Hello Matus,
Monday, May 16, 2011, 3:28:04 PM, you wrote:
MUf> I think we agree that Yahoo has problems with 4xx although
MUf> not in all cases.
Mind a worse sin is using the same outbound servers for group emails
as they let all their spammers use.
--
Best regards,
Niamh
Mark Martinec wrote:
> Per,
>
>> Splitting hairs...
>
> No problem.
>
>> queueing is an implementation of a design, and almost
>> certainly what amavisd does :-)
>
> Surprise ... it doesn't. Queueing is left entirely in hands of an
> MTA, and if using a pre-queue setup such as a smtp proxy as
Per,
> Splitting hairs...
No problem.
> queueing is an implementation of a design, and almost
> certainly what amavisd does :-)
Surprise ... it doesn't. Queueing is left entirely in hands of an MTA,
and if using a pre-queue setup such as a smtp proxy as offered by Postfix
(or a milter setup) t
Mark Martinec wrote:
> David F. Skoll wrote:
>> That's a bad design. Our system can accept mail to multiple
>> recipients with individual filtering and without running many
>> SpamAssassin processes in parallel. It can be done.
>
> Indeed.
>
>
> Per Jessen wrote:
>> Sure, it's only a question
David F. Skoll wrote:
> That's a bad design. Our system can accept mail to multiple
> recipients with individual filtering and without running many
> SpamAssassin processes in parallel. It can be done.
Indeed.
Per Jessen wrote:
> Sure, it's only a question of queueing.
I'd join David and say
David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:19:26 +0200
> Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
>
>> > Nobody requires you to execute 100 spamassassin processes and
>> > nobody
>> It happen automaticaly if...
>> ...the system accept 100 messages at once for 100 different
>> recipients. Sending to 100 re
> > Nobody requires you to execute 100 spamassassin processes and nobody
> > requires to run them them in parallel. However, the RFCs DOES require you
> > accepting at least 100 recipients at once.
On 16.05.11 23:19, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> It happen automaticaly if...
> ...the system accept 100
On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:19:26 +0200
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > Nobody requires you to execute 100 spamassassin processes and nobody
> It happen automaticaly if...
> ...the system accept 100 messages at once for 100 different
> recipients. Sending to 100 recipients is like a DoS.
That's a bad de
Hello Matus UHLAR - fantomas,
Am 2011-05-16 10:51:26, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Nobody requires you to execute 100 spamassassin processes and nobody
It happen automaticaly if...
> requires to run them them in parallel. However, the RFCs DOES require you
> accepting at least 100 recipient
Hello Matus,
Monday, May 16, 2011, 3:28:04 PM, you wrote:
MUf> well, are you an yahoo employee?
ROFL
A bit of playing with whois might reveal a bit :)
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk
pgpNtyfzvCXfn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> Sunday, May 15, 2011, 5:49:39 PM, you wrote:
>
> MUf> The original claim was done Ted Mittelstaedt.
On 15.05.11 18:34, Niamh Holding wrote:
> Indeed, and it is that blanket claim I an refuting.
too late then. I think we agree that Yahoo has problems with 4xx although
not in all cases. And I th
On 15.05.11 18:50, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2011-05-15 18:08:36, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
>
> You are late!
>
> > so far, every RFC defining SMTP yet released. They all (821, 2821, 5321) say
> > at least 100 must be accepted.
>
> ...and what if your Mailserver can not handel the thr
On Fri, May 13, 2011 17:09, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> On 5/13/2011 1:58 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>> Not quite - Google's retry may come from another server in a different
>> range.
>
> if it did then mail from Google would be delayed significantly, like
> 12-24 hours for example.
>
Yes, exactly, t
Hello Matus,
Sunday, May 15, 2011, 5:49:39 PM, you wrote:
MUf> The original claim was done Ted Mittelstaedt.
Indeed, and it is that blanket claim I an refuting.
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk
pgplIv46kdvo3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hello Matus UHLAR - fantomas,
Am 2011-05-15 18:08:36, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
You are late!
> so far, every RFC defining SMTP yet released. They all (821, 2821, 5321) say
> at least 100 must be accepted.
...and what if your Mailserver can not handel the threatment of 100
recipients
On 12.05.11 12:49, Niamh Holding wrote:
> Hello Matus,
>
> Thursday, May 12, 2011, 12:11:10 PM, you wrote:
>
> MUf> Actyally, Michael Scheidell reported that yahoo miebehaves when receiving
> MUf> 4xx response after RCPT TO:
>
> Very different from the original blanket claim that "Yahoo's SMTP m
> > On 11.05.11 19:30, Joe Sniderman wrote:
> > > We do something similar, except that the maximum number of recipients
> > > per envelope we set at 1. The second and all subsequent get a 4yz error
> > > during RCPT. We perform this after greylisting, ie:
> Am 2011-05-12 09:06:10, hacktest Du fol
On 5/13/2011 1:58 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 18:06, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 5/12/2011 4:49 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Matus,
Thursday, May 12, 2011, 12:11:10 PM, you wrote:
MUf> Actyally, Michael Scheidell reported that yahoo miebehaves when
receiving
MUf> 4xx r
On Thu, May 12, 2011 18:06, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> On 5/12/2011 4:49 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
>>
>> Hello Matus,
>>
>> Thursday, May 12, 2011, 12:11:10 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> MUf> Actyally, Michael Scheidell reported that yahoo miebehaves when
>> receiving
>> MUf> 4xx response after RCPT TO:
>>
Hello Ted,
Thursday, May 12, 2011, 5:06:15 PM, you wrote:
TM> I mentioned that this was with greylist-milter, you are merely
TM> shifting your claim now to essentially blaming greylist-milter for
TM> not issuing a standard SMTP error 4xx.
No you didn't, and no I am not casting any aspersions on
On 5/12/2011 4:49 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Matus,
Thursday, May 12, 2011, 12:11:10 PM, you wrote:
MUf> Actyally, Michael Scheidell reported that yahoo miebehaves when receiving
MUf> 4xx response after RCPT TO:
Very different from the original blanket claim that "Yahoo's SMTP mailers a
On Thu, 12 May 2011 16:00:38 +0200
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Which RFC? Limiting the "recipients per envelope" is legitim.
Limiting it to 1 is pushing it. RFC 5321 says:
"The minimum total number of recipients that MUST be buffered is 100
recipients. Rejection of messages (for excessi
Hello Matus UHLAR - fantomas,
Am 2011-05-12 09:06:10, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> On 11.05.11 19:30, Joe Sniderman wrote:
> > We do something similar, except that the maximum number of recipients
> > per envelope we set at 1. The second and all subsequent get a 4yz error
> > during RCPT. We
Hello dar...@chaosreigns.com,
Am 2011-05-11 16:01:38, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> http://www.chaosreigns.com/dnswl/dnswlabusehistory.svg
>
> Percentage of total spam from legitimate email providers in April as
> reported as abuse to dnswl.org:
>
> 35.5% yahoo.com
Configuration option in /
Hello Matus,
Thursday, May 12, 2011, 12:11:10 PM, you wrote:
MUf> Actyally, Michael Scheidell reported that yahoo miebehaves when receiving
MUf> 4xx response after RCPT TO:
Very different from the original blanket claim that "Yahoo's SMTP mailers are
unable to handle a standard SMTP error 4xx,
Hello Ted,
Thursday, May 12, 2011, 9:54:56 AM, you wrote:
TM> I investigated and did not see retries from
TM> Yahoo's mailservers in the mail log file
Funnily enough I do see retries-
2009-10-03 02:01:32.887 tcpserver: ok 24589
mail.redbus.holtain.net:217.146.107.39:25
n10.bullet.mail.mud.ya
>> Thursday, May 12, 2011, 7:36:01 AM, you wrote:
>> TM> Your welcome to my exclusion list if you want it, I'm not
>> TM> going to post it here but anyone who wants a copy can just ask.
>> TM> Do you want a copy?
> On 5/12/2011 12:08 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
>> Of your exclusion list no, but I
On 5/12/2011 12:08 AM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Ted,
Thursday, May 12, 2011, 7:36:01 AM, you wrote:
TM> Your welcome to my exclusion list if you want it, I'm not
TM> going to post it here but anyone who wants a copy can just ask.
TM> Do you want a copy?
Of your exclusion list no, but I a
Hello Ted,
Thursday, May 12, 2011, 7:36:01 AM, you wrote:
TM> Your welcome to my exclusion list if you want it, I'm not
TM> going to post it here but anyone who wants a copy can just ask.
TM> Do you want a copy?
Of your exclusion list no, but I am asking you to post the evidence
backing up your
> On 05/11/2011 04:35 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> > if someone sends an email to 175 people, once they hit 'x' number in the
> > first email attempt, we send '4xx too many emails'
>
> > ie:
> > ehlo *.yahoo.com
> > mail from:
> > rcpt to:
> > 250 ok
> > rcpt to:
> > 250 ok
> > [skip to 100].
On 5/11/2011 10:58 PM, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello Ted,
Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 10:21:23 PM, you wrote:
TM> Yes, your Honor. (eyeroll)
Any intention to produce it in support of your claim?
Your welcome to my exclusion list if you want it, I'm not
going to post it here but anyone who want
Hello Ted,
Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 10:21:23 PM, you wrote:
TM> Yes, your Honor. (eyeroll)
Any intention to produce it in support of your claim?
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk
pgpxzoGYpki8k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 05/11, Adam Katz wrote:
> Long tail there; the sum of all of your items was 56.5%. Even if you
> truncated those numbers, it doesn't add up (56.5 + 19 * 0.1% = 58.4%).
Yup, sorry I wasn't clear, those were just the top, not the entire list.
> I'm not sure how much of my company's data I can
On 05/11/2011 04:35 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> if someone sends an email to 175 people, once they hit 'x' number in the
> first email attempt, we send '4xx too many emails'
> ie:
> ehlo *.yahoo.com
> mail from:
> rcpt to:
> 250 ok
> rcpt to:
> 250 ok
> [skip to 100].
> rcpt to:
> 4xx too
On 05/11/2011 04:19 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> I bet it's largely related to the fact that yahoo is apparently the only
> freemail provider that doesn't require you to have a previously existing
> email address.
Yahoo does not require an existing address.
Hotmail/MSN/Live does not require
On 05/11/2011 01:01 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> http://www.chaosreigns.com/dnswl/dnswlabusehistory.svg
Too bad FF doesn't let me zoom on an svg; had to hit F11 to see it.
> Percentage of total spam from legitimate email providers in April as
> reported as abuse to dnswl.org:
>
> 35.5% ya
On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:21:23 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> We have been using greylist-milter for years and all Yahoo's
> IP ranges are listed in the exception list, even the ones that they
> don't publish and you can only find by issuing a whois against the
> RIR database.
We've been using o
On Wed, 11 May 2011 16:51:58 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> ie: qmail, postfix, exchange, sendmail, all (can) send a 4xx after
> rcpt to.
Indeed.
> because thats what the RFC's say.
Note: I said "badly-written SMTP software", not "software that adheres
to the RFCs".
In the real world, 4xx a
On 05/11/2011 01:19 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> I bet it's largely related to the fact that yahoo is apparently the
> only freemail provider that doesn't require you to have a previously
> existing email address.
I just created a test @live.com (hotmail) account without an
existing address
On 5/11/2011 1:14 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:10:31 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Yahoo's SMTP mailers are unable to handle a standard
SMTP error 4xx, if they get one they abort the
transmission and return the message to the sender
Do you have evidence to back up that cl
On 5/11/11 4:49 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Ah, ok. We avoid issuing 4xx in response to a "RCPT" command because
quite a lot of badly-written SMTP software doesn't handle that well.
ie: qmail, postfix, exchange, sendmail, all (can) send a 4xx after rcpt to.
because thats what the RFC's say.
On Wed, 11 May 2011 16:35:50 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> if someone sends an email to 175 people, once they hit 'x' number in
> the first email attempt, we send '4xx too many emails'
Ah, ok. We avoid issuing 4xx in response to a "RCPT" command because
quite a lot of badly-written SMTP soft
On 5/11/11 4:14 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Do you have evidence to back up that claim? I don't believe
it's true. We use greylisting and Yahoo's servers don't seem
to have problems with it.
what I have observed; (no, we don't greylist)
but, we do keep a cluster of 4 mx servers per client. eac
I bet it's largely related to the fact that yahoo is apparently the only
freemail provider that doesn't require you to have a previously existing
email address.
I also suspect that, for this reason, google.com would send less spam
if they didn't allow yahoo addresses as the pre-existing address.
On 5/11/11 4:01 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
http://www.chaosreigns.com/dnswl/dnswlabusehistory.svg
Percentage of total spam from legitimate email providers in April as
reported as abuse to dnswl.org:
what is funny, is you said 'yahoo' and 'legit provider' all on one
subject line :-)
I t
On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:10:31 -0700
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Yahoo's SMTP mailers are unable to handle a standard
> SMTP error 4xx, if they get one they abort the
> transmission and return the message to the sender
Do you have evidence to back up that claim? I don't believe
it's true. We use g
On 11/05/2011 4:01 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
http://www.chaosreigns.com/dnswl/dnswlabusehistory.svg
Percentage of total spam from legitimate email providers in April as
reported as abuse to dnswl.org:
35.5% yahoo.com
6.4% google.com
2.9% tp.pl
2.3% tin.it
1.8% messagelabs.com
this is no surprise
Yahoo's SMTP mailers are unable to handle a standard
SMTP error 4xx, if they get one they abort the
transmission and return the message to the sender
Thus any commercial ISP that wants to retain customers
must exempt all of Yahoo's IP address ranges from
any greylisting filte
http://www.chaosreigns.com/dnswl/dnswlabusehistory.svg
Percentage of total spam from legitimate email providers in April as
reported as abuse to dnswl.org:
35.5% yahoo.com
6.4% google.com
2.9% tp.pl
2.3% tin.it
1.8% messagelabs.com
1.4% hotmail.com
1.1% postini.com
1.0% orange.fr
1.0% aol
49 matches
Mail list logo
