Jump to content

Email bounce back from spamcop.net client


tanvir

Recommended Posts

I am having problem with one of the spamcop.net client that my email bounces back. below is the message I get.

Subject: Undeliverable: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.

Subject:

Sent: 5/26/2006 10:39 AM

The following recipient(s) could not be reached:

--client name-- on 5/30/2006 7:31 AM

Could not deliver the message in the time limit specified. Please retry or contact your administrator.

<exchangeserver.domainname #4.4.7>

Any suggestion or adivce will be helpful. If I need to make any change at my end or what?

Thanks.

Tanvir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having problem with one of the spamcop.net client that my email bounces back. below is the message I get.

There isn't really such a thing as a SpamCop.net client ... there is such a thing as an ISP using the SpamCopDNSBL to manage incoming e-mail traffic to their servers, some use in a blocking mode.

--client name-- on 5/30/2006 7:31 AM

Could not deliver the message in the time limit specified. Please retry or contact your administrator.

<exchangeserver.domainname #4.4.7>

Any suggestion or adivce will be helpful. If I need to make any change at my end or what?

Any suggestions? ... Hmmm, after ticking off a few people by using the "Report this post" button (normally used to "Report" bad posts, bad language, spam, etc.) .. and then using that Report action to include your question .... and in both actions (that report and this post) you managed to ignore one of the specific detail items (in the post that you Reported)

If it's a bounce/rejection notification, provide the critical lines of data. The IP address being rejected will be at the root of any research.

You fail to provide that, ignore the details in a 'help' item that you then "Reported" .... didn't look at any other discussions in this same Forum also dealing with the "been blocked" scenario .... no mention that the SpamCop FAQ was looked at, the "Why am I Blocked?" item even pinned separately ... I'll spare you the first few suggestions that come to mind ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have checked Spamcop blocked sites, but it has come out clear. so apparently it is not being blocked by the website. that's why I am wondering what else could be the cause.

looks like you work for spamcop and been offended by my remarks of spamcop.net.. All I wanted to say that the email that I bounces back is a client of spamcop. I wanted to send a private email to administrator but I am not sure how.

All I care is the resolution of this problem.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without some kind of information, specifically the IP address in question, it would be impossible for us to even begin to guess, at least with any accuracy, what could be causing your problem. No, Wazoo does not work for spamcop, he is a user just like the rest of us, but he has spent considerable time putting together FAQs and other posts to try to prevent people from asking questions without providing enough information for anybody to answer them, and he gets a bit annoyed (and rightly so I might add) when people jump over the information provided and post unanswerable questions anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have checked Spamcop blocked sites, but it has come out clear. so apparently it is not being blocked by the website. that's why I am wondering what else could be the cause.

SpamCop.net does not have the power to "block any sites" .... not sure what you mean by "not being blocked by the website" as even the SpamCopDNSBL is only a list of IP addresses seen as a spew source, nothing to do with "web-sites" at all

looks like you work for spamcop and been offended by my remarks of spamcop.net..

"work for" ..???? Per the Forum FAQ (again links at the top of this very page) Section 8 - SpamCop's System & Active Staff User Guide ... strictly volunteer. "Offended" ..??? Hardly .... more ticked off at the inappropriate use of some button functions, the lack of reading the contents of the very post you elected to "report" .. the lack of providing the same data in your Topic starting post ... the lack of that same data in your follow-up post .... you want to ask a question, ask the question ... but provide the details needed to even try to come up with an answer .... as stated, there are a plentitude of other existing discussions already in place within this very Forum section .. take a few minutes and see how those discussions went, what data was used, what data was returned, what solutions may have come up ....

Even if I wanted to believe that your "Report this post" action was an arrempt to "send a private e-mail to an Admin" was anywhere near valid, one would have to ask why the "private" data wasn't provided in that package of comments added to the "report" .....

All I wanted to say that the email that I bounces back is a client of spamcop

"Client of SpamCop" ...????? second time, explain this concept please .... use of the SpamCopDNSBL is basically free for anyone, documented oin the SpamCopFAQ .. of course, also noted is that even SpamCop.net does not recommend using that list in a "blocking" fashion ... and then there are the inept folks that misconfigure things on their servers, such that e-mail might be blocked for some reason, but they point to the wrong 'error' message ...

I wanted to send a private email to administrator but I am not sure how.

All I care is the resolution of this problem.

Contact points, forms, addresses are scattered in numerous places around the Forum, heck even including the relatively unknown SpamCop FAQ (links at the top of this very page) ... if none of the other volunteer folks "cared" they wouldn't be here either ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have checked Spamcop blocked sites, but it has come out clear.

Some servers incorrectly blame spamcop mo matter which list actually caused the block. You will need to contact the postmaster of that system to determine what lists they are using. While you are at it, please have them fix this error if spamcop was not the cause.

All I wanted to say that the email that I bounces back is a client of spamcop. I wanted to send a private email to administrator but I am not sure how.

As has been explained, there are no "clients" of spamcop. Anyone is free to use the spamcop list if they choose. Spamcop gains nothing from that relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tanvir,

From your screen-name and your English I'm guessing that English is not your first language? Forgive me if I'm wrong but it reads like English from the Indian subcontinent?

It seems to me that this is not helping Wazoo to understand your problem.

You sent an email and the receiving server rejected it?

The 'bounce' message cited SpamCop as the reason?

We can do nothing until we know the IP address of the SENDING server, that is your/your ISP's SMTP server.

Could you please supply this information and we will try to help.

If you copy the entire bounce message here it should contain the info we need.

Otherwise tell us the name and location of your Internet Service Provider and I will try to look it up.

Wazoo and others: I think arguing semantics about 'client' and 'web-sites' is not likely to be productive :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darek,

I researched on the internet and discovered that perhaps it has to do with a function of dns called EDNS. `Turning off EDNS-0 extended UDP packets in W2k3 server's DNS' would help and I should not be getting this error any more.

I will let you know, if this error reoccurs.

Below is the link for others information.

http://www.nthelp.com/w2k3/turning_off_edns.htm

Thanks for your help.

Tanvir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wazoo and others: I think arguing semantics about 'client' and 'web-sites' is not likely to be productive :)

OK, I won't mention clients or web-sotes again. But I have to note, I have not a clue as to how to ask for the IP address involved othe than asking for the IP address involved, which has been brought up several times thus far, both in FAQ/Help items, in a PM'd reply to the "Report this post" action, previous postings in this Topic, the countless posts in so many other Topics, and now seen, your attempt to use single sentences, small words, specific points, etc .... yet, even that approach didn't get an aoppropriate response in the next reply. Yes, it has been assumed that there is a language issue going on hee, but that's also a bit offset by the additional tidbit that the posting IP address is associated with (and traceroute is a very short path from here) to a New Jersey, U.S. based ISP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I want to know is if the link that he posted could have had anything to do with his problem?

I hope it did because I do not think he will be back since he thinks it solved his problem.

Unless, of course, it didn't and the IP address just aged off the bl.

I suppose that someone who has very little English could be an immigrant (or have a visa) and live in NJ. I don't know very much about the fine points, but I did know someone who was here (and intended to stay here), but for some reason, the kind of permission that she had to be here prohibited her from being hired, but she could be an independent contractor. An internet business might be another way to earn money for someone in the same circumstances. Let's just hope that he wasn't scammed into trying a spam package!

Miss Betsy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that he was looking for help with the scbl. The error message that he posted had something to do with time so if the link had to do with time, he got his problem fixed. The only reason that he came here was the mail delivery message did come from someone who using the scbl. Possibly they didn't ask him why the email was returned, assuming that he was blocked by the scbl - or maybe that's the first thing one sees if you go to their website help.

Since those who use the scbl generally are more aware of up-to-date internet options for email, they may have been the only ones who wouldn't accept his misconfigured email. Or because they contribute to spamcop are fussy about how the time is displayed since that is a factor in submission.

He certainly entered into the spirit of the forum in being helpful by posting the solution for others!

Miss Betsy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that he was looking for help with the scbl.

Subject line: Email bounce back from spamcop.net client, email bounces back only from spamcop.net client

The term "client" has been asked about and challenged a few times .... but the gist of "bounces back from spamcop.net" sure sounds like a SpamCOpDNSBL question ...

The error message that he posted had something to do with time

Non-Delivery Report ... usually seen as "mail didn't make it" if there was 5xx message involved ... if a 4xx message involved, then it depends on the sending server's configuration, you may see one of these notices when the e-mail didn't go through the first time ... and then the next version of that message will be 'I gave up trying after 4 days' .... this is your "time reference"

so if the link had to do with time, he got his problem fixed. The only reason that he came here was the mail delivery message did come from someone who using the scbl.

And just how would that data come into play in the feneral ways of the 'web' ...???? The general model seems to be that one either doesn't know that the ISP is using it in some fashion or ine see a rejection message that lists its usage .... If in fact that non-delivery was an issue being discussed between this user and the receiving ISP, then the question/issue would have been focused on the use of the SpamCopDNSBL (based on the Subject Line) .... how one could translate that type of an issue into something that gets addressed by switching a flaf on a setting drscribed as: Server 2003's DNS server has a new capability, it can handle UDP packets greater than 512 bytes. Unfortunately some firewalls cannot pass these packets so it is desirable to have the DNS server fall back to TCP in this case as it used to do in previous versions of NT DNS.

Possibly they didn't ask him why the email was returned, assuming that he was blocked by the scbl - or maybe that's the first thing one sees if you go to their website help.

All sorts of things possuble, yet .... no actual reply to any of the questions asked that were trying to pull some facts into the discussion ... hasn'r happened yet, no details, no history, no error massage, no IP address ...

Since those who use the scbl generally are more aware of up-to-date internet options for email, they may have been the only ones who wouldn't accept his misconfigured email. Or because they contribute to spamcop are fussy about how the time is displayed since that is a factor in submission.

Altyhouh explained above, I'm trying to imagine the scenario you are trying to develop .. and I really can't ... If the rejection wasn't based on a SpamCopDNSBL listing, I'm having a real hard time coming up with a discussion that would have started about being rejected for 'your time issue' that somehow included a remark like 'oh yes, we are a client of spamcop' and ended up with the problem being fixed by the user (we still don't know if he is a user/Admin/lunatic at this point) switching some flags that affected the handling of EDNS on a DNS server that is used somewhere ....

Let me try to paint another version of the picture ... the solution was a swich setting on a DNS server.

The topic starting post (and title) were referencing an e-mail being bounced, with spamcop somehow involved. That post also left the impression that one and only one e-mail was at issue .. perhaps one could extend that to "one ISP out there" was involved. One could go into how the receiving system might want to do checks on the incoming e-mail, even trying to do DNS/rDNS checks on the sending server ... but if we go that route, and that's where the failure came from, the error message would (should) not have mentioned spamcop ... so then one would be thinking that the receiving system has some configuration issues with its rejection tables and codes ... but .. all this is just a waste of time trying to "guess" at what happened.

He certainly entered into the spirit of the forum in being helpful by posting the solution for others!

True .. I'll admit to never finding that page on my own ... but I wouldn't be relying on a Microsoft/Windows server to handle e-mail (on its own) either. On the other hand, I found this user to be very non-helpful, as "we" are still waiting for some/any specific data on what the actual issue was, what systems were involved, etc., etc., etc.

If anyone feels like spending energy on this ... I sure could use an explanation of the details offered up on http://www.senderbase.org/search?searchString=nuwavecorp.com ..

Which may or may not be connected to one of the outgoing servers seen at http://www.senderbase.org/search?searchStr...ecureserver.net

That sums up all the energy I'm going to throw at this 'issue'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone feels like spending energy on this ... I sure could use an explanation of the details offered up on http://www.senderbase.org/search?searchString=nuwavecorp.com ..

Which may or may not be connected to one of the outgoing servers seen at http://www.senderbase.org/search?searchStr...ecureserver.net

That sums up all the energy I'm going to throw at this 'issue'

This is a good one:

Resolved nuwavecorp.com to 216.69.141.116

[nuwavecorp.com has 3 MX records mail3.nuwavecorp.com.(10) mail1.nuwavecorp.com.(20) mail.uu.net.(50)]

Resolved mail1.nuwavecorp.com to 70.21.251.140 to 208.255.74.99

208.255.74.99 is in SPEWSbecause of a familiar name:

208.255.64.0 - 208.255.127.255, UUNet (Eric Reinertsen / datastreamgroup.com)

Probably doesn't mean anything but I am not going to spend time on it either :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...