Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: I really like how translate.google.com says "alkalmazás üzemeltetés". (If it is that woman who can be heard everywhere.) Ikr, like she's seducing or something. -- caóc
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Hello Ralph. Ralph Corderoy wrote in <20190330113616.93a8c20...@orac.inputplus.co.uk>: |> Be liberal in what you expect but strict in what you produce | |Postel's Law is fitting for the 1970s. Now it just causes problems. | |That experience shows that there are negative long-term consequences |to interoperability if an implementation applies Postel's advice. |Correcting the problems caused by divergent behavior in |implementations can be difficult or impossible. |― https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-00 Interesting. But i think he is wrong in that: i do not follow. I mean sure, for binary protocols etc. it is of course right to go as strict as possible, and noone ever i know would say something different. But despite that i think he has had fun writing this, it is of no value beside that, in real life. In real life you have tag soup, you have libinput and kernel-side USB and PCI databases with quirks over quirks for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability or even usability at first place. Being "totally strict" is a dream, and it can be made real: on the producer side. Now that is Postel, to see the three fingers pointing back at you when you point at someone. Accusing Postel's law as the root of the evil is a bit smelly, i think. Rewriting this draft in Rust would surely make it better. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Hi Steffen, > Be liberal in what you expect but strict in what you produce Postel's Law is fitting for the 1970s. Now it just causes problems. That experience shows that there are negative long-term consequences to interoperability if an implementation applies Postel's advice. Correcting the problems caused by divergent behavior in implementations can be difficult or impossible. ― https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-00 -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Dear list, Rachel has answered one more time, but please let me post the essence not the 1000 lines and 57 KB, i think that helps everyone: Rachel (NeverBounce) Mar 29, 9:38 AM EDT Thank you again for the response. We completely understand where you are coming from. Should we gather any additional information in the future that would be of any assistance to you, we would be happy to share. We appreciate your understanding and patience as we work to provide the best in email verification. Enjoy your day. All the best, Rachel I concur and join in and wishing everyone a nice weekend. Good night and Ciao! --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Hello Ralph. Ralph Corderoy wrote in <20190329131453.6f21022...@orac.inputplus.co.uk>: |> I guess to satisfy this service i have to reinstantiate the MX record |> that has been there before Russell Bell started sending to the |> resolved CNAME instead of the CNAME itself. | |But you don't have to satisfy this broken service that knowingly and |wilfully violates RFCs and yet, it seems, does not lobby the IETF for a |new RFC to amend the widely followed policy. | |To bow to their diktat lessens the value of all RFCs. The mailing list |works fine for those of us following the RFC. Well yes, but i am a coward. I have reinstalled it. I mean, the RFC says you need to look for MX so let's just satisfy this request and everything is op, but for Russell who does not like CNAME but does not want O_NOFOLLOW. So what, the world is not perfect, that cannot be helped. Be liberal in what you expect but strict in what you produce never bounces. Ciao, --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Hi Viktor. SZÉPE Viktor wrote in <20190329022932.Horde.ujzATf_unnnWcG4cIg5e5Bs@sze\ pe.net>: |Idézem/Quoting SZÉPE Viktor : |> Idézem/Quoting Steffen Nurpmeso : ... |>> It is a real shame that this tracker calls itself Zendesk and then |>> requires top-posting. Being boring as i am, we still cite people ... |> No humans I know do bottom posting, |> I do not dare bottom post for them as they may not find an answer!! |> |> Only bit-based guys like us from the '90s (living on the terminal) |> do top posting. | |I am sorry, this "top posting" was a glitch in my head, of course I've |meant bottom posting. | |SZÉPE Viktor, webes alkalmazás üzemeltetés / Running your application I really like how translate.google.com says "alkalmazás üzemeltetés". (If it is that woman who can be heard everywhere.) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Hi Steffen, > I guess to satisfy this service i have to reinstantiate the MX record > that has been there before Russell Bell started sending to the > resolved CNAME instead of the CNAME itself. But you don't have to satisfy this broken service that knowingly and wilfully violates RFCs and yet, it seems, does not lobby the IETF for a new RFC to amend the widely followed policy. To bow to their diktat lessens the value of all RFCs. The mailing list works fine for those of us following the RFC. -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Idézem/Quoting SZÉPE Viktor : Idézem/Quoting Steffen Nurpmeso : Hello Rachel, all. Rachel (NeverBounce) wrote in : It is a real shame that this tracker calls itself Zendesk and then requires top-posting. Being boring as i am, we still cite people who died several thousand years ago and i, for one, do not top post them, and would not do so except when being given the option do or die, and then only with fingers crossed behind the back. This is trivial and superficial and worthless and without heart and soul and faith and passion and boring sex it is, too. This is of course not your fault, Rachel. No humans I know do bottom posting, I do not dare bottom post for them as they may not find an answer!! Only bit-based guys like us from the '90s (living on the terminal) do top posting. I am sorry, this "top posting" was a glitch in my head, of course I've meant bottom posting. SZÉPE Viktor, webes alkalmazás üzemeltetés / Running your application https://github.com/szepeviktor/debian-server-tools/blob/master/CV.md ~~~ ügyelet/hotline: +36-20-4242498 s...@szepe.net skype: szepe.viktor Budapest, III. kerület
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Idézem/Quoting Steffen Nurpmeso : Hello Rachel, all. Rachel (NeverBounce) wrote in : It is a real shame that this tracker calls itself Zendesk and then requires top-posting. Being boring as i am, we still cite people who died several thousand years ago and i, for one, do not top post them, and would not do so except when being given the option do or die, and then only with fingers crossed behind the back. This is trivial and superficial and worthless and without heart and soul and faith and passion and boring sex it is, too. This is of course not your fault, Rachel. No humans I know do bottom posting, I do not dare bottom post for them as they may not find an answer!! Only bit-based guys like us from the '90s (living on the terminal) do top posting. SZÉPE Viktor, webes alkalmazás üzemeltetés / Running your application https://github.com/szepeviktor/debian-server-tools/blob/master/CV.md ~~~ ügyelet/hotline: +36-20-4242498 s...@szepe.net skype: szepe.viktor Budapest, III. kerület
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Hello Rachel, all. Rachel (NeverBounce) wrote in : It is a real shame that this tracker calls itself Zendesk and then requires top-posting. Being boring as i am, we still cite people who died several thousand years ago and i, for one, do not top post them, and would not do so except when being given the option do or die, and then only with fingers crossed behind the back. This is trivial and superficial and worthless and without heart and soul and faith and passion and boring sex it is, too. This is of course not your fault, Rachel. |Rachel (NeverBounce) |Mar 28, 3:33 PM EDT | |Hi Viktor, | |Thank you for the patience as our team reviewed this for you. | |They have provided the following information which you will find helpful: | |In our experience working with email verification, we have found that \ |the emails with no MX records are often spam traps. There |is a bit of debate on how this should be handled best, but we opt to \ |listen to the MX records. | |Please let us know if we can assist any further. We are happy to help! |Viktor Szépe |Mar 28, 3:38 PM EDT | |Than you Rachel. | |Sometimes standards and reality part ways. |Rachel (NeverBounce) | |Mar 28, 3:39 PM EDT | |You are very welcome. And that is true. | |Please let us know if we can help with anything else, we certainly \ |are most happy to do so. | |All the best, |Rachel I only wanted to add that there is a SPF entry in the DNS for the domain (the A RR behind the CNAME RR which is used by the actual mailing-list). Since the service the company you work so hard for offers seems to validate emails i wonder how the heavily pushed DMARC, DKIM and ARC seals play a role if already (?) SPF is not used. But anyway. RFC 5321 page 69 is glass clear: If an empty list of MXs is returned, the address is treated as if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0, pointing to that host. I guess to satisfy this service i have to reinstantiate the MX record that has been there before Russell Bell started sending to the resolved CNAME instead of the CNAME itself. Which i find quite amusing. ##- Please type your reply above this line -## Ciao, and good night from Germany (in the awakening spring, but still .. too cold!) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
##- Please type your reply above this line -## You are registered as a CC on this support request (15233). Reply to this email to add a comment to the request. *Rachel* (NeverBounce) Mar 28, 3:39 PM EDT You are very welcome. And that is true. Please let us know if we can help with anything else, we certainly are most happy to do so. All the best, Rachel *Viktor Szépe* Mar 28, 3:38 PM EDT Than you Rachel. Sometimes standards and reality part ways. Idézem/Quoting "Rachel (NeverBounce)" : *Rachel* (NeverBounce) Mar 28, 3:33 PM EDT Hi Viktor, Thank you for the patience as our team reviewed this for you. They have provided the following information which you will find helpful: In our experience working with email verification, we have found that the emails with no MX records are often spam traps. There is a bit of debate on how this should be handled best, but we opt to listen to the MX records. Please let us know if we can assist any further. We are happy to help! All the best, Rachel *Viktor Szépe* Mar 28, 10:58 AM EDT I do understand that a MX-less domain is declared a non-mailing domain in *modern age* but the mentioned standard still applies! Idézem/Quoting "Rachel (NeverBounce)" : *Rachel* (NeverBounce) Mar 28, 10:54 AM EDT Hi Ralph, Thank you for the kind words! We are certainly always happy to help our customers and once we have a bit more information, I will quickly follow up. Have a wonderful day! All the best, Rachel *Ralph Corderoy* Mar 27, 6:32 PM EDT Hi Rachel, Thanks for your responses, and trying to keep the mailing list in the loop. I appreciate it takes time on your side and we're in no hurry. I'm more than happy to just be in contact with someone that knows how to have the issue examined, whatever the outcome. I've dealt with quite a few companies over the years in trying to report possible problems and NeverBounce is doing well in comparison with many of them! -- Cheers, Ralph. *Rachel* (NeverBounce) Mar 27, 5:05 PM EDT Hello, Thank you for your patience as our team has requested some additional time to review this matter. Once the team has followed up, I will be sure to send any and all information obtained your way. I do apologize if this ticketing system does not CC the appropriate team members (this has happened in the past). I have included them in this send. Thank you again and have a wonderful day! All the best, Rachel Attachment(s) Screen Shot 2019-03-27 at 2.05.09 PM.png <https://neverbounce.zendesk.com/attachments/token/PBgpCAFiLGFxU29YzoWTlqa76/?name=Screen+Shot+2019-03-27+at+2.05.09+PM.png> *Rachel* (NeverBounce) Mar 27, 9:26 AM EDT Request #15234 <https://neverbounce.zendesk.com/hc/requests/15234> "Fwd: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive" was closed and merged into this request. Last comment in request #15234 <https://neverbounce.zendesk.com/hc/requests/15234>: Hello! Please forward it to your engineers. Maybe tell them to reread RFC 5321. Thank you. - Forwarded message from Ralph Corderoy ra...@inputplus.co.uk - Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:24:08 + From: Ralph Corderoy ra...@inputplus.co.uk Subject: Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive To: Rachel supp...@neverbounce.com Cc: SZÉPE Viktor vik...@szepe.net, s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu Hi Rachel, There's discussion on the s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu mailing list about a support reply from neverbounce.com. (Please keep s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu CC'd.) From: "Rachel (NeverBounce)" supp...@neverbounce.com To: Viktor Szépe vik...@szepe.net Subject: Re: false positive Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:40:15 +0100 ... We did have the chance to review the email in question, and it appears the domain is not configured properly, which is why the email is being marked as invalid. For delivering s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu, the DNS entries are $ dig +nocomment @8.8.8.8 lists.sdaoden.eu. ; <<>> DiG 9.13.7 <<>> +nocomment @8.8.8.8 lists.sdaoden.eu. ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;lists.sdaoden.eu. IN A lists.sdaoden.eu. 14399 IN CNAME sdaoden.eu. sdaoden.eu. 14399 IN A 217.144.132.164 ;; Query time: 52 msec ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8) ;; WHEN: Wed Mar 27 10:12:48 GMT 2019 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 75 $ RFC 5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, says https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-5 The lookup first attempts to locate an MX record associated with the name. If a CNAME record is found, the resulting name is processed as if it were the initial name. lists.sdaoden.eu has no MX record, but does have a CNAME for sdaoden.eu and so that should be then treated as the initial name. sdaoden.eu has no MX record. This is also covered in that section of RFC 5321: If an empty list of MXs is returned, the address is treated as if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0, pointing to that host. Thus s
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Ralph Corderoy (NeverBounce) wrote in : |##- Please type your reply above this line -## I hate top posting. And that is pfh. What a terrible, terrible tracker. All, i will not let through any more such message, except maybe the last when the technical staff acks. Or so. Thanks again Viktor for reporting and Ralph for technical resolving the issue. Good night everybody. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
##- Please type your reply above this line -## You are registered as a CC on this support request (15233). Reply to this email to add a comment to the request. *Ralph Corderoy* Mar 27, 6:32 PM EDT Hi Rachel, Thanks for your responses, and trying to keep the mailing list in the loop. I appreciate it takes time on your side and we're in no hurry. I'm more than happy to just be in contact with someone that knows how to have the issue examined, whatever the outcome. I've dealt with quite a few companies over the years in trying to report possible problems and NeverBounce is doing well in comparison with many of them! -- Cheers, Ralph. *Rachel* (NeverBounce) Mar 27, 5:05 PM EDT Hello, Thank you for your patience as our team has requested some additional time to review this matter. Once the team has followed up, I will be sure to send any and all information obtained your way. I do apologize if this ticketing system does not CC the appropriate team members (this has happened in the past). I have included them in this send. Thank you again and have a wonderful day! All the best, Rachel Attachment(s) Screen Shot 2019-03-27 at 2.05.09 PM.png <https://neverbounce.zendesk.com/attachments/token/PBgpCAFiLGFxU29YzoWTlqa76/?name=Screen+Shot+2019-03-27+at+2.05.09+PM.png> *Rachel* (NeverBounce) Mar 27, 9:26 AM EDT Request #15234 <https://neverbounce.zendesk.com/hc/requests/15234> "Fwd: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive" was closed and merged into this request. Last comment in request #15234 <https://neverbounce.zendesk.com/hc/requests/15234>: Hello! Please forward it to your engineers. Maybe tell them to reread RFC 5321. Thank you. - Forwarded message from Ralph Corderoy ra...@inputplus.co.uk - Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:24:08 + From: Ralph Corderoy ra...@inputplus.co.uk Subject: Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive To: Rachel supp...@neverbounce.com Cc: SZÉPE Viktor vik...@szepe.net, s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu Hi Rachel, There's discussion on the s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu mailing list about a support reply from neverbounce.com. (Please keep s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu CC'd.) From: "Rachel (NeverBounce)" supp...@neverbounce.com To: Viktor Szépe vik...@szepe.net Subject: Re: false positive Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:40:15 +0100 ... We did have the chance to review the email in question, and it appears the domain is not configured properly, which is why the email is being marked as invalid. For delivering s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu, the DNS entries are $ dig +nocomment @8.8.8.8 lists.sdaoden.eu. ; <<>> DiG 9.13.7 <<>> +nocomment @8.8.8.8 lists.sdaoden.eu. ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;lists.sdaoden.eu. IN A lists.sdaoden.eu. 14399 IN CNAME sdaoden.eu. sdaoden.eu. 14399 IN A 217.144.132.164 ;; Query time: 52 msec ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8) ;; WHEN: Wed Mar 27 10:12:48 GMT 2019 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 75 $ RFC 5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, says https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-5 The lookup first attempts to locate an MX record associated with the name. If a CNAME record is found, the resulting name is processed as if it were the initial name. lists.sdaoden.eu has no MX record, but does have a CNAME for sdaoden.eu and so that should be then treated as the initial name. sdaoden.eu has no MX record. This is also covered in that section of RFC 5321: If an empty list of MXs is returned, the address is treated as if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0, pointing to that host. Thus sdaoden.eu is to be treated as an MX RR record. A lookup on that gives the A record for 217.144.132.164. That IP address is the one to connect to. Perhaps NeverBounce are getting confused with this part: When a domain name associated with an MX RR is looked up and the associated data field obtained, the data field of that response MUST contain a domain name. That domain name, when queried, MUST return at least one address record (e.g., A or RR) that gives the IP address of the SMTP server to which the message should be directed. Any other response, specifically including a value that will return a CNAME record when queried, lies outside the scope of this Standard. So an MX RR's value can't resolve to a CNAME, but the implicit one above doesn't, it gives an A. It's perfectly valid, and explicitly covered above, for the lookup desiring an MX to find a CNAME. Please can you re-appraise NeverBounce's RFC compliance. Thanks. Steffen, don't change you DNS configuration. It's correct and helps flush out problems like this that may be affecting NeverBounce's treatment of other addresses. -- Cheers, Ralph. - End forwarded message - SZÉPE Viktor, webes alkalmazás üzemeltetés / Running your application https://github.com/szepeviktor/debian-server-tools/blob/master/CV.md ~~~ ügyelet/hotline: +36-20-4242498 s..
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
##- Please type your reply above this line -## You are registered as a CC on this support request (15233). Reply to this email to add a comment to the request. *Rachel* (NeverBounce) Mar 27, 5:05 PM EDT Hello, Thank you for your patience as our team has requested some additional time to review this matter. Once the team has followed up, I will be sure to send any and all information obtained your way. I do apologize if this ticketing system does not CC the appropriate team members (this has happened in the past). I have included them in this send. Thank you again and have a wonderful day! All the best, Rachel Attachment(s) Screen Shot 2019-03-27 at 2.05.09 PM.png <https://neverbounce.zendesk.com/attachments/token/PBgpCAFiLGFxU29YzoWTlqa76/?name=Screen+Shot+2019-03-27+at+2.05.09+PM.png> *Rachel* (NeverBounce) Mar 27, 9:26 AM EDT Request #15234 <https://neverbounce.zendesk.com/hc/requests/15234> "Fwd: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive" was closed and merged into this request. Last comment in request #15234 <https://neverbounce.zendesk.com/hc/requests/15234>: Hello! Please forward it to your engineers. Maybe tell them to reread RFC 5321. Thank you. - Forwarded message from Ralph Corderoy ra...@inputplus.co.uk - Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:24:08 + From: Ralph Corderoy ra...@inputplus.co.uk Subject: Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive To: Rachel supp...@neverbounce.com Cc: SZÉPE Viktor vik...@szepe.net, s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu Hi Rachel, There's discussion on the s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu mailing list about a support reply from neverbounce.com. (Please keep s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu CC'd.) From: "Rachel (NeverBounce)" supp...@neverbounce.com To: Viktor Szépe vik...@szepe.net Subject: Re: false positive Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:40:15 +0100 ... We did have the chance to review the email in question, and it appears the domain is not configured properly, which is why the email is being marked as invalid. For delivering s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu, the DNS entries are $ dig +nocomment @8.8.8.8 lists.sdaoden.eu. ; <<>> DiG 9.13.7 <<>> +nocomment @8.8.8.8 lists.sdaoden.eu. ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;lists.sdaoden.eu. IN A lists.sdaoden.eu. 14399 IN CNAME sdaoden.eu. sdaoden.eu. 14399 IN A 217.144.132.164 ;; Query time: 52 msec ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8) ;; WHEN: Wed Mar 27 10:12:48 GMT 2019 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 75 $ RFC 5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, says https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-5 The lookup first attempts to locate an MX record associated with the name. If a CNAME record is found, the resulting name is processed as if it were the initial name. lists.sdaoden.eu has no MX record, but does have a CNAME for sdaoden.eu and so that should be then treated as the initial name. sdaoden.eu has no MX record. This is also covered in that section of RFC 5321: If an empty list of MXs is returned, the address is treated as if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0, pointing to that host. Thus sdaoden.eu is to be treated as an MX RR record. A lookup on that gives the A record for 217.144.132.164. That IP address is the one to connect to. Perhaps NeverBounce are getting confused with this part: When a domain name associated with an MX RR is looked up and the associated data field obtained, the data field of that response MUST contain a domain name. That domain name, when queried, MUST return at least one address record (e.g., A or RR) that gives the IP address of the SMTP server to which the message should be directed. Any other response, specifically including a value that will return a CNAME record when queried, lies outside the scope of this Standard. So an MX RR's value can't resolve to a CNAME, but the implicit one above doesn't, it gives an A. It's perfectly valid, and explicitly covered above, for the lookup desiring an MX to find a CNAME. Please can you re-appraise NeverBounce's RFC compliance. Thanks. Steffen, don't change you DNS configuration. It's correct and helps flush out problems like this that may be affecting NeverBounce's treatment of other addresses. -- Cheers, Ralph. - End forwarded message - SZÉPE Viktor, webes alkalmazás üzemeltetés / Running your application https://github.com/szepeviktor/debian-server-tools/blob/master/CV.md ~~~ ügyelet/hotline: +36-20-4242498 s...@szepe.net skype: szepe.viktor Budapest, III. kerület *Ralph Corderoy* Mar 27, 6:26 AM EDT Hi Rachel, There's discussion on the s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu mailing list about a support reply from neverbounce.com. (Please keep s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu CC'd.) > > > From: "Rachel (NeverBounce)" > > > To: Viktor Szépe > > > Subject: Re: false positive > > > Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:40:15 +0100 ... > > > We did have
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Good morning Ralph. Ralph Corderoy wrote in <20190327102408.d024621...@orac.inputplus.co.uk>: |Hi Rachel, | |There's discussion on the s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu mailing list about a |support reply from neverbounce.com. (Please keep |s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu CC'd.) ... |For delivering s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu, the DNS entries are | |$ dig +nocomment @8.8.8.8 lists.sdaoden.eu. | |; <<>> DiG 9.13.7 <<>> +nocomment @8.8.8.8 lists.sdaoden.eu. |; (1 server found) |;; global options: +cmd |;lists.sdaoden.eu. IN A |lists.sdaoden.eu. 14399 IN CNAME sdaoden.eu. |sdaoden.eu. 14399 IN A 217.144.132.164 |;; Query time: 52 msec |;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8) |;; WHEN: Wed Mar 27 10:12:48 GMT 2019 |;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 75 | |$ | |RFC 5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, says | |https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-5 | |The lookup first attempts to locate an MX record associated with the |name. If a CNAME record is found, the resulting name is processed |as if it were the initial name. | |lists.sdaoden.eu has no MX record, but does have a CNAME for sdaoden.eu |and so that should be then treated as the initial name. | |sdaoden.eu has no MX record. This is also covered in that section of |RFC 5321: | |If an empty list of MXs is returned, the address is treated as if it |was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0, |pointing to that host. | |Thus sdaoden.eu is to be treated as an MX RR record. A lookup on that |gives the A record for 217.144.132.164. That IP address is the one to |connect to. | |Perhaps NeverBounce are getting confused with this part: | |When a domain name associated with an MX RR is looked up and the |associated data field obtained, the data field of that response MUST |contain a domain name. That domain name, when queried, MUST return |at least one address record (e.g., A or RR) that gives the IP |address of the SMTP server to which the message should be directed. |Any other response, specifically including a value that will return |a CNAME record when queried, lies outside the scope of this |Standard. | |So an MX RR's value can't resolve to a CNAME, but the implicit one above |doesn't, it gives an A. It's perfectly valid, and explicitly covered |above, for the lookup desiring an MX to find a CNAME. | |Please can you re-appraise NeverBounce's RFC compliance. Thanks. | |Steffen, don't change you DNS configuration. It's correct and helps |flush out problems like this that may be affecting NeverBounce's |treatment of other addresses. Thank you for diving into the standards, Ralph. I even did it false all the time, did i. Ciao! --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
Hi Rachel, There's discussion on the s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu mailing list about a support reply from neverbounce.com. (Please keep s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu CC'd.) > > > From: "Rachel (NeverBounce)" > > > To: Viktor Szépe > > > Subject: Re: false positive > > > Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:40:15 +0100 ... > > > We did have the chance to review the email in question, and it > > > appears the domain is not configured properly, which is why the > > > email is being marked as invalid. For delivering s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu, the DNS entries are $ dig +nocomment @8.8.8.8 lists.sdaoden.eu. ; <<>> DiG 9.13.7 <<>> +nocomment @8.8.8.8 lists.sdaoden.eu. ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;lists.sdaoden.eu. IN A lists.sdaoden.eu. 14399 IN CNAME sdaoden.eu. sdaoden.eu. 14399 IN A 217.144.132.164 ;; Query time: 52 msec ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8) ;; WHEN: Wed Mar 27 10:12:48 GMT 2019 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 75 $ RFC 5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, says https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-5 The lookup first attempts to locate an MX record associated with the name. If a CNAME record is found, the resulting name is processed as if it were the initial name. lists.sdaoden.eu has no MX record, but does have a CNAME for sdaoden.eu and so that should be then treated as the initial name. sdaoden.eu has no MX record. This is also covered in that section of RFC 5321: If an empty list of MXs is returned, the address is treated as if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0, pointing to that host. Thus sdaoden.eu is to be treated as an MX RR record. A lookup on that gives the A record for 217.144.132.164. That IP address is the one to connect to. Perhaps NeverBounce are getting confused with this part: When a domain name associated with an MX RR is looked up and the associated data field obtained, the data field of that response MUST contain a domain name. That domain name, when queried, MUST return at least one address record (e.g., A or RR) that gives the IP address of the SMTP server to which the message should be directed. Any other response, specifically including a value that will return a CNAME record when queried, lies outside the scope of this Standard. So an MX RR's value can't resolve to a CNAME, but the implicit one above doesn't, it gives an A. It's perfectly valid, and explicitly covered above, for the lookup desiring an MX to find a CNAME. Please can you re-appraise NeverBounce's RFC compliance. Thanks. Steffen, don't change you DNS configuration. It's correct and helps flush out problems like this that may be affecting NeverBounce's treatment of other addresses. -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: [S-mailx] Fwd: false positive
SZÉPE Viktor wrote in <20190326195708.Horde.FedLUuWR6Vqq9cGcV2pYeQ5@sze\ pe.net>: |Would it be possible to add an MX record to lists.sdaoden.eu ?[1] | |- Forwarded message from "Rachel (NeverBounce)" | - | Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:40:15 +0100 | From: "Rachel (NeverBounce)" |Reply-To: NeverBounce |Subject: Re: false positive | To: Viktor Szépe ... |Thank you for reaching out! | |Currently, we do not offer whitelisting for particular email addresses |so that they result as valid. | |We did have the chance to review the email in question, and it appears |the domain is not configured properly, which is why the email is being |marked as invalid. Rachel obviously has a different opinion than our expert power user from the non-green island. And i think she is wrong too, following Ralph. But i will readd one now, especially since Russell did not care anyway. Again thanks for reporting this. ... | s-mailx@lists.sdaoden.eu is said to be invalid. |Could you fix it and manually set it to OK? Good night! --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
