Jump to content

Mailing list reporting that spamcop account has excessive bounces


Recommended Posts

I am subscribed to several sourceforge.net lists (blah[at]lists.sourceforge.net). I've been subscribed to them for a few months. They are low volume lists (1 to 20 messages per day). This week I'm getting emails from them in the following form:

"our membership in the mailing list <insert_list_here> has been disabled due

to excessive bounces The last bounce received from you was dated

25-Jan-2008."

What I'm trying to figure out is what on my end (configuration-wise) or perhaps Spamcop itself would be causing that.

I have the following settings in SpamCop webmail:

Greylisting is DISABLED

SpamCop Blacklist and Spamhaus BlackList are ENABLED.

What strikes me as odd is that the bounce they are indicating I would assume could happen under one of the following circumstances:

- SpamCop servers were down: I've been receiving email pretty regularly.

- My SpamCop storage is overflowed: Don't think so, I'm still getting other emails

- I have greylisting enabled: That was the first thing I checked and has been disabled all along.

Any ideas are welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without seeing a copy of the bounce they claim to be receiving, it is pretty much going to be impossible to try to troubleshoot. You might email the list administrator to see if they keep that information, as those bounces should contain error codes and the precise reason the email didn't reach its intended destination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without seeing a copy of the bounce they claim to be receiving, it is pretty much going to be impossible to try to troubleshoot. You might email the list administrator to see if they keep that information, as those bounces should contain error codes and the precise reason the email didn't reach its intended destination.

I've requested a copy of those bounces. Hopefully their system isn't just discarding them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've requested a copy of those bounces. Hopefully their system isn't just discarding them.

Ok, the next two posts are the raw forwarded messages from the owner of the list (Vampire)

--------------060408050701030005020600

Content-Type: message/rfc822;

name="ForwardedMessage.eml"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Content-Disposition: inline;

filename="ForwardedMessage.eml"

Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91]

helo=mail.sourceforge.net)

by sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43)

id 1JIKqa-0005A5-Ho for jedit-users-bounces[at]lists.sourceforge.net;

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:27:44 -0800

Received: from [10.3.1.90] (helo=lists-outbound.sourceforge.net)

by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1JIKqa-0002uz-0k

for jedit-users-bounces[at]lists.sourceforge.net;

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:27:40 -0800

Received: by sc8-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net (Postfix)

id 10ACE133B6; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:27:39 -0800 (PST)

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:27:39 -0800 (PST)

From: MAILER-DAEMON[at]sc8-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net (Mail Delivery System)

Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

To: jedit-users-bounces[at]lists.sourceforge.net

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;

boundary="A97AB133F0.1201253259/sc8-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net"

Message-Id: <20080125092739.10ACE133B6[at]sc8-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net>

X-spam-Score: -2.5 (--)

X-spam-Report: spam Filtering performed by sourceforge.net.

See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.

Report problems to

http://sf.net/tracker/?func=add&group_...amp;atid=200001

-2.8 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts

0.1 HTML_30_40 BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML

0.3 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html MIME

0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message

This is a MIME-encapsulated message.

--A97AB133F0.1201253259/sc8-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net

Content-Description: Notification

Content-Type: text/plain

This is the Postfix program at host sc8-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned

below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.

For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can

delete your own text from the message returned below.

The Postfix program

<mzaleski[at]spamcop.net>: host mx.spamcop.net[64.88.168.71] said: 550 sorry, no

such user here (#5.7.1) (in reply to RCPT TO command)

<matthew.zaleski[at]spamcop.net>: host mx.spamcop.net[64.88.168.71] said: 553

sorry, that domain isn't allowed to be relayed thru this MTA (#5.7.1) (in

reply to DATA command)

--A97AB133F0.1201253259/sc8-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net

Content-Description: Delivery error report

Content-Type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns; sc8-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net

Arrival-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:26:55 -0800 (PST)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; mzaleski[at]spamcop.net

Action: failed

Status: 5.0.0

Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host mx.spamcop.net[64.88.168.71] said: 550 sorry,

no such user here (#5.7.1) (in reply to RCPT TO command)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; matthew.zaleski[at]spamcop.net

Action: failed

Status: 5.0.0

Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host mx.spamcop.net[64.88.168.71] said: 553 sorry,

that domain isn't allowed to be relayed thru this MTA

(#5.7.1) (in reply to DATA command)

Edited by mzaleski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa there, Matthew....way too much information!!! (moderators, I'd recommend deleting all of the above-posted material, because it exposes innocent parties and list addresses to potential spam harvesting).

All we really needed was the SMTP error (which also could be munged for protection):

<mzaleski[at]spamcop.net>: host mx.spamcop.net[64.88.168.71] said: 550 sorry, no

such user here (#5.7.1) (in reply to RCPT TO command)

<matthew.zaleski[at]spamcop.net>: host mx.spamcop.net[64.88.168.71] said: 553

sorry, that domain isn't allowed to be relayed thru this MTA (#5.7.1) (in

reply to DATA command)

This looks a bit odd, in that it's reporting two different errors on two different versions of your SpamCop address. Do you actually have two subscriptions? Do you have both of those addresses? That doesn't seem to make sense.

I just did some telnet sessions to port 25 on mx.spamcop.net and tested both versions of your address. The shorter version consistently failed (with both the "550 sorry, no such user here" and the "553 sorry, that domain isn't allowed ..." errors being given simultaneously), but the longer version of your address worked fine.

So, given what you posted above, it looks more as if you've got a problem with your list subscription, in that you used the short version of your address instead of the long one....but I could be wrong.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa there, Matthew....way too much information!!! (moderators, I'd recommend deleting all of the above-posted material, because it exposes innocent parties and list addresses to potential spam harvesting).

I just snipped out a bunch of the stuff in that post. The list address is not a secret.

All we really needed was the SMTP error (which also could be munged for protection):

This looks a bit odd, in that it's reporting two different errors on two different versions of your SpamCop address. Do you actually have two subscriptions? Do you have both of those addresses? That doesn't seem to make sense.

I just did some telnet sessions to port 25 on mx.spamcop.net and tested both versions of your address. The shorter version consistently failed (with both the "550 sorry, no such user here" and the "553 sorry, that domain isn't allowed ..." errors being given simultaneously), but the longer version of your address worked fine.

So, given what you posted above, it looks more as if you've got a problem with your list subscription, in that you used the short version of your address instead of the long one....but I could be wrong.

DT

Hrmm, this is where it gets interesting. I have both email accounts but based on your comments I checked and the shorter one had expired. I just renewed it.

I apparently had both addresses on the mailing list. I'm in the middle of consolidating from ~20 email addresses. I thought I had turned off the short address on the mailing list.

So what is odd is that the short address bounced legit but that doesn't explain the problem with the long email address. I've been reading and following those mailing lists daily via the longer address account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is odd is that the short address bounced legit but that doesn't explain the problem with the long email address. I've been reading and following those mailing lists daily via the longer address account.

List servers generally make a single connection to a given mail host when delivering to all of the list's recipients on that given domain, so in this case, the server was trying to deliver both of your copies to SpamCop. SpamCop's server was tossing up a "double error" on your first (expired) address, which is unusual, and apparently confused the list server into thinking that *both* of your addresses were bad. Now that you've renewed the expired account, that shouldn't happen any longer, and it will be even more helpful if you make sure that only one of the addresses remains on the list. I'm thinking that the problems will stop and you'll receive your list messages.

I'll open a separate thread about the strange double-errors from SpamCop that were the real cause of this situation.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...