IP addresses and
found that there was no entry for reverse DNS.
Any ideas? Is it just me?
- Paul
|
