ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: More frustrating that not having [ietf] (Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender)

2003-12-17 08:22:22
I share your frustration. Yes this is another casualty of the spam wars. This is my isp...not me. Bankrupt in june these folk added every ip block that they could find on every spam black hole list to their null routing tables and in short order place in japan, nepal, new zealand and mexico could no longer reach me. I have an alternate email that dot forwards on my home pages and by january 1 i hope to have moved completely...web and email service, to a different ISP.






I find this more frustrating. I have a dynamic IP address, because fixed IP address ADSL isn't very common here in Australia. So I use DYNDNS to map my domain MX records. I can't get matching PTR records.

I'm assuming my mail bounced because I don't have matching PTR and MX records.

Why should email assume fixed IP addresses for email delivery, or rather, matching PTR and MX records ?

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:11:28 +1030 (CST)
From: MAILER-DAEMON(_at_)nosense(_dot_)org (Mail Delivery System)
To: ietf(_at_)2c9d1f3141b658e37c53395b25a04078(_dot_)nosense(_dot_)org
Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender


This is the Postfix program at host nosense.org.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.

For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the message returned below.

                        The Postfix program

<cook(_at_)cookreport(_dot_)com>: host mail.netaxs.com[207.8.186.26] said: 550 
5.7.1
    <cook(_at_)cookreport(_dot_)com>... 203.102.233.19 is unwelcome here


Reporting-MTA: dns; nosense.org
Arrival-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:10:54 +1030 (CST)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; cook(_at_)cookreport(_dot_)com
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host mail.netaxs.com[207.8.186.26] said: 550 5.7.1
    <cook(_at_)cookreport(_dot_)com>... 203.102.233.19 is unwelcome here

Received: from Dupy2.nosense.org (19.cust6.nsw.dsl.ozemail.com.au [203.102.233.19])
        by nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP
        id 262643F02A; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:10:54 +1030 (CST)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:10:53 +1030
From: Mark Smith 
<ietf(_at_)2c9d1f3141b658e37c53395b25a04078(_dot_)nosense(_dot_)org>
To: Gordon Cook <cook(_at_)cookreport(_dot_)com>
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail
Message-Id: <20031218011053(_dot_)25bfb6c9(_dot_)ietf(_at_)2c9d1f3141b658e37c53395b25a04078(_dot_)nosense(_dot_)org>
In-Reply-To: <p06010201bc061162f9f4(_at_)[10(_dot_)0(_dot_)1(_dot_)3]>
References: 
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)33(_dot_)0312161934050(_dot_)5049-100000(_at_)egate(_dot_)xpasc(_dot_)com>
        
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)44(_dot_)0312170757050(_dot_)15019-100000(_at_)netcore(_dot_)fi>
        
<20031217085723(_dot_)GB12898(_at_)login(_dot_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
        <p06010201bc061162f9f4(_at_)[10(_dot_)0(_dot_)1(_dot_)3]>
Organization: The No Sense Organisation
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; x-Spamnix=checked
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I just match on either the

"Sender: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"

header, or the ML specific email address I've created.

I'm using Sylpheed though, it seems to be more flexible on matching header fields than most other email clients I've used in the past.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:13:13 -0500
Gordon Cook <cook(_at_)cookreport(_dot_)com> wrote:

 >On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:00:38AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
 >>
 >>  I don't-  IMHO it's stupid to waste the precious bits in the subject
 >>  line to say "[ietf] " because there is no need for such.  The messages
 >>  can be filtered better using other thods as well, and humans can look
 >>  at the headers..
 >
 >I agree, for filtering everything's in the header already.
 >
 >Tim

 I  do not use eudora to forward list mail to separate mail boxes.
 therefore if i don't start list filtering into seperate mail boxes, i
 am forced to guess where a piece of mail might be ietf since adding 6
 characters to ever subject headers is judged unhelpful and
 > unacceptable?

 There is no sure way at all to tell from a subject line whether its
 IETF and to complain about adding 6 ascii characters to a subject
 line wasting bits if it gives several thousand humans a hint as to
 whether to open and read, or delete unopened, or delete mail to spam
 mail box seems to be strange.  But this point of view i guess is why
 the list keepers have not yet and probably never will do what most of
 the other lists that I receive do.

 --
 =============================================================
 The COOK Report on Internet Protocol,  609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031
 (Vonage) Subscription info & prices at
 http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml
Googin on real time global corp. http://cookreport.com/12.11.shtml Purchase 10
 years of back issues at http://www.cafeshops.com/cookreportinter.6936314
 E-mail cook(_at_)cookreport(_dot_)com or use cook(_at_)oldcolo(_dot_)com Free 
World Dial up 17318
 =============================================================



--
=============================================================
The COOK Report on Internet Protocol,  609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031
(Vonage) Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Googin on real time global corp. http://cookreport.com/12.11.shtml Purchase 10 years of back issues at http://www.cafeshops.com/cookreportinter.6936314 E-mail cook(_at_)cookreport(_dot_)com or use cook(_at_)oldcolo(_dot_)com Free World Dial up 17318
=============================================================




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>