Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Meneldur

Mailhost system confused

Recommended Posts

Hi, everybody.

Look here:

http://members.spamcop.net/sc?id=z67853399...7d065837787a6dz

I've done many times the process of registering this mailhost with no success. The problem seems to be in the "received" line that says:

Received: from unknown (HELO postino9.prima.com.ar) (172.16.1.99) by 172.16.1.106 with SMTP; 30 Sep 2004 10:37:41 -0000

If I manually delete that line, the parser works fine. But I want to use automated scripts for sending spam to SC. :unsure:

I've deleted and remade this mailhost map four times with no success. It's my original ISP address, where all of my email gets redirected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, to help other people: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z678533997zc4...7d065837787a6dz

The result I am seeing right now is:

Parsing header:

0: Received: from unknown (HELO postino9.prima.com.ar) (172.16.1.99) by 172.16.1.106 with SMTP; 30 Sep 2004 10:37:41 -0000

Internal handoff or trivial forgery

1: Received: from unknown (HELO spf10.us4.outblaze.com) (205.158.62.72) by postino9.prima.com.ar with SMTP; 30 Sep 2004 10:37:40 -0000

Hostname verified: spf10.us4.outblaze.com

Possible forgery. Supposed receiving system not associated with any of your mailhosts

Is postino9.prima.com.ar listed in your mailhosts configuration? Since it is an internal only IP address, I believe this mailhost should require a waiver to complete the process.

For that matter, since postino9.prima.com.ar is a non-routable IP address, is spf10.us4.outblaze.com or 205.158.62.72 listed in your mailhost config?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The postin0 line is identified as a trivial or internal handoff, and is actually ignored. The MailHost thing is stumbling over the first line with an IP, which is the Outblaze to postino handoff, which is then identified as not being in the MailHost configuration for this user. There is no way I'm going to try to guess as to how and why it allegedly workd if the first internal header line is deleted. As just stated, the parser appears to be ignoring it anyway. Definitely an Ellen/Depuities item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, everybody.

Look here:

http://members.spamcop.net/sc?id=z67853399...7d065837787a6dz

I've done many times the process of registering this mailhost with no success. The problem seems to be in the "received" line that says:

Received: from unknown (HELO postino9.prima.com.ar) (172.16.1.99) by 172.16.1.106 with SMTP; 30 Sep 2004 10:37:41 -0000

If I manually delete that line, the parser works fine. But I want to use automated scripts for sending spam to SC:unsure:

I've deleted and remade this mailhost map four times with no success. It's my original ISP address, where all of my email gets redirected.

18176[/snapback]

Well there is a problem with that first header and I added IP 172.16.1.106 to your mailhost -- it would be much better if that header line had a FQDN in the "by" clause as per RFCs. If that non-routable IP changes then the parses will fail again. You are going to need to keep an eye on this and if you have any influence it would be nice to get that received header stamped correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well there is a problem with that first header and I added IP 172.16.1.106 to your mailhost -- it would be much better if that header line had a FQDN in the "by" clause as per RFCs. If that non-routable IP changes then the parses will fail again. You are going to need to keep an eye on this and if you have any influence it would be nice to get that received header stamped correctly.

18191[/snapback]

Thanks everybody.

At Oct 03 03:12 GMT-3 the parser still got caught and showed the error again.

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z678657773z25...80e1c1a59e7830z

The internal handoff now used 172.16.1.99, so it failed as you said. I'll contact my ISP regarding this situation. However, as almost all ISPs here in Argentina, they do not want to recheck this, think users are dumb paying machines and have no control by other institutions... hehe! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×