Your system is rejecting my mail, this is not the first time this happened.
Yakov
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:08:43 +0000 (GMT)
From: Internet Mail Delivery
<postmaster(_at_)dedicated60-bos(_dot_)wh(_dot_)sprintip(_dot_)net>
To: research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com
This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields:
Return-path: <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
Received: from tcp-daemon.dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net by
dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003))
id <0HQ4001KW5MFZZ(_at_)dedicated60-bos(_dot_)wh(_dot_)sprintip(_dot_)net>
(original mail from research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com); Thu,
18 Dec 2003 23:08:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net
[68.29.181.209])
by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003))
with ESMTPA id
<0HQ400GX85L5NP(_at_)dedicated60-bos(_dot_)wh(_dot_)sprintip(_dot_)net> for
winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:07:57
+0000 (GMT)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:07:59 -0500
From: Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering?
In-reply-to: <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0(_at_)FAMILY>
Sender: yshafranovich02(_at_)sprintpcs(_dot_)com
To: Hector Santos <winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com>
Cc: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Message-id: <3FE2334F(_dot_)1090404(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc.
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5)
Gecko/20031007
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
References: <20031212214327(_dot_)GD20229(_at_)Space(_dot_)Net>
<20031212220719(_dot_)E9B7F16CFA(_at_)mail(_dot_)nitros9(_dot_)org>
<20031216232706(_dot_)GI51606(_at_)Space(_dot_)Net>
<20031218222423(_dot_)GB17431(_at_)mail>
<000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0(_at_)FAMILY>
Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:
Recipient address: winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com
Reason: SMTP transmission failure has occurred
Diagnostic code: smtp;554 Message Not Accepted by filter.
Remote system: dns;mail.winserver.com (winserver.com Wildcat! ESMTP
Server v5.7.450.9b10 ready)
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"Among all our enemies / The ones to be most feared are often the
smallest" (Jean de la Fontaine)
-------
Reporting-MTA: dns;dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (tcp-daemon)
Original-recipient: rfc822;winserver.support@winserver.com
Final-recipient: rfc822;winserver.support@winserver.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 (SMTP transmission failure has occurred)
Remote-MTA: dns;mail.winserver.com
(winserver.com Wildcat! ESMTP Server v5.7.450.9b10 ready)
Diagnostic-code: smtp;554 Message Not Accepted by filter.
--- Begin Message ---
Hector Santos wrote:
I would be on the side that after you after you given the right the
send, it would be the professional and ethical duty of the
"messenger" to deliver it. That is where ECPA issues may arise and
now CAN-SPAM regardless what Section 8 says. CAN-SPAM may not change
the fact that policy issues may prevail, the fact is ONCE you do
accept a message, you can't just get like it go into the LA-LA land
without a policy reason.
People better start waking up to the reality that CAN-SPAM will give
SPAMMERS the "right" to send as long as they follow the rules and
law. If you don't think they will use this in their favor in
situations where ISPs and sites are "blocking" them, then be ready
for a rude awakening. If the SPAMMER has a "conceptual contract"
with the user and you being to block this mail when they did
everything in the rule books, look out for fan debris.
This is a legal issue, and we are not lawyers. What exactly this law
will do is subject to debate by LAWYERS, not engineers. From the ASRG
charter (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html):
"ASRG will not pursue research into legal issues of spam, other than
the extent to which these issues affect, support, or constrain the
technology."
This topic is out of scope for the ASRG.
The IETF best get on the bandwagon to get the specifications cleared
up and begin to make them consistent with the law ASAP, not 18 months
from now.
Since the IAB is the liason for the entire IETF, this is something to be
taken up with them or on the main IETF list. From the IAB charter (RFC
2850):
"2. The Role of the IAB
...
(f) External Liaison
The IAB acts as representative of the interests of the IETF and the
Internet Society in technical liaison relationships with other
organizations concerned with standards and other technical and
organizational issues relevant to the world-wide Internet.
"
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called
users?" (Clifford Stoll)
-------
--- End Message ---