Re: Trying to find out cause of blacklisting

In article <[email protected]>,
 "G|_|Y  |\\/|AC0|\\|" <[email protected]> wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote...
> 
> > Arne Bolen wrote:
> >
> >> A mail server should NEVER bounce email except for its own users. If you 
> >> get
> >> misdirected email it should be rejected during the SMTP session. Update 
> >> your
> >> qmail server or get another server.
> >>
> >> Because you let your server bounce email you deserve to be listed in
> >> SpamCop.
> >
> > As I understand it, applying the neccessary patch(es) to qmail to reject
> > instead of bouncing email would break at least two critical
> > functionalities, that of the .qmail-default alias, and ezmlm mailing
> > lists that we run.  At least one of these patches won't work properly
> > with vpopmail virtual domains because of permissions issues.
> 
> If your software has critical functionalities that require you to send 
> emails
> to random strangers just because some spammer forged their email address,
> then you need to throw it away and get some software that doen't force you
> to send email to people who didn't ask for it.
> 
> > Can you post a link to the RFC the server is violating by bouncing email?
> 
> Are you under the impression that the RFCs are a comprehensive list of every
> single undesirable behavior?  No RFC says that anyone has to accept any
> email that you send, and I can assure you that many, many systems will 
> reject
> your email if you don't figure out how to refrain from sending out email to
> people who have never had any contact with you.

I appreciate where you're coming from, it's just that these issues 
usually end up in RFCs sooner or later anyway.  Open relays, for 
example.  I like to think of myself as a fairly responsible and 
experienced email/unix sysadmin.

My software doesn't require that I send emails to random strangers, 
although apparently that has been the end result of bouncing 
undeliverable email, which I thought was standard, accepted MTA behavior 
most of the time.  I am apparently out of date, at least in the minds of 
SpamCop and adherents, and I can certainly understand where this can 
cause problems.

I do however, think that my setup minimizes it to a level most people 
would find acceptable.  If SA or CAV flags it with a high score, for 
example, it is not bounced, it is rejected.  This was necessary for 
basic survival after some of the nastier worms.  Believe me, I have seen 
the results of filtering that bounces all viruses and Spam, and the 
result is very ugly.  In fact, didn't/doesn't AOL do this?

For now, I might lower the SA score for rejecting email.  Currently it 
rejects at a score of 15 or higher and locally filters 6 to 15.  My 
guess is that it's this 6-15 email sent to non-existent users that's the 
cause of most problems.  In fact, until this blacklisting, it hasn't 
seemed to be that big an issue.