Re: [SLUG] Microsoft and Email Protocols
2008/9/18 Robert Thorsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Now, my FQDN does not match the dotted-quad address, and does not > resolve via lookup, because my IP address is dynamic and my ISP (who is > a friend) had never bothered to add my FQDN details his IP range. He is > now adding them in -- isn't it nice to have friends. :-) There is a least one spam black list (spamcannibal.org) which lists servers which don't have their ip address map back to the original host name. They say it's the standard. We hit this problem when one of our outgoing lines didn't have this reverse mapping (even though it's a static IP) but it's reverse PTR record pointed back to the ISP generic ip address name (something like ip123-123-123-123.isp.net) and non less than NAB or one of the other big-5 banks rejected mails sent by one of the employees because of this. Once we got our ISP to fix that the e-mails went through. --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Microsoft and Email Protocols
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 01:27:21PM +1000, Robert Thorsby wrote: > [ .. ] > > The cure is to charge for sending email, but > > for most that cure is worse than the disease. > > No, no, no! You may as well say, "Let it be under the control and It's not that clear what you're saying no to here. > administration of a government department." The only real cure is for Government control is the opposite end of the spectrum to a market solution, not the same end. > those who administer MX servers to do so properly, which includes So how do you get 'those who administer MX servers to do so properly' ? You're begging the question (In the original meaning of that phrase) > preventing spam from originating out of boxen under their > administration. However, whilever the largest ISPs benefit from the > sending of spam that will not occur. > Followups - please feel free to change to slug-chat Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Microsoft and Email Protocols
On 18/09/08 11:47:21, Matthew Hannigan wrote: > Did you CC or BCC all your friends? > > If you CC a lot of people, that can be taken > as an indicator of spam. No. Each email was sent individually, properly addressed to that person only. There was no Cc'ing or Bcc'ing. The sender application was a bash script that I knocked together. > As for standards, well email-wise we're living in > a swamp, and the recommended practice in many > instances is to ignore the standard (e.g. not bouncing > mis-addressed mail) or exploring the more interpretable > edges of the standard (e.g. greylisting) Agreed. But muddying the waters just makes them more dangerous and unnavigable. > The cure is to charge for sending email, but > for most that cure is worse than the disease. No, no, no! You may as well say, "Let it be under the control and administration of a government department." The only real cure is for those who administer MX servers to do so properly, which includes preventing spam from originating out of boxen under their administration. However, whilever the largest ISPs benefit from the sending of spam that will not occur. > Lastly, get your friends to dump hotmail and > get gmail. They won't regret it. I stopped attempting even to stop my friends from sending HTML mail because of the disastrous results (lost friends!) -- although I do bounce emails that contain M$ binary attachments with a polite note saying that my filter has blocked the mail because of the possibility that it contains a virus. I do not intend to tell my friends to switch MX provider. Robert MSOOXML - Not the best standard money can buy. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Microsoft and Email Protocols
Did you CC or BCC all your friends? If you CC a lot of people, that can be taken as an indicator of spam. As for standards, well email-wise we're living in a swamp, and the recommended practice in many instances is to ignore the standard (e.g. not bouncing mis-addressed mail) or exploring the more interpretable edges of the standard (e.g. greylisting) The cure is to charge for sending email, but for most that cure is worse than the disease. Lastly, get your friends to dump hotmail and get gmail. They won't regret it. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Microsoft and Email Protocols
Just thought that folks would like to know that M$, having embraced the various email protocols (RFC2821, RFC2822, etc), is now in the process of extending them. I periodically send a bulk email, but individually addressed to each recipient, to about 40 of my most intimate friends advising them of upcoming events at my local LUG. One of the recipients has a hotmail address. This morning's short missive advised about SFD08. The mail addressed to the hotmail account was, for the first time, bounced by M$ Live Mail, with a typically unhelpful message explaining that it was for "policy" reasons that might be related to spam or might be related to a sender's FQDN/dotted-quad mismatch. Since neither the Subject nor the body of the email contained any spam words (unless M$ regards "Software Freedom Day" as a spam expression), the email contained every necessary and sufficient header, and all headers are RFC compliant, I came to the conclusion that the mail suffered from a sender's details' mismatch. Now, my FQDN does not match the dotted-quad address, and does not resolve via lookup, because my IP address is dynamic and my ISP (who is a friend) had never bothered to add my FQDN details his IP range. He is now adding them in -- isn't it nice to have friends. :-) It appears that my email ran afoul of M$'s "Sender ID Framework" (which of course is acronymed to SIDF). Gee, until now I thought that only Dan Bernstein deliberately stuffed up email protocols. But now M$, which hitherto seemed only to stuff up protocols by accident out of ignorance, has joined him. -- Robert Thorsby In /dev/null no one can hear the kernel panic! -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
