Not my address, but my users' addresses, and many random addresses @ my domain. Failure to accept mail as "postmaster" is a violation of RFC2821: (I know, so is failure to send NDRs...)
4.5.1 Minimum Implementation In order to make SMTP workable, the following minimum implementation is required for all receivers. <...> Any system that includes an SMTP server supporting mail relaying or delivery MUST support the reserved mailbox "postmaster" as a case- insensitive local name. This postmaster address is not strictly necessary if the server always returns 554 on connection opening (as described in section 3.1). The requirement to accept mail for postmaster implies that RCPT commands which specify a mailbox for postmaster at any of the domains for which the SMTP server provides mail service, as well as the special case of "RCPT TO:<Postmaster>" (with no domain specification), MUST be supported. SMTP systems are expected to make every reasonable effort to accept mail directed to Postmaster from any other system on the Internet. In extreme cases --such as to contain a denial of service attack or other breach of security-- an SMTP server may block mail directed to Postmaster. However, such arrangements SHOULD be narrowly tailored so as to avoid blocking messages which are not part of such attacks. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:49 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important Interesting that your address is being used for SPAM, I haven't seen that, usually the addresses are randomly generated. I tried to contact the postmaster at mcmathlaw.com to comment on their SPAM filter and say that I thought it was a joke and would feel bad to be one of their users because who knows how much email they aren't seeing and interestingly enough I get back... <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host mail.mcmathlaw.com[64.139.70.12] said: 550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Recipient unknown (in reply to RCPT TO command) So they are spoofing an address on the responses to alleged SPAM. Cracks me up. That puts them in the category of SPAM IMO. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derek Harris Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 2:28 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important I've been getting a lot of bounces lately from spam with forged headers, and I report them all as spam. I have my spam settings pretty loose, and block most with RBLs & static, in-house blacklists. I get very few false-positives, and most of those end up in my quarantine, where I can add them to a whitelist. It's extra work for me, but still better than spamming other innocent people, and ending up blacklisted. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 10:49 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important I think for SPAM this is probably good because if it isn't SPAM, the headers weren't forged and it may be nice to know that someone didn't get the message. For instance, say you were sending some fairly important message and you know that RR was disabled on their mail system, you would have to assume they got it or worse, call them to ask if they got it - "Yeah... I just sent you an email, did you get it... derrr". For AV stuff, yes, I absolutely agree, do not send messages back saying the message I sent had a virus. I hate that because I know I didn't send a message with a virus but some numbskull who happens to have my email address in their contacts sent it. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derek Harris Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:28 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important Setting spam filters to send a reply is, IMHO, totally irresponsible, since the From: headers on spam are ALWAYS forged. The admins at these organizations then complain about getting listed on RBLs, because they are effectively relaying spam. Sorry about the soapbox speech -- just a bit of a pet peeve... -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:19 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important LOL. The previously attached EML kicked off even more SPAM filters, 11 at last count. That just cracks me right up. A society in fear of SPAM and viruses.... -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 10:35 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: FW: RE: [ActiveDir] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important Looks like MCMATHLAW.COM has their SPAM filter (MDaemon) set a little on the sensitive side.... I would hate to be behind that filter, can't imagine how much mail they are missing. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RE: [ActiveDir] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important MDaemon has identified your message as spam. It will not be delivered. >From : [EMAIL PROTECTED] To : <SOMERANDOMPERSON>@mcmathlaw.com Subject : RE: [ActiveDir] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yes, score=3.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_60,HTML_50_60, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.1.0 *** * 0.1 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML * 3.0 BAYES_60 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 60 to 80% * [score: 0.6164] * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message : Message contains [1] file attachments List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
