Re: why our server got listed?

Mike Easter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oleg Bulyzhin wrote:
> 
>> Correct me if i'm wrong: server may be listed if (and due to!) it does
>> conform rfc822 (i.e. will send bounce)? And you can avoid this if you
>> violate this part of rfc822?
> 
> You are wrong.  Sending newmails you are calling 'bounces' to forged
> From addresses is no longer acceptable server behavior.

Okay. I was wrong naming such messages 'bounces', rfc calls them DSNs.
And of course it's not rfc822 it's rfc821 (or newer one 2821).
> 
> rfc822 does not state that you should create a newmail and address it to
> a bogus address.  rfc822 does not address the issue of forged From.
> rfc822 was written in yesteryear before there was any such thing as SFC
> or other such as domain keys to verify authenticity of source and did
> not address the necessity to avoid abusive server behavior caused by
> more forged From mail failures than real ones.

rfc821 (status: standard), 3.6 Relaying:
...
If a server-SMTP has accepted the task of relaying the mail and
later finds that the forward-path is incorrect or that the mail
cannot be delivered for whatever reason, then it must construct an
"undeliverable mail" notification message and send it to the
originator of the undeliverable mail (as indicated by the
reverse-path).


rfc2821 (status: proposed standard), 3.7 Relaying:
...
If an SMTP server has accepted the task of relaying the mail and
later finds that the destination is incorrect or that the mail cannot
be delivered for some other reason, then it MUST construct an
"undeliverable mail" notification message and send it to the
originator of the undeliverable mail (as indicated by the reverse-
path).


And you can't avoid situation when you have to accept message first and
deliver it later. Point.
Just remember there are non-smtp mail systems.


> Talking about rfc822 isn't going to keep an abusive server from being
> blocklisted. 

Uhm. I didnt ask for delisting or whitelisting.
I just want to know why i got listed.


> If you will go to the faq I cited earlier
> http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html  Why are auto responders
> bad?
> 
> you will see mention of that same 'rfc822 song and dance' and an answer.
> 
> // Q: Why not allow bounces? They are required by RFC822!  A: [...] it
> is possible to avoid the situation under which they are required (see
> above). So they aren't really required unless you have already 'painted
> yourself into a corner.' //

As i mentioned above i'm talking about DSNs (which i incorrectly named bounce).
Supressing DSNs is standard violation. _There are_ situations when you should 
accept mail and deliver it later.

-- 
Oleg.