Re: several messages

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Fri, 14 November 2008 16:32 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 3C15528C0F4; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:32:19 -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 D480528C206 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:56:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 gLoGNqUEDMGN for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E9328C1CC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:56:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.25.46.dsl.charm.net [207.114.25.46]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mADGu7RG012983 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:56:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11]) by squonk.gsp.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mADGogsY015343 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:50:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with ESMTP id mADGu1HP004049 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:56:01 -0500
Received: (from rsk@localhost) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id mADGu1k7004048 for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:56:01 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:56:01 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: several messages
Message-ID: <20081113165601.GA2969@gsp.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0811121117180.8743@toro.popovich.net> <008601c944fd$950335c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <008601c944fd$950335c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:32:18 -0800
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

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:33:46AM -0800, 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.

This is not a DNSBL problem.  This is a problem with the subscriber's ISP,
which is not operating their mail system per de facto best practices --
which include making sure that rejection notices provide an alternate-channel
means of contacting them in order to discuss apparently-erroneous blocking.
There are a sizable number of techniques for doing this; I happen to think
the best ones are quite simple, e.g.:

	reject=550 5.7.1 <fred@example.com>... Mail refused - [201.45.252.2] listed by Spamhaus (http://www.spamhaus.org) - forward this message to nov-13-2008@example.com if you believe this is a mistake

of course nov-13-2008@example.com needs to be exempted from the same
blocking and should forward to the postmaster/abuse staff at example.com.

There are many other ways to accomplish the same thing at minimal effort
and cost; the unifying factor they all share is that recognize that all
anti-spam setups have non-zero FP rates, so it's a good idea to be prepared
to deal with those situations when they arise.

---Rsk
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf