Re: several messages

"Chris Lewis" <clewis@nortel.com> Wed, 12 November 2008 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D3C3A6869; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:55:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755103A6869 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:55:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.695
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.695 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.388, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UlQ9o1sx3n+d for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:55:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zcars04f.nortel.com (zcars04f.nortel.com [47.129.242.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683C33A680F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:55:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zcars04f.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id mACKt7V12951 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:55:07 GMT
Received: from zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com ([47.140.202.65]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:54:52 -0500
Received: from [47.129.150.171] (47.129.150.171) by zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com (47.140.202.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.311.2; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:54:51 -0500
Message-ID: <491B4296.5070508@nortel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:54:46 -0500
From: Chris Lewis <clewis@nortel.com>
Organization: Nortel
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: several messages
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0811111552410.4831-100000@citation2.av8.net><200811120023.TAA05922@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG><004d01c944fb$07a7fe60$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0811121117180.8743@toro.popovich.net> <008601c944fd$950335c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
In-Reply-To: <008601c944fd$950335c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Nov 2008 20:54:52.0481 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8D09B10:01C94508]
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Huh?  Concrete, real example:  I send a message to an IETF mailing list.
> A list subscriber's ISP rejects the forwarded message.  IETF's mailman
> drops the subscriber, because this has been happened multiple times.
> I can't notify the subscriber, because their ISP also rejects my email.
> My ISP is irrelevant to the scenario, and the (now former) list subscriber
> doesn't even know this has happened, or why.

That sort of thing is rarely due to a DNSBL issue.  DNSBLs are usually
on peers.  For your email to have been blocked via both the IETF and
directly from you, it usually would have had to have been both the IETF
and you that was blocked by the list subscriber's ISP.  Which one would
hope would be a rare circumstance...

It was probably a content filter.

We whitelist many mailing lists and forwarders by IP, especially those
that talk about spam....  Unless they leak LOTS of real spam (we're
talking > 99% spam).  And some do.

> Another real, concrete example: some (but not all) messages sent via my
> employer were tossed because one of my employer's mail servers was
> listed on a blacklist.  As an employee, I had no alternatives for sending
> mail - company policy precluded the use of "webmail" alternatives via
> company infrastructure.

The duration of that event should have been short (and usually is).  And
companies do have means to deal with such eventualities.

For example, in a situation like that, many people can cope by sending
such critical email by non-company infrastructure.  Or relax the rules
for the duration of the problem.

Once or twice we've been inadvertently hit by a similar blacklisting.
They've always been resolved very quickly with little harm done.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf