On 23 Jan, R P Herrold wrote:
| On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Sebastien DESREUX wrote:
|
| > I have tried to send email to procmail-users(_at_)procmail(_dot_)org; I
received the
| > following answer:
| >
| > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
| > <procmail-users(_at_)procmail(_dot_)org>
| > (reason: 553 5.3.0
<procmail(_at_)informatik(_dot_)rwth-aachen(_dot_)de>... Open spam
| > relay - see http://www.orbz.org/)
| >
| > So I checked www.orbz.org and tried the IP address of my mail server
| > (62.4.22.172); it is in fact *not blackholed* according to orbz.org:
|
| It is possible, but unlikely -- most probably some other
| mailserver is being rejected. Unfortunately the specific IP
| being rejected is not present in the mesage being returned by
| your MUA.
|
| As you may know, I am active on the procmail list, and happen
| also to be active with the ORBZ list. Please return to me off
| list, the extract of the rejection of that message in full
| from your MTA logfile , and I will assist you in the matter.
Sean Straw has pointed out that the problem is with 212.125.128.1
(hera.cuci.nl, or hera.x.cuci.nl) which is the highest priority mx for
procmail.org. They are apparently open to relay and and in the orbz db.
(I didn't check myself, but have no reason to question the accuracy of
Sean's legwork.)
But I think the problem goes beyond that. I got the following
(excerpted) transient error from a list post on 9/22/01:
Status: 4.1.5
Remote-MTA: DNS; hera.x.cuci.nl
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 450 4.1.5 <procmail-users(_at_)procmail(_dot_)org>...
Sorry,
headache. 198.143.217.70 see http://www.orbz.org/
This message looks a lot more like my server is the one tagged guilty
by orbz.org, though it's still ambiguous. However, the orbz reference
makes no sense with a transient error. A polite note to
admin(_at_)orbz(_dot_)org
and postmaster(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl yielded a prompt and polite response from Ian
Gulliver at orbz.org, confirming that my IP was NOT in the orbz.db, and
the same transient error from postmaster(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl(_dot_) A polite
followup to
postmaster(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl from another account went through, but was
unceremoniously ignored, as was the first when it was apparently
delivered.
So my guess is the problems with cuci.nl extend beyond being an open
relay. If the problem is that *they* are black-holed, then it would seem
the bounces of list posts they're generating are because they won't
accept mail to themselves (as mx) because *they're* black-holed. Doh!
Plus, they are either misconfigured to return the orbz reference with
more errors than just rbl hits (I'd guess *all* errors) which is really
misleading, or worse. I suspect worse, though I can't come up with a
consistently logical guess as to what it might be. IMO, ignoring
legitimate messages to postmaster is part of the problem. I don't give
a rat's patoot how big and important they *think* they are. It's a
responsibility that goes with the territory, or else they should look
for other work.
--
Reply to list please, or append "6" to "procmail" in address if you must.
Spammers' unrelenting address harvesting forces me to this...reluctantly.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail