Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Shamusnc

  • Rank
  1. Shamusnc

    Netvisit server blocked, again

    Well, we can agree to disagree then. I disagree with the BL lists out there for many reasons and actually considered Spamcop to be one of the better ones for a while. [1] Once you start going down the path where "you" decide how things should work, then I feel that you are wrong. In conversations I've had in the past with various administrators of different systems I've found that the Linux/Unix adminstrators like to complain about the way Microsoft disregards the RFC's yet are most willing to disregard the RFC's when it suits them. That's my core issue. Those rules are put into place so ALL the systems can work together (at least most of the time) and we have an internet. There have been many suggestions to improve the SMTP protocols, but they are rarely implemented due to the massive changes that could impact mail flow. The HELO command still MUST be supported even after all these years of ELHO being the "standard". To be well thought out, RFC changes are challenged by many individuals so the net impact to the systems can be determined. [1] The majority of the BL's out there as you stated started as a private resource made public. The people running those BL's decided the way that mail should work for them (most of the time based on the way Sendmail works). Thanks for your time. JIM
  2. Shamusnc

    Netvisit server blocked, again

    That's great. If you don't like the way that the RFC is stated or worded, feel free to submit your comments or write your own. I've considered doing just that for another matter rather than make up the rules the way I see fit. http://www.rfc-editor.org/howtopub.html
  3. Shamusnc

    Netvisit server blocked, again

    True, but most of the companies I end up talking to don't realise the impact of what they are doing when they use Spamcop. It is listed in the FAQ not to use in production systems or to use as part of a scoring mechanism. I just wish more adminstrators would read that or look at what their ISP is doing when the ISP claims to be "blocking spam". <cough> BS <cough> As long as they have sales organizations, these companies will use OOF. Until there is a standard for user validation (i.e. The sending e-mail address is valid and is being sent by the user, not some robot) then you will get OOF and NDR messages to forged addresses.
  4. Shamusnc

    Netvisit server blocked, again

    My attitude is that people should follow the rules that are set forth by the IETF. That's a standards body that many people contribute to so standards can be defined for all. To define your own standards violates this princple. I here you. I've been the victim of those as well, but listing the way spamcop is doing can cause economic harm because they don't get valid traffic when they should. This also will cause lost business. By Spamcop's rules, you need to just blacklist every Fortune 1000 since they almost all use Out of Office messages. Don't forget include Ironport since they also use OOF.
  5. Shamusnc

    Netvisit server blocked, again

    You should correct that statement to read, "You are being listed for complying to the RFC's in a way that Spamcop doens't agree with". In your message earlier you said "If you do it properly, the errors won't be transmitted to the forged addresses in the heades of spam and wormy messages". Properly is defined by the RFC's and not a single persons opinion.
  6. Shamusnc

    Netvisit server blocked, again

    Is there some RFC that states that systems must be set up this way? I've read RFC 821 and 2821 and neither require that bounces MUST be done during the initial SMTP conversation? What about instances of mailbox limits or out of office messages? How about if I place restrictions on who can send to a mailbox and need to generate an NDR? While I agree that you SHOULD bounce during the initial SMTP conversation, there is nothing that states you MUST do that. To list someone for this places Spamcop as the standards body for the internet. I'm sorry, but they are not. IETF has committes that set forth the standards that "should" be followed. IEEE also does a lot of work in the interoperability standards area.