On Fri, 22 May 2009 19:23:33 +0200 mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> wrote:
> Carlos Williams a __crit : > > [snip] > > Content-filter at server.us wrote: > > > > A message from <jthras...@server.us> to: -> jthras...@server.us > > was considered unsolicited bulk e-mail (UBE). Our internal reference > > code for your message is 16433-01/qNJBp5TNkzDa The message carried > > your return address, so it was either a genuine mail from you, or a > > sender address was faked and your e-mail address abused by third > > party, in which case we apologize for undesired notification. We do > > try to minimize backscatter for more prominent cases of UBE and for > > infected mail, but for less obvious cases of UBE some balance > > between losing genuine mail and sending undesired backscatter is > > sought, and there can be some collateral damage on both sides. > > First upstream SMTP client IP address: [88.255.159.190] unknown > > According to a 'Received:' trace, the message originated at: > > [88.255.159.190], [88.255.159.190] unknown [88.255.159.190] > > Return-Path: <jthras...@server.us> Message-ID: > > <173702817170361.uflfwryznisq...@[88.255.159.190]> Subject: Come to > > my place Delivery of the email was stopped! > > > > ************************************************************** > > > > so some filter (at server.us?) is bouncing mail it considers > "possibly spam". This is a bad idea. once mail has been accepted by > postfix, subsequent relays/filters/whatever should no more bounce. > > if spam is bounced to an innocent who never sent anything, you'll get > in trouble... and even if not, you know it is bad to hit innocents > whose email address was forged. > > > [snip] Looks worse than that: host -t mx server.us server.us mail is handled by 10 cm1.dnsmadeeasy.com. So they're not the primary MX and they're bouncing it......... -- John
