RE: Website link for 207.173.187.220

Alexy,

Thanks for the explanation.  At some point maybe I'll take the time to
learn all the intricacies of emails (e.g., headers and envelopes).  For
now though, being somewhat of a novice as to the details of all this,
there needs to be a better process.  If I could have just contacted
someone at DSBL, this could have been resolved in a couple hours instead
of weeks.

Also, there is no reason why the "From" could not have
"[email protected]" in all references of it (header and envelope).
Again, this could be due to my inexperience with this but it seems kind
of sneaky to me for it to show as "<>".  Or, at least on the DSBL
website, have documentation as to exactly what the message header
(and/or envelope) will look like so that I could have looked for it.

Doug. . .

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexey Lobanov (dsbl) [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:56 AM
To: Leisher, Doug
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DSBL-Contact] Website link for 207.173.187.220

Hi Doug.

On 19/12/06 22:44, Leisher, Doug wrote:

> Finally, I was able to submit a removal request.

Good news.

>  After several hours
> with MS Exchange support we could not find any reference to the first
> two removal emails that were supposedly sent.  Prior to a third
request
> for removal, MS ran a trace of my system.  This time, for whatever
> reason, the message did arrive to my postmaster account.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> When I viewed the message, "DSBL" was in the From area.  When I opened
> the message, the From address had "DSBL [[email protected]]".  When I
> looked in Exchange message tracking, the From showed as <>.  Because
the
> message did not have a valid From address,=20

I ask you very much to read once more the basic e-mail standards. Empty
"Return-Path" in mail messages is VALID, and this standard option had
not changed since 1982.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html (1982)
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1123.html (1989)
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html (2001)

Just search for "<>" in all these documents.

Possibly, you need also to understand the difference between message
header and message envelope. RFC 821 versus RFC 822.

> something was rejecting it.
> MS support said this can happen with computer generated messages.

So, they have acknowledged that their mailserver software is loosing
legitimate data. And it looks like that it can do it in
non-deterministic way, taking in account your previous words about
"whatever reason".

The next question: are they going to fix this bug? If they don't, I
predict that you will have more severe problems related to lost
messages.

>=20
> =20
>=20
> Hopefully someone at DSBL looks at this and reformats their messages
so
> that it has a true From address.  This process was way too complicated
> (and frustrating) than it should have been.

Please address this issue to your software vendor. If they do not want
to know and follow the common standards, we can do nothing. Neither you
nor DSBL. However, you can use other mail software.

>=20
> =20
>=20
> Also, MS support once again verified that my Exchange server is not an
> open relay.  It would be very helpful if there was some way of
> determining exactly what put me on the blacklist in the first place.

The exact reason is displayed in "Messages in this host" section at
http://dsbl.org/listing?207.173.187.220 "Messages from this host"
section and explained also in support message from Ian Gulliver
http://dsbl.org/email?9046

This security hole seems to be fixed since that, either by you or by
Microsoft supporters. The next question is what had been done by
malicious people inside your system while it had empty "Administrator"
password?

Alexey

>=20
> =20
>=20
> Thanks to everyone that helped me with this.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Doug. . .
>=20
>=20