RE: Website link for 207.173.187.220

I don't know the answer to your question regarding messages per second but we are a very small school district and probably only average about 5,000 emails per hour (including spam).  According or Task Manager, our server is under utilized as it rarely gets above 50% CPU utilization.

I've been watching my server for the last several days.  There have not been any Exchange queues created to send to dsbl.org, unless it creates then deletes so fast that I can't see it.

I was also able to send mail to my postmaster account from one of my external accounts, receive that message, then reply to it with no problems.

The info I got from DSBL.ORG's website regarding the removal process indicated that they would send an email to my postmaster account.  In the email would be a link that I need to click.  Assuming this is true, I would have had to have received the email in order to either click the link or at least reply to the email, but I didn't.

Thanks!
  Doug


-----Original Message-----
From: Alexey Lobanov [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 12:48 PM
To: Leisher, Doug
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DSBL-Contact] Website link for 207.173.187.220

Hello Doug.

Leisher, Doug пишет:

> Bert,
> 
> I did a search on my email server for all messages going to my
> postmaster (either as a recipient or sender) account.  There were none
> from dsbl.org.

At http://dsbl.org/listing?207.173.187.220 we can see the queue ID 
assigned by your server: <[email protected]>. This piece 
of information is intended for message tracking, and it must be 
sufficient for tracking in server logs. In addition, you know the exact 
time. How many messages per second does your system accept?

> 
> Other than waiting the week to do this removal process again,

I have to note that "next week" attempt will fail in same way if you do 
not locate and fix the bug.

> is there
> anyway I can expedite this?

No, but there are effective workarounds: http://dsbl.org/faq-listed#7days

Alexey
DSBL volunteer

> 
> Doug
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bert Driehuis [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 2:28 PM
> To: Leisher, Doug
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [DSBL-Contact] Website link for 207.173.187.220
> 
> [ Note: I do not represent DSBL. I just track [email protected] to keep
> abreast
> of possible issues that might affect my use of DSBL, and occasionally I
> help
> out with questions. You may get responses from other subscribers to
> [email protected], possibly even with dissenting opinions. ]
> 
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Leisher, Doug wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for your input Bert.  I used the ORDB.org site to test for open
>> relays as I've heard that's pretty good.
> 
> ORDB is a very good service. Unfortunately, the way it operates means 
> that it is extremely conservative, which results in at least half the 
> open relays and almost all open proxies flying under ORDB's radar. 
> That's not a criticism of ORDB; their conservatism makes them acceptable
> 
> to a different audience than DSBL's typical large-site postmasters.
> 
>> I was able to send an email to my postmaster account via an outside
>> email address.  I then saw that in my postmaster inbox and was able to
>> open it and reply to it.  So, if DSBL did send a message to my
>> postmaster account, I don't know why it appears to be held up.  I also
>> looked at my exchange queues and there aren't any for dsbl.org.  If my
>> postmaster account would have received such a message and then replied
>> to it, there would be an exchange queue for its delivery.
> 
> I can't look into your system, and neither can I see more of DSBL's than
> 
> you can, but in my experience, when the listing page says it was 
> delivered, it was delivered. Most commonly, when message disappear, they
> 
> get deleted by a misguided spam filter. Many authors of anti-spam tools 
> wilfully disregard an important invariant underlying e-mail delivery: 
> one should either reject, or accept and deliver, a message (that 
> delivery can be to a quaranteen folder, that's okay; deleting it isn't).
> 
> Your logs really should allow you to find out what happened.