Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc
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
> 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
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 customer: > > example: > >> Date: 14 April 2016 a
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc
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
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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > On 14-Apr-2016, at 7:17 PM, an
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc
On 14/04/2016, 16:01, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of an...@ox.co.za" 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.. > >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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In message , an...@ox.co.za writes >> >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... OK ... so the URL was a complete red herring, and the complexity of what was going on there is completely irrelevant >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. It is impossible to do anything but speculate without the actual email and full headers to hand. >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 that entirely escapes me ... why would an email bounce (whether RFC compliant or not) which is generated by gmail [when one of their customers sends you email and you elect to refuse delivery] have any implications for anyone else at all ? >This serves to INCREASE their monopoly as well as HURT smaller hosts - >we lost three customers today, because of EVIL Google. I suspect that these customers have learnt that you are setting great store by SORBS's opinion that accepting email from Google is undesirable (which I think places you in a very small minority of mail service providers). If these customers are keen to receive email sent to them by their friends at Google then I cannot see that your service is suitable for their needs. Do you think this RIPE WG has a role in assisting them in seeking a refund ? That might be an interesting topic to explore. - -- 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+1sju8z1Kouez7EQJW+ACg0DnxfnOF6bKZJq1oltOBc4f3HKUAn27W gUUwGK74a0/IFImpSxNJOZce =8v+v -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc --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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > 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
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In message , an...@ox.co.za writes >... 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 - >> in order to comment on the RFC compliance of this message (assuming that this was in any way relevant to RIPE) it would be necessary to provide the raw message with all headers intact (preferably as a text file offlist, perhaps on a web server somewhere as a .txt file to avoid any mangling) the quoting process has probably collapsed down some of the MIME structures making it hard to determine who created what create a test example if you are concerned about PII/data-protection because mangling/redacting messages can often cause misdiagnosis - -- 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+vOju8z1Kouez7EQLBBACfZ917gyNxOhNIZtEl+rhCYW4taB8Ani4/ Y9YcQUD4cZnrlqY11PGXNG7O =U0xn -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc
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
-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
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
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 >
[anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc
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