Re: why our server got listed?

Oleg Bulyzhin wrote...

> 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.

Because spammers forge identities, the assumption that the originator
is indicated by the reverse-path (or by the From line) is now false in
the vast majority of cases, and "undeliverable mail" notification emails
are now nearly universally considered to be spam.  You need to stop
doing what the RFCs above tell you to do.  One way (the method most
commonly used) is to simply never relay, thus following the letter of
the RFCs without spamming. If your situation is such that you can't
avoid relaying, then you have two choices; disobey the RFC sections
that tell you to spam, or obey the RFC sections that tell you to spam
and be treated like the RFC-compliant spammer that you are.  I don't
like the available choices any better than you do, but they are the
only available choices just the same.

G.M.