[95832] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Blocking mail from bad places
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Simpson)
Thu Apr 5 17:08:40 2007
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:01:10 -0700
From: Ken Simpson <ksimpson@mailchannels.com>
To: "James R. Cutler" <james.cutler@consultant.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: Ken Simpson <ksimpson@mailchannels.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1HZYbl-0007Mq-Px@elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--Vo48LVc30GAQuLuW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
James R. Cutler [05/04/07 16:30 -0400]:
> Todd makes my point exactly. As he notes, the rejection message=20
> tells me that the message was rejected by some system. It does not=20
> tell my why it was rejected. Thus, just like this message, it adds=20
> more to the noise to signal ratio!
Has anyone ever thought of standardizing the 500-responses from the
DATA phase? For instance, maybe 571 could always mean "rejected
because of the spam filter".
If there was a standard for these response codes then maybe clients
like Microsoft Outlook could do something useful with the error
message.
Regards,
Ken
> At 4/5/2007 12:28 PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mailto:james.cutler@consultant.com>James R. Cutler
> To: <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Blocking mail from bad places
>=20
> At 4/5/2007 08:38 AM -0700, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
>=20
> One problem with the "bounce" solution is that <snip/>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
> So, I (Cutler) add:
>=20
> And, even the best-intentioned bounce messages often give lots of=20
> data, but no information, thus increasing the noise to signal=20
> ratio. For example, Paul most likely knows what the following means=20
> to him. To me it just means I can't send mail to Paul.
>=20
>=20
> Except that this message tells you why you cant send mail to Paul -=20
> because Paul's system refused it, not because Paul's system didnt=20
> exist or that Paul's address was bad.
>=20
>=20
> >This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
> >
> >A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> >recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
> >
> > paul@vix.com
> > SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<paul@vix.com>:
> > host sa.vix.com [204.152.187.1]: 553 5.7.1 Service unavailable;=20
> >Client host [209.86.89.61] blocked using reject-all.vix.com; created /=
=20
> >reason
> >
> >------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -
> James R. Cutler
> james.cutler@consultant.com
>=20
>=20
> -
> James R. Cutler
> james.cutler@consultant.com
--=20
Ken Simpson, CEO
MailChannels Corporation
Reliable Email Delivery (tm)
http://www.mailchannels.com
--Vo48LVc30GAQuLuW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGFWOW2YHPr/ypq5QRAnlcAKC1VNa2hegWZMKdgHpwMtmVlVO2TgCgqmvJ
van1dP8YEw/NxxLSdw9YZRc=
=XBwp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Vo48LVc30GAQuLuW--
