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

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

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

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.. >

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?

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

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

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

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: >

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

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