Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Handling abuse complaints (was: Abusive behavior by Google Inc)

2016-04-14 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian 
Sigh - I'm having a throwback moment to the worse parts of 90s nanae and spam-l 
with this whole thread.  

At least nanae had cat stories and pun cascades to balance out the weirdness.

--srs

> On 14-Apr-2016, at 9:37 PM, Esa Laitinen  wrote:
> 
> So, instead of investigating yourself and terminating the spamming customer 
> you forward the complaint (in the worst case  unedited) to the customer for 
> listwashing?
> 
> What an idea! I hope the spammers don't find your service, as you'd land in 
> quite a few filters. This might cause even more customers leaving.

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Handling abuse complaints (was: Abusive behavior by Google Inc)

2016-04-14 Thread andre 
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:07:37 +0200
Esa Laitinen  wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:38 PM,  wrote:
> > Basically, if I receive a bounce from gmail saying that they think
> > my email is spam, i sent the same bounce to my client - so that
> > they can fix / adjust their behavior...
> 
> From the rant I found actually this interesting.
> So, instead of investigating yourself and terminating the spamming
> customer you forward the complaint (in the worst case  unedited) to
> the customer for listwashing?
> What an idea! I hope the spammers don't find your service, as you'd
> land in quite a few filters. This might cause even more customers
> leaving.

sorry, i realize that many of you probably have zero/little/no technical
skills... I apologize it is my fault for not typing/communicating more
clearly :(

- what i obviously meant was that I do not re-write email headers.

Email bounces are generally returned to Return-path:

I do not read clients email and should i receive an actual complaint at
my abuse-c :)  I will deal with that ...

[anti-abuse-wg] Handling abuse complaints (was: Abusive behavior by Google Inc)

2016-04-14 Thread Esa Laitinen 
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:38 PM,  wrote:

> Basically, if I receive a bounce from gmail saying that they think my
> email is spam, i sent the same bounce to my client - so that they can
> fix / adjust their behavior...
>

>From the rant I found actually this interesting.

So, instead of investigating yourself and terminating the spamming customer
you forward the complaint (in the worst case  unedited) to the customer for
listwashing?

What an idea! I hope the spammers don't find your service, as you'd land in
quite a few filters. This might cause even more customers leaving.

esa


-- 
Mr Esa Laitinen
Skype: reunaesa
Yahoo: reunaesa
Mobile: +4178 838 57 77

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc

2016-04-14 Thread andre 
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:48:30 +0100
Rob Evans  wrote:
> > so... exam...@gmail.com sends an email to mich...@blacknight.com
> > who bounces - "no such user"
> > Gmail sends bounce to exam...@gmail.com --- blacknight.com --
> > technical read error / technical failure blacknight.com
> Isn't this more likely to be a bug or a mishandled error rather
> than malevolence?
> 
i wish it was, but I do not think that it is as Gmail is non responsive
on the issue - after receiving full headers and complaints from
numerous of their own users and over longer than a week and,
additionally, it is still ongoing.

If it was a bug or a technical issue: The current searchable forums
clearly explain where google used this custom/closed/cryptic error,
as Suresh correctly stated, it is a message when the packet is dropped
off before termination and it also is an error from google apps related
to when the connection is dropped on SPF failure, etc.

This is not external -> Gmail, but Gmail to external -> Gmail to Gmail

If there is network connectivity issues between google servers it only
happens when dnsbl or 550 bounce, etc is received for when Google
phish/scam/spam

too much coincidence and over too much time - so, my opinion right now
is that this is abuse, it is evil and it is simply to avoid
responsibility for handling abuse and then to reflect this same failure
on the very victims that is refusing to receive their abuse.

sofar - nobody has said anything to the contrary?

andre

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc

2016-04-14 Thread Rob Evans 
> so... exam...@gmail.com sends an email to mich...@blacknight.com
> 
> who bounces - "no such user"
> 
> Gmail sends bounce to exam...@gmail.com --- blacknight.com -- technical
> read error / technical failure blacknight.com

Isn't this more likely to be a bug or a mishandled error rather
than malevolence?

Rob

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc

2016-04-14 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian 
You are seeing a failure case of some sort rather than an actual bounce and 
that needs trouble shooting

I hate to break it to you but this isn't a plot against your weird and 
wonderful notions of smtp and filtering - it is just those notions running up 
against a busy mailserver cluster

--srs

> On 14-Apr-2016, at 9:08 PM, an...@ox.co.za wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:52:30 +0530
> Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
> 
>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc
> maybe... 
> 
> maybe if nobody cares what others are doing, then it all makes no
> difference.
> 
> but yet, when what others are doing affects your own wallet, then you
> may actually care?
> 
> When email is transported over the Internet servers understand how to
> communicate with each other as their are defined protocols.
> 
> These are not immutable laws, but they are and serve, as a method that
> makes things work, and up to now, I believed in the fairness of it all.
> 
> Basically, if I receive a bounce from gmail saying that they think my
> email is spam, i sent the same bounce to my client - so that they can
> fix / adjust their behavior...
> 
> Looks like their is some seriosu new implications for email abuse, as
> we are all now starting to re-write headers and Google is teaching us
> this unethical and abusive behavior - by making it a defacto standard?
> 
> So, I can now also start re-writing bounces saying : Gmail.com
> Technical failure, gmail.com is completely unreachable o9n the
> Internet, etc etc and if anyone and everyone is now going to start
> sending lies and fake bounces then life is about to get interesting...
> 
> When a company, which is very close to a monopoly already, grows their
> userbase by lying to their customers, this is simply abuse in itself.
> If I am wrong and it is not abuse, is it ethical? 
> 
> This is most assuredly a topic for this ripe wg
> 
> as this type of abuse, if Google now starts making this a new standard,
> has the effect of disrupting communications and other far reaching
> implications commercially = or help me and explain to me why this is
> okay and I am wrong, please?
> 
> andre
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> --srs
>> 
>>> On 14-Apr-2016, at 8:38 PM, an...@ox.co.za wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:24:11 +0530
>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
>>> 
 I don't work for gmail fyi (as a quick google search will tell you,
 or a Bing if you hate google so much) and I don't use sorbs either,
 not since the late 2000s anyway.
 
 Without seeing a smtp txn with logging all the way up or a tcpdump
 I am not sure what is going on but a read error probably means
 you're dropping the smtp connection right after the 5xx without
 giving gmail the time to gracefully QUIT the smtp session.  Or
 vice versa
>>> 
>>> No. 
>>> 
>>> This is a gmail bounce to a gmail customer (for example my own gmail
>>> account)
>>> 
>>> nothing to do with @ox.co.za - except that @ox.co.za sends:
>>> JunkMail rejected - is in an RBL, see Client host blocked using
>>> Barracuda Reputation, see
>>> http://www.barracudanetworks.com/reputation/?r=1  etc etc.
>>> 
>>> so, when Gmail cannot deliver to @ox.co.za - because of dnsbl
>>> (whether it is SORBS, SpamCop, SpamID.net or whomever, Gmail does
>>> not tell the customer that the mail is being returned because just
>>> a minute earlier google tried to drop 1000 phish on ox.co.za -
>>> instead tells the customer: "read error" technical failure -- it is
>>> not a technical failure at all! - it is simply that google is
>>> sp[amming (or being used by their users to distribute spyware/phish
>>> or whatever) and it is NOT A technical read error at all!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 --srs
 
> On 14-Apr-2016, at 8:05 PM, an...@ox.co.za wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:51:27 +0530
> Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
>> This isn't quite mailop but anyway - what specifically do you
>> mean by replace here?
> Yes, but is is an abuse wok group - it is important that the group
> also discusses abuse, more so if their is abusive behavior from a
> huge multinational.
> 
>> Do you strip mime parts that you consider spam or malware and
>> replace them with a suitable message?  And is the gmail mta not
>> reacting well to that?
>> 
>> Examples would be interesting - certainly much more interesting
>> than a vague rant.
> Not a vague rant at all - the original post already contains the
> information. Gmail is behaving poorly/abusively.
> 
> maybe you require me to add additional information? - as there is
> ZERO chance that you do not know what I am complaining about...
> 
> I do wonder why you are not simply replying honestly and openly?
> 
> ... Gmail customer sends email from Gmail to @ox.co.za
> 
> ox.co.za responds: Listed at SORBS Currently sending SPAM!
> 
> Gmail sends "improved" bounce report to Gmail

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc

2016-04-14 Thread an...@ox.co.za 
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:28:48 +
Michele Neylon - Blacknight  wrote:
> >This serves to INCREASE their monopoly as well as HURT smaller hosts
> >- we lost three customers today, because of EVIL Google.
> 
> Or because you aren’t offering an attractive enough service.. 
> 

How?

Maybe this is still not clear to some?

This is ALL gmail.com -- nothing to do with me or you...

Let me try to personalize it for you maybe?

so... exam...@gmail.com sends an email to mich...@blacknight.com

who bounces - "no such user"

Gmail sends bounce to exam...@gmail.com --- blacknight.com -- technical
read error / technical failure blacknight.com


What does this have to do with the service levels @blacknight.com ?



> >
> >And, you may say, well so what - but wait until this happens to you
> >as this action actually serves to steal our small amount of
> >customers who now employ / pay the same people that abused us in the
> >first place.
> >
> >Not nice. Not ethical. Not fair. EVIL.
> 
> Is life fair?
> 
> In any case I don’t see what this has to do with anti-abuse
> 
> Regards
> 
> Michele
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> http://www.blacknight.host/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://ceo.hosting/
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> ---
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
> Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.:
> 370845
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc

2016-04-14 Thread andre 
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:52:30 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:

> Post hoc ergo propter hoc
> 
maybe... 

maybe if nobody cares what others are doing, then it all makes no
difference.

but yet, when what others are doing affects your own wallet, then you
may actually care?

When email is transported over the Internet servers understand how to
communicate with each other as their are defined protocols.

These are not immutable laws, but they are and serve, as a method that
makes things work, and up to now, I believed in the fairness of it all.

Basically, if I receive a bounce from gmail saying that they think my
email is spam, i sent the same bounce to my client - so that they can
fix / adjust their behavior...

Looks like their is some seriosu new implications for email abuse, as
we are all now starting to re-write headers and Google is teaching us
this unethical and abusive behavior - by making it a defacto standard?

So, I can now also start re-writing bounces saying : Gmail.com
Technical failure, gmail.com is completely unreachable o9n the
Internet, etc etc and if anyone and everyone is now going to start
sending lies and fake bounces then life is about to get interesting...

When a company, which is very close to a monopoly already, grows their
userbase by lying to their customers, this is simply abuse in itself.
If I am wrong and it is not abuse, is it ethical? 

This is most assuredly a topic for this ripe wg

as this type of abuse, if Google now starts making this a new standard,
has the effect of disrupting communications and other far reaching
implications commercially = or help me and explain to me why this is
okay and I am wrong, please?

andre




> --srs
> 
> > On 14-Apr-2016, at 8:38 PM, an...@ox.co.za wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:24:11 +0530
> > Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
> > 
> >> I don't work for gmail fyi (as a quick google search will tell you,
> >> or a Bing if you hate google so much) and I don't use sorbs either,
> >> not since the late 2000s anyway.
> >> 
> >> Without seeing a smtp txn with logging all the way up or a tcpdump
> >> I am not sure what is going on but a read error probably means
> >> you're dropping the smtp connection right after the 5xx without
> >> giving gmail the time to gracefully QUIT the smtp session.  Or
> >> vice versa
> > 
> > No. 
> > 
> > This is a gmail bounce to a gmail customer (for example my own gmail
> > account)
> > 
> > nothing to do with @ox.co.za - except that @ox.co.za sends:
> > JunkMail rejected - is in an RBL, see Client host blocked using
> > Barracuda Reputation, see
> > http://www.barracudanetworks.com/reputation/?r=1  etc etc.
> > 
> > so, when Gmail cannot deliver to @ox.co.za - because of dnsbl
> > (whether it is SORBS, SpamCop, SpamID.net or whomever, Gmail does
> > not tell the customer that the mail is being returned because just
> > a minute earlier google tried to drop 1000 phish on ox.co.za -
> > instead tells the customer: "read error" technical failure -- it is
> > not a technical failure at all! - it is simply that google is
> > sp[amming (or being used by their users to distribute spyware/phish
> > or whatever) and it is NOT A technical read error at all!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> --srs
> >> 
> >>> On 14-Apr-2016, at 8:05 PM, an...@ox.co.za wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:51:27 +0530
> >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
>  This isn't quite mailop but anyway - what specifically do you
>  mean by replace here?
> >>> Yes, but is is an abuse wok group - it is important that the group
> >>> also discusses abuse, more so if their is abusive behavior from a
> >>> huge multinational.
> >>> 
>  Do you strip mime parts that you consider spam or malware and
>  replace them with a suitable message?  And is the gmail mta not
>  reacting well to that?
>  
>  Examples would be interesting - certainly much more interesting
>  than a vague rant.
> >>> Not a vague rant at all - the original post already contains the
> >>> information. Gmail is behaving poorly/abusively.
> >>> 
> >>> maybe you require me to add additional information? - as there is
> >>> ZERO chance that you do not know what I am complaining about...
> >>> 
> >>> I do wonder why you are not simply replying honestly and openly?
> >>> 
> >>> ... Gmail customer sends email from Gmail to @ox.co.za
> >>> 
> >>> ox.co.za responds: Listed at SORBS Currently sending SPAM!
> >>> 
> >>> Gmail sends "improved" bounce report to Gmail customer:
> >>> 
> >>> example:
> >>> 
>  Date: 14 April 2016 at 14:09:39 SAST
>  To: custo...@gmail.com
>  
>  Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
>  
>    an...@ox.co.za
>  
>  Technical details of permanent failure: 
>  read error: generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error
>  
>  - Original message -
> >>> 
> >>> 
>  --srs
> >>> 
> >>> andre
> >>> 
> >>> 
>

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc

2016-04-14 Thread andre 
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:24:11 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:

> I don't work for gmail fyi (as a quick google search will tell you,
> or a Bing if you hate google so much) and I don't use sorbs either,
> not since the late 2000s anyway.
> 
> Without seeing a smtp txn with logging all the way up or a tcpdump I
> am not sure what is going on but a read error probably means you're
> dropping the smtp connection right after the 5xx without giving gmail
> the time to gracefully QUIT the smtp session.  Or vice versa 
> 

No. 

This is a gmail bounce to a gmail customer (for example my own gmail
account)

nothing to do with @ox.co.za - except that @ox.co.za sends:
JunkMail rejected - is in an RBL, see Client host blocked using Barracuda 
Reputation, 
see http://www.barracudanetworks.com/reputation/?r=1  etc etc.

so, when Gmail cannot deliver to @ox.co.za - because of dnsbl (whether it
is SORBS, SpamCop, SpamID.net or whomever, Gmail does not tell the
customer that the mail is being returned because just a minute earlier
google tried to drop 1000 phish on ox.co.za - instead tells the
customer: "read error" technical failure -- it is not a technical
failure at all! - it is simply that google is sp[amming (or being used
by their users to distribute spyware/phish or whatever) and it is NOT A
technical read error at all!



> --srs
> 
> > On 14-Apr-2016, at 8:05 PM, an...@ox.co.za wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:51:27 +0530
> > Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
> >> This isn't quite mailop but anyway - what specifically do you mean
> >> by replace here?
> > Yes, but is is an abuse wok group - it is important that the group
> > also discusses abuse, more so if their is abusive behavior from a
> > huge multinational.
> > 
> >> Do you strip mime parts that you consider spam or malware and
> >> replace them with a suitable message?  And is the gmail mta not
> >> reacting well to that?
> >> 
> >> Examples would be interesting - certainly much more interesting
> >> than a vague rant.
> > Not a vague rant at all - the original post already contains the
> > information. Gmail is behaving poorly/abusively.
> > 
> > maybe you require me to add additional information? - as there is
> > ZERO chance that you do not know what I am complaining about...
> > 
> > I do wonder why you are not simply replying honestly and openly?
> > 
> > ... Gmail customer sends email from Gmail to @ox.co.za
> > 
> > ox.co.za responds: Listed at SORBS Currently sending SPAM!
> > 
> > Gmail sends "improved" bounce report to Gmail customer:
> > 
> > example:
> > 
> >> Date: 14 April 2016 at 14:09:39 SAST
> >> To: custo...@gmail.com
> >> 
> >> Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
> >> 
> >>an...@ox.co.za
> >> 
> >> Technical details of permanent failure: 
> >> read error: generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error
> >> 
> >> - Original message -
> > 
> > 
> >> --srs
> > 
> > andre
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>> On 14-Apr-2016, at 7:17 PM, an...@ox.co.za wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Hello,
> >>> 
> >>> Incase anyone receives weird NON RFC bounces, from @gmail.com
> >>> customers saying:
> >>> 
> >>> Technical details of permanent failure: 
> >>> read error: generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error
> >>> 
> >>> What this means is:
> >>> 
> >>> Google Inc does REPLACE the "Blocked for abuse / spam /scams /
> >>> phish / virus / spyware messages from the various filters
> >>> 
> >>> and sens a cryptic non RFC message to their users implying that
> >>> the receivers email server is broken in some way
> >>> 
> >>> This is truly EVIL of Google to do...
> >>> 
> >>> As they, Google are the ones sending PHISH / VIRUS/ SCAMS / SPAM!
> >>> 
> >>> Example: @209.85.218.43
> >>> 
> >>> http://www.scammed.by/scam.php?id=185816
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Instead of SOLVING the abuse - Google chooses to send CRYPTIC
> >>> technical failure messages...
> >>> 
> >>> Because they are a monopoly and they are simply just too large to
> >>> care??
> >>> 
> >>> Yes, of course!
> >>> 
> >>> Andre
> >

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc

2016-04-14 Thread andre 
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:50:14 +0100
Richard Clayton  wrote:
> >Incase anyone receives weird NON RFC bounces, from @gmail.com
> >customers saying:
> >Technical details of permanent failure: 
> >read error: generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error
> >What this means is:
> >Google Inc does REPLACE the "Blocked for abuse / spam /scams /
> >phish / virus / spyware messages from the various filters
> >and sens a cryptic non RFC message to their users implying that the
> >receivers email server is broken in some way
> >This is truly EVIL of Google to do...
> >As they, Google are the ones sending PHISH / VIRUS/ SCAMS / SPAM!
> >
> >Example: @209.85.218.43
> >http://www.scammed.by/scam.php?id=185816
> This is a complex example involving an email delivered to a gmail
> account and forwarded from there to Yahoo
> I cannot see "failed_precondition" anywhere on that page at all :-(
> 
209.85.218.43 is simply one of the many google IP numbers currently
listed for spam, phish, virus and other abuse...

I have headers for the gmail bounce message: "read error:
generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error"  and I seriously
doubt if gmail would try to deny this bounce - as I do not have one,
but many many headers of many many different google ip numbers.

So, it is not a discussion about whether this is happening or about what
is happening - but a discussion about what it means that it is
happening.

Simply: What it means is that Google is not returning emails with any
acceptable bounce message but choosing to bounce emails with cryptic
custom messages that IMPLY that the receiver email servers are somehow
broken.

This has serious implications for everyone that is not gmail as gmail
does not accept resposibility for their abuse, does not repair or fix
their abuse timerously BUT instead bounce and point the finger at their
victims.

This serves to INCREASE their monopoly as well as HURT smaller hosts -
we lost three customers today, because of EVIL Google.

And, you may say, well so what - but wait until this happens to you as
this action actually serves to steal our small amount of customers who
now employ / pay the same people that abused us in the first place.

Not nice. Not ethical. Not fair. EVIL. 

andre

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc

2016-04-14 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian 
I don't work for gmail fyi (as a quick google search will tell you, or a Bing 
if you hate google so much) and I don't use sorbs either, not since the late 
2000s anyway.

Without seeing a smtp txn with logging all the way up or a tcpdump I am not 
sure what is going on but a read error probably means you're dropping the smtp 
connection right after the 5xx without giving gmail the time to gracefully QUIT 
the smtp session.  Or vice versa 

--srs

> On 14-Apr-2016, at 8:05 PM, an...@ox.co.za wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:51:27 +0530
> Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
>> This isn't quite mailop but anyway - what specifically do you mean by
>> replace here?
> Yes, but is is an abuse wok group - it is important that the group also
> discusses abuse, more so if their is abusive behavior from a huge
> multinational.
> 
>> Do you strip mime parts that you consider spam or malware and replace
>> them with a suitable message?  And is the gmail mta not reacting well
>> to that?
>> 
>> Examples would be interesting - certainly much more interesting than
>> a vague rant.
> Not a vague rant at all - the original post already contains the
> information. Gmail is behaving poorly/abusively.
> 
> maybe you require me to add additional information? - as there is ZERO
> chance that you do not know what I am complaining about...
> 
> I do wonder why you are not simply replying honestly and openly?
> 
> ... Gmail customer sends email from Gmail to @ox.co.za
> 
> ox.co.za responds: Listed at SORBS Currently sending SPAM!
> 
> Gmail sends "improved" bounce report to Gmail customer:
> 
> example:
> 
>> Date: 14 April 2016 at 14:09:39 SAST
>> To: custo...@gmail.com
>> 
>> Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
>> 
>>an...@ox.co.za
>> 
>> Technical details of permanent failure: 
>> read error: generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error
>> 
>> - Original message -
> 
> 
>> --srs
> 
> andre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> On 14-Apr-2016, at 7:17 PM, an...@ox.co.za wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> Incase anyone receives weird NON RFC bounces, from @gmail.com
>>> customers saying:
>>> 
>>> Technical details of permanent failure: 
>>> read error: generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error
>>> 
>>> What this means is:
>>> 
>>> Google Inc does REPLACE the "Blocked for abuse / spam /scams /
>>> phish / virus / spyware messages from the various filters
>>> 
>>> and sens a cryptic non RFC message to their users implying that the
>>> receivers email server is broken in some way
>>> 
>>> This is truly EVIL of Google to do...
>>> 
>>> As they, Google are the ones sending PHISH / VIRUS/ SCAMS / SPAM!
>>> 
>>> Example: @209.85.218.43
>>> 
>>> http://www.scammed.by/scam.php?id=185816
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Instead of SOLVING the abuse - Google chooses to send CRYPTIC
>>> technical failure messages...
>>> 
>>> Because they are a monopoly and they are simply just too large to
>>> care??
>>> 
>>> Yes, of course!
>>> 
>>> Andre
>

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc

2016-04-14 Thread Richard Clayton 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

In message , an...@ox.co.za writes

>Incase anyone receives weird NON RFC bounces, from @gmail.com customers
>saying:
>
>Technical details of permanent failure: 
>read error: generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error
>
>What this means is:
>
>Google Inc does REPLACE the "Blocked for abuse / spam /scams / phish /
>virus / spyware messages from the various filters
>
>and sens a cryptic non RFC message to their users implying that the
>receivers email server is broken in some way
>
>This is truly EVIL of Google to do...
>
>As they, Google are the ones sending PHISH / VIRUS/ SCAMS / SPAM!
>
>Example: @209.85.218.43
>
>http://www.scammed.by/scam.php?id=185816

This is a complex example involving an email delivered to a gmail
account and forwarded from there to Yahoo

I cannot see "failed_precondition" anywhere on that page at all :-(

- -- 
richard  Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase aBenjamin
little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.Franklin

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBVw+uJju8z1Kouez7EQLTHQCg/Pmx1aoc8dggv+u24arozup8p7MAnjw0
R0+PztMI5ooo3trIcOro7Ecv
=yK7e
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc

2016-04-14 Thread andre 
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:51:27 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
> This isn't quite mailop but anyway - what specifically do you mean by
> replace here?
> 
Yes, but is is an abuse wok group - it is important that the group also
discusses abuse, more so if their is abusive behavior from a huge
multinational.

> Do you strip mime parts that you consider spam or malware and replace
> them with a suitable message?  And is the gmail mta not reacting well
> to that?
> 
> Examples would be interesting - certainly much more interesting than
> a vague rant.
> 
Not a vague rant at all - the original post already contains the
information. Gmail is behaving poorly/abusively.

maybe you require me to add additional information? - as there is ZERO
chance that you do not know what I am complaining about...

I do wonder why you are not simply replying honestly and openly?

... Gmail customer sends email from Gmail to @ox.co.za

ox.co.za responds: Listed at SORBS Currently sending SPAM!

Gmail sends "improved" bounce report to Gmail customer:

example:

> Date: 14 April 2016 at 14:09:39 SAST
> To: custo...@gmail.com
> 
> Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
> 
> an...@ox.co.za
> 
> Technical details of permanent failure: 
> read error: generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error
> 
> - Original message -
> 


> --srs
> 

andre






> > On 14-Apr-2016, at 7:17 PM, an...@ox.co.za wrote:
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Incase anyone receives weird NON RFC bounces, from @gmail.com
> > customers saying:
> > 
> > Technical details of permanent failure: 
> > read error: generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error
> > 
> > What this means is:
> > 
> > Google Inc does REPLACE the "Blocked for abuse / spam /scams /
> > phish / virus / spyware messages from the various filters
> > 
> > and sens a cryptic non RFC message to their users implying that the
> > receivers email server is broken in some way
> > 
> > This is truly EVIL of Google to do...
> > 
> > As they, Google are the ones sending PHISH / VIRUS/ SCAMS / SPAM!
> > 
> > Example: @209.85.218.43
> > 
> > http://www.scammed.by/scam.php?id=185816
> > 
> > 
> > Instead of SOLVING the abuse - Google chooses to send CRYPTIC
> > technical failure messages...
> > 
> > Because they are a monopoly and they are simply just too large to
> > care??
> > 
> > Yes, of course!
> > 
> > Andre
> > 
>

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc

2016-04-14 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian 
This isn't quite mailop but anyway - what specifically do you mean by replace 
here?

Do you strip mime parts that you consider spam or malware and replace them with 
a suitable message?  And is the gmail mta not reacting well to that?

Examples would be interesting - certainly much more interesting than a vague 
rant.

--srs

> On 14-Apr-2016, at 7:17 PM, an...@ox.co.za wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Incase anyone receives weird NON RFC bounces, from @gmail.com customers
> saying:
> 
> Technical details of permanent failure: 
> read error: generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error
> 
> What this means is:
> 
> Google Inc does REPLACE the "Blocked for abuse / spam /scams / phish /
> virus / spyware messages from the various filters
> 
> and sens a cryptic non RFC message to their users implying that the
> receivers email server is broken in some way
> 
> This is truly EVIL of Google to do...
> 
> As they, Google are the ones sending PHISH / VIRUS/ SCAMS / SPAM!
> 
> Example: @209.85.218.43
> 
> http://www.scammed.by/scam.php?id=185816
> 
> 
> Instead of SOLVING the abuse - Google chooses to send CRYPTIC technical
> failure messages...
> 
> Because they are a monopoly and they are simply just too large to care??
> 
> Yes, of course!
> 
> Andre
>