At 06:55 AM 5/17/2008, John Ackermann N8UR wrote... >I think this is some sort of weird backscatter problem; I've never >seen >this message before. > >But I've unsubscribed this joconnell person in the hopes that will >stop it.
It will, but the root problem is at febo.com (failure to follow RFCs), which is resulting in message rejection and a bounce back to the Reply-To: addresses (including [email protected]). > > WHY DID THIS HAPPEN ? > > ===================== > > 550 ######## DNS RHS BLACKLIST: http://www.rfc-ignorant.org > ######## If you follow the link and look up febo.com, and find that "ns1.febo.com reports that febo.com has an MX (meow.febo.com) which ns1.febo.com says is a CNAME (to febo.com)" RFC1912 says: Don't use CNAMEs in combination with RRs which point to other names like MX, CNAME, PTR and NS. (PTR is an exception if you want to implement classless in-addr delegation.) For example, this is strongly discouraged: podunk.xx. IN MX mailhost mailhost IN CNAME mary mary IN A 1.2.3.4 [RFC1034] in section 3.6.2 says this should not be done, and [RFC974] explicitly states that MX records shall not point to an alias defined by a CNAME. But that is exactly what febo.com is doing: dig -t MX febo.com ... ;; ANSWER SECTION: febo.com. 495834 IN MX 10 meow.febo.com. dig meow.febo.com ... ;; ANSWER SECTION: meow.febo.com. 573937 IN CNAME febo.com. febo.com. 193364 IN A 24.123.66.139 Having said that, the system which is doing the bouncing (conwin.ie) is brain-dead and doing something even worse - sending the bounce with no From: header (I assume, since my email server ends up putting a local From: on it to make the message RFC legal). _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
