jdow a écrit :
If Verizon.net is blocking email to me that should never go near the
verizon.net servers I would be VERY interested to learn about it. You
have no idea how ballistic I would go. I use earthlink.net via my
partner's DSL connection. It traverses Verizon wires 'cause that's
all she wrote in this area. But email should never pass through any
Verizon servers at all. It should pass through routers and firewalls
between the earthlink.net servers and my machine as a simple fetchmail
operation between me and earthlink. So if you can document VERIZON
blocking any email set to me at my address listed in this email
I *REALLY* would like to know so that someone at some verizon office
can die a well earned death.
I get this:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host mxe.earthlink.net[209.86.93.239] said: 550
Dynamic IPs/open relays blocked. Contact
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. (in reply to MAIL FROM command)
whether I use my own server (static IP in a dyn range) or free.fr relay.
and of course, contacting the email address above results in another
error, which makes me wonder why they provide it in the first place. and
trying abuse@ doesn't help either. I could use other addresses and other
relays, but heh, I'm not the father of email.
if you want more infos, contact me offline (but I'll need to use another
relay, and I'm not certain it'll be accepted by earthlink:).
same for sorbs. sorbs have listed the postfix server twice this year,
and it seems their duhl is arbitrary (see dnsstuff url that I posted
before, but I have other "evidences"). so while I appreciate the
efforts that sorbs do to fight spam, and I understand that it's not an
easy battle, I won't accept a solution that destroys the benefits of
email. getting "somewhere" is silly. getting one step beyond is good.
Which postfix server?
I meant the server that manages the postfix ML (something.cloud9.net).
It was listed at sorbs, while some sorbs guys do use postfix and are
subscribed to that ML!
Earthlink uses a highly modified EXIM. It does
seem a communications breakdown happened with Earthlink needing to make
changes and the black lists refusing to verify their listings. In a
large IT department it is easy for internal communications to break down
and the DUL listing for the mail server block was forgotten about. It
would behoove the ISPs to make some observations of their own about
which ports really remain DUL and which are official secure mailing
machines that are reassigned addresses based on mail volume being
processed. It almost appears that indeed the block is dynamically
addressed with names potentially changing at need. But the machines
that can get on those addresses are a very highly controlled set of
machines entirely under Earthlink's net operations direct control.
Nonetheless they may well be technically "dynamically assigned hosts."
blocking dyn IPs was originally meant to block spam from zombies. now,
it seems to block legitimate mail, cos' spam is going its way anyway.
time to write software for spammers to get around such silly rules, so
that these rules get abandoned...
To this ISP dynamic addressing means they are agile in the face of
increased demands on resources. They can reassign machines quickly
and efficiently. To a black lister they may see this as a tool for
similar agility for a spammer. Is there a suitable middle ground?
I suspect good sense should enter the picture somewhere. But then,
perhaps the legal climate in wich the black lists live is close
enough to the edge that they cannot tailor rules to situations when
faced with hungry lawyers out to make a buck. I am sure that the
black listers and the legitimate ISPs need a communications channel
that does not require a tedious run up the technical support levels
at an AOL or an Earthlink.
I don't think so. at worst, the bl could list an IP as dyn. but if they
are asked to unlist t, and if rdns matches domain, then they should
unlist it (I don't see that much spammers trying to configure rdns for
all of the zombies. it's easier to use the local smart host).
Some are indeed just plain fscked up from the gitgo and plagued by
"attitude" and "arrogance". My first BL experience was very unfortunate
and tarnished my opinion of an important Internet benefactor, Paul Vixie.
In his black list persona he was a bull headed arrogant manure head from
Hell with no humor involved. This has also colored my opinion of black
lists and black listers. Those that DO police their lists and wash out
obsolete entries regularly are really good guys. I am arrogant enough
to feel every black lister should be as diligent. But then, the customers
of the flaky ones are their own worst enemies for not thinking this
filtering through.
unfortunately cargo cult is common...
