[ExchangeList] Re: I NEED TO GRIPE!
- From: "Greg Mulholland" <gmulholland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 08:49:19 +1000
not sure i like the idea of live ldap lookups but updating the recipient table
is a must..in my environments if you send an email to a non existing user i let
the mta deliver the ndr..
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: John T (Lists)
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:19 AM
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: I NEED TO GRIPE!
Those hosted solutions MUST NOW make changes to allow for either live LDAP
lookups or an automated way of updating a list of acceptable addresses.
John T
eServices For You
"Seek, and ye shall find!"
-----Original Message-----
From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Wall
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:30 PM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: I NEED TO GRIPE!
John - I agree. In a perfect world that is the policy that we should all
abide by.
But what about those organizations that use Frontbridge or similar hosted
SPAM/Content solutions and they are not able to verify if an email exists in a
customer's domain? The hosted center has to accept the email, filter it and
then send to a recipient domain. If it is unable to send the message to the
recipient domain b/c of recipient filtering or the address simply does not
exist, then the hosted center sends out an NDR. This 'man in the middle',
which is growing in popularity will hurt many organizations because of
SpamCop's decision.
Hopefully in the very near future, these hosted solutions will be able to
perform live LDAP type lookups before accepting mail for delivery.
Regards,
Chris Wall - MCSE + Messaging
NAM Exchange Administrator
Chris.Wall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
T (919) 460.3236
F (919) 468.4889
Global Knowledge
LEARNING. To Make a Difference.
http://www.globalknowledge.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John T (Lists)
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:18 PM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: I NEED TO GRIPE!
The biggest problem here that MANY over look is that you should not be
accepting email for non-existent addresses!
Period
End of Story.
I will back SpamCop on this issue. If you accept an email message and then
are subsequently unable to deliver it to its final destination or to another
server for delivery to its final destination then yes you are breaking RFC822.
(Note that "filtering" of the message in transit does not break RFC822 if such
filtering is at the request of the receiver or his/her email provider etc etc
blah blah blah)
What has to be done is stop accepting incoming email for non-existent
addresses. The connecting server is then given a 5.x.x return code and it is
then up to that connecting server to notify the sender by NDR.
John T
eServices For You
"Seek, and ye shall find!"
-----Original Message-----
From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Wall
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:14 AM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] I NEED TO GRIPE!
Any one wanting to read or chime in, please feel free! I know all of you are
e-mail admins, and you may have some thoughts on the subject as well.
I am extremely disappointed with SpamCop.net - one of the few blacklist sites
that have - rather, HAD a good reputation.
Is any one else being affected by their actions of Blacklisting domains
because they follow RFC822 and send NDR's when a mail is not successfully
delivered?
Okay, here's the overall story - SpamCop sets up these 'HoneyPot' email
addresses (whatever@xxxxxxx). SpamCop then sends e-mails out to many domains
(illegitimate e-mail addresses - basically acting as spammer's themselves) and
wait to see which domains send an NDR back to the 'HoneyPot' email address. If
your domain follows RFC822 and sends the NDR, they blacklist the IP address of
the server that sends the NDR.
Their website (http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html#bounces) even
details their stance on the issue. I have copied it below:
'Q: Why not allow bounces? They are required by RFC822!
A: Originally, SpamCop made attempts to forgive misdirected bounce messages -
to reject them as evidence of spam. However, there are two factors conspiring
to force us to rescind this policy. First of course, is that these misdirected
messages *are* spam as we define it (Unsolicited Bulk Mail). They are
objectionable to recipients and can even cause denial of service to innocent
third parties. Users of our blocking service want us to stop them.'
I understand what they are trying to accomplish - to prevent NDR's from being
sent to you when spammers 'spoof' your personal e-mail address. However,
SpamCop is punishing domains that abide by all security standards for e-mail
except for their 'rogue' approach to NDR delivery. Total BS in my opinion.
Now of course, any domain could enable LDAP authentication on incoming e-mail
and block NDR's being sent when an e-mail address is sent to a non-existent
e-mail address in your domain - BUT, even excluding RFC822 rules requiring
NDR's on e-mails that are not successfully delivered, most organizations want
to keep NDR's enabled so that senders are aware if a message is not
successfully sent. I mean, if a customer sends an e-mail to our domain and
misspells the SMTP address of one of our sales people - You want an NDR to go
back to them so hopefully they realize their mistake.
Spamcop.net even says to use SPF for checking the e-mail origin. Well, I use
SPF. But only block e-mails where the sending domain provides an SPF record
and the authentication fails. I am not going to block emails coming into our
domain just because a sending domain may not have SPF setup for their domain.
I mean, I cant force them to provide and SPF record, even though it is
recommended.
SpamCop.net users should either stop relying on their services or either use
SpamCop.net in a 'weighted' approach for determining SPAM.
Any way - I had to gripe about this poor decision on SpamCop's behalf and
would like to get your opinions.
Regards,
Chris Wall - MCSE + Messaging
NAM Exchange Administrator
Chris.Wall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
T (919) 460.3236
F (919) 468.4889
Global Knowledge
LEARNING. To Make a Difference.
http://www.globalknowledge.com
Other related posts:
