How does this impact newsletters and the like that quite often use a
non-existent bounce address as the From?
What newsletters do that?
I see them all of the time. Also, how about autoresponding support systems
that tell you not to respond to the email. Do you think that every one of
those
No doubt about that. We get thousands of Verizon zombies connecting
to us every day. SenderBase.org shows 25,300 zombies active in the
last 30 days that start with pool and end with verizon.net.
Regarding Sender Address Validation in general. I believe this is
effectively the equivalent
What newsletters do that?
I see them all of the time.
Some legit send-only list servers use [EMAIL PROTECTED] where:
1. sender@ does not exist (aka no return path), which is RFC illegal.
2. DNS query for MX/A of @label.sender.domain gets an answer, but
trying to contact the MX/A times
]
**
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:54 AM
To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [IMail Forum] Verizon 450 action not taken
What
]
**
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:54 AM
To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [IMail Forum] Verizon 450 action not taken
What newsletters do
1. sender@ does not exist (aka no return path), which is RFC
illegal.
Yeh, that's why I call it illegitimate, and I see no reason to bend
over backwards for this deliberate misuse of the protocol. If the
sender can't afford to even devnull their bounces, they're a joke
After they do this on 5 different connection in 5 minutes, their IP
gets automatically blocked by my gateway for clear abuse --
Well, it's the way SAV works (I'm not saying you shouldn't enforce
your policy, but don't be surprised that it has this obvious false
positive, since SAV has
First off, I'm just killing time in the middle of the night while
waiting for some work to complete on a planned upgrade...
Anyway, I do understand these sender validation schemes, but they are a
bad idea in today's world due to the much larger threat of dictionary
attacks. I receive about
they were ignoring his MX records and going straight to his server
Verizon were calling back to the sending IP rather than the
@sender.domain's MX?
Amazingly stupid, ie, par for the course for Verizon mail policies. :)
Looking at verizon.net PTRs, I find 4 subdomains that connect to our
Len Conrad wrote:
It's obvious from above that verizon does not block outbound port 25
from their pool networks, which are badly infected with spam bots.
And their static nets are not totally clean.
So while hassling all of us with their weird mail policies, they also
allow their infected
My mail servers are not there for Verizon to block their spam with,
nor anyone else that wants to use SAV.
Your argument is only consistent if you believe that domain-only
validation (rather than user/LHS + domain/RHS) is *also*
inappropriate, since aren't your _DNS_
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:11 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Verizon 450 action not taken
My mail servers are not there for Verizon to block their spam with,
nor anyone else that wants to use SAV.
Your argument is only consistent if you believe that domain-only
validation
How does this impact newsletters and the like that quite often use a
non-existent bounce address as the From?
What newsletters do that?
I never, ever send a newsletter from a nonexistent bounce (envelope
sender) address. Quite the opposite. How do you clean your lists if
you don't have
Hello,
When I Google my problem I see thousands of reports of the same but nothing
specific to our setup (Imail 8.05, Declude, Simple DNS Plus).
Any insight would be appreciated.
My problem is this (which is a copy paste of part of an email I sent to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]):
For about two
01:03 20:47 SMTP-(3EFC3D80)
EHLO mail.mtwi.net
I have submitted the whitelist form entering both of the IP
addresses assigned to our mail server (69.51.66.5 69.51.66.6) and
multiple domain names hosted on that server (eg centric.net and
mtwi.net).
Well, I'll tell you one
haven't had any
time to work on the new install since then.
Thanks,
Katie
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Whiteman
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:59 PM
To: Katie LaSalle-Lowery
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Verizon 450 action
Of Katie
LaSalle-Lowery
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:29 PM
To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Subject: [IMail Forum] Verizon 450 action not taken
Hello,
When I Google my problem I see thousands of reports of the same but nothing
specific to our setup (Imail 8.05, Declude, Simple DNS
We do have an upgrade pending so if that's the solution we'll be in good
shape.
That is the solution to the roundtrip problem, yes, because 9.x lets
you hard-code a single, matching HELO for your system.
But I can't tell you that that is the sole issue you are having with
Verizon; it
@list.ipswitch.com
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Verizon 450 action not taken
I had the same exact problem with them. The problem eventually resolved
itself, but you need to have some type of Verizon account to get anywhere
with them. Do you or any of your customers have a Verizon account?
Marc
Way to go, Linda!
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Katie LaSalle-Lowery
To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:21 PM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Verizon 450 action not taken
I am happy to report resolution!!!
Just as a shot in the dark I asked Linda
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Katie
LaSalle-Lowery
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:29 PM
*To:* Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
*Subject:* [IMail Forum] Verizon 450 action not taken
Hello,
When I Google my problem I see thousands
What Verizon is doing here is a bad practice. Marc's server had
issues because his server is set up to only accept authenticated
connections on the SMTP port, so when Verizon calls back, they were
ignoring his MX records and going straight to his server which
rejects the
be lived to be understood.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1802-1882)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:50 PM
To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Verizon 450 action not taken
: [IMail Forum] Verizon 450 action not taken
Katie, et. al,
What Verizon is doing here is a bad practice. Marc's server had
issues because his server is set up to only accept authenticated
connections on the SMTP port, so when Verizon calls back, they were
ignoring his MX records and going
24 matches
Mail list logo
