Phil Stracchino wrote:
On 11/13/20 1:22 PM, John Fawcett wrote:
On 13/11/2020 07:38, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
My server bounced a message. Here is the server log (sanitized).
-----------------------------
Nov 13 02:07:52 myserver postfix/smtpd[27706]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from sonic302-23.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com[98.137.68.149]: 554 5.7.1
Service unavailable; Client host [98.137.68.149] blocked using
cbl.abuseat.org; Blocked - see
http://www.abuseat.org/lookup.cgi?ip=98.137.68.149;
from=<per...@sbcglobal.net> to=<m...@myserver.com> proto=ESMTP
helo=<sbcglobal.net>
-----------------------------------------------
Here is what the sender received:
--------------------------------------------
From: mailer-dae...@yahoo.com
Date: November 12, 2020 at 6:07:55 PM PST
To: per...@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Failure Notice
Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address.
<m...@myserver.com>:
554: 5.7.1 Service unavailable
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
-------------------------------------------------------
So did the Oath server swallow the useful link to abuseat.org? Can this
be improved?
missing NOT makes all the difference:
Your server rejected that message, so your server was NOT responsible for
generating the bounce message. That was generated by yahoo.
I think what the OP is asking here is, can Yahoo/Oath be compelled to
provide a more useful failure message relaying the informative response
provided by OP's Postfix instance.
And the answer to that, unfortunately, is no.
The meta-question is whether there's any benefit to blocking mail from
one of Yahoo!'s outgoing mail servers because it was listed in a DNSBL.
DNSBLs are useful where the majority of mail coming from an IP is spam.
The majority of mail received through that server is not spam.
