[EAI] new test Re: Downgrade testing - Results

["YAO Jiankang" <[e-mail]>]

We use another EAI postfix system in another machine to have more tests today.
This time we use <eai <ascii>> to send the message to these ten echo email address.
**ALL get success***.


For the last test (eai postfix in different machine), the result is 

>>>> we get the nice response from the following 6 address
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> we get the reject information from 1 address
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> we can not get any response from other 3 addresses.
>>>>

This time, we do the new test by using another Alt-address.

the result is different:

>>>> we get the nice response from the following 8 address
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail] 
[e-mail]
[e-mail]


>>>> we get the reject information from 1 address
>>>> [e-mail]

[e-mail]

reject reason:

Action: failed 
Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure) 
Remote-MTA: dns; [163.173.128.13] 
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'<[e-mail]>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table


if  we send it directly to [e-mail]>, no response.


>>>> we can not get any response from 1 addresses.
[e-mail]


so in summary, the sending failure to these address may not due to downgrade protocol problem.
there is still a chance to reach all these address. The reason may be due to some little difference of implementation of downgrade.
different alt-address sometimes also cause different failure.


Yao Jiankang
CNNIC







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "YAO Jiankang" <[e-mail]>
To: "Ernie Dainow" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; "EAI" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [EAI] Downgrade testing - Results


> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ernie Dainow" <[e-mail]>
> To: "YAO Jiankang" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[e-mail]>; "EAI" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 7:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [EAI] Downgrade testing - Results
> 
> 
>> Some of your failures may be due to the environment and not the 
>> Downgrade. I ran a 'base' test by sending the email from an ASCII 
>> address to try and identify which failures are due to the environment 
>> (firewalls, network, etc.). 
>> 
> 
> 
> today,  we use the ascii address from the same machine to these 10 addresses. all get success.
> 
> so, that is to say that it is not the environment problem. 
> 
> 
> Yao Jiankang
> CNNIC
> 
>> On the Downgrade test, I received replies from all servers except these
>> [e-mail]
>> [e-mail]
>> [e-mail] (this address does not exist and you get a reject from  
>> [e-mail])
>> 
>> You received replies from the first two but not from three others that I 
>> did receive a reply from. This is a surprising difference. A base test 
>> might help explain it.
>> 
>>    -Ernie Dainow
>> 
>> 
>> YAO Jiankang wrote:
>>> btw, the implmentation is based on postfix.
>>> could TWNIC JPRS NIDA do the similar tests and report the results?
>>>
>>> YAO Jiankang
>>> CNNIC
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "YAO Jiankang" <[e-mail]>
>>> To: "Ernie Dainow" <[e-mail]>; "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[e-mail]>; "EAI" <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:10 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [EAI] Downgrade testing - Results
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>> we send to the following 10 address, with <eai<ascii>>
>>>>     
>>>>>> * [e-mail] 
>>>>>> * [e-mail] 
>>>>>> * [e-mail] 
>>>>>> * [e-mail] 
>>>>>> * [e-mail] 
>>>>>> * [e-mail]
>>>>>> * [e-mail]
>>>>>> * [e-mail] 
>>>>>> * [e-mail]
>>>>>> * [e-mail]
>>>>>>         
>>>> we get the nice response from the following 6 address
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> we get the reject information from 1 address
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> we can not get any response from other 3 addresses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yao Jiankang
>>>> CNNIC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "Ernie Dainow" <[e-mail]>
>>>> To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[e-mail]>; "EAI" <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 9:09 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [EAI] Downgrade testing - Results
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>> These echo tests were a good suggestion. I ran a base test from an ASCII 
>>>>> address against all echo servers in the list. All responded except 
>>>>> [e-mail]. Email bounced with "unknown address", so I  eliminated 
>>>>> that server from the test, leaving a total of 9 echo servers.
>>>>>
>>>>> The success rate for receiving a response from echo servers:
>>>>> 1) From ASCII, no downgrade      9/9      100%
>>>>> 2) From EAI, downgrade               7/9        78%
>>>>>
>>>>> [e-mail] provided some SpamAssassin analysis:
>>>>> 1) BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 1 to 5%
>>>>> 2) BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 5 to 20%
>>>>>
>>>>> For the downgrade test sent to individual participants the results were:
>>>>> Total Sent    11   (all on different email domains)
>>>>> Received       9    82%
>>>>> Blocked        2    18%
>>>>>
>>>>> These are not large samples, but it is interesting to see that the 
>>>>> success rate in both tests were similar, and were in the SpamAssassin 
>>>>> range of 20% probability of spam.
>>>>>
>>>>> I encourage other implementers to run the same set of tests so we can 
>>>>> get a larger sample and see if there are differences between Downgrade 
>>>>> implementations.
>>>>>
>>>>>    -Ernie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>>>>       
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:19:48AM -0400,
>>>>>>  Ernie Dainow <[e-mail]> wrote 
>>>>>>  a message of 41 lines which said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>> The Downgrade test reported on the wiki basically tested against gmail.  
>>>>>>> It would be valuable to do more testing 'in the wild' to see how  
>>>>>>> Downgrade traverses various email systems in other organizations.
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>> You can test against various auto-responders which send you back your
>>>>>> message (if you know other email addresses of auto-responders, do not
>>>>>> hesitate to publish them).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * [e-mail] 
>>>>>> * [e-mail] 
>>>>>> * [e-mail] 
>>>>>> * [e-mail] 
>>>>>> * [e-mail] 
>>>>>> * [e-mail]
>>>>>> * [e-mail]
>>>>>> * [e-mail] 
>>>>>> * [e-mail]
>>>>>> * [e-mail]
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>         
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> IMA mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
>>>>>       
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IMA mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima