Todd makes my point exactly. As he notes, the rejection message tells me that the message was rejected by some system. It does not tell my why it was rejected. Thus, just like this message, it adds more to the noise to signal ratio! Cutler At 4/5/2007 12:28 PM -0700, todd glassey wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: <mailto:james.cutler@consultant.com>James R. Cutler To: <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:08 PM Subject: Re: Blocking mail from bad places At 4/5/2007 08:38 AM -0700, Thomas Leavitt wrote: One problem with the "bounce" solution is that <snip/> ========================== So, I (Cutler) add: And, even the best-intentioned bounce messages often give lots of data, but no information, thus increasing the noise to signal ratio. For example, Paul most likely knows what the following means to him. To me it just means I can't send mail to Paul. Except that this message tells you why you cant send mail to Paul - because Paul's system refused it, not because Paul's system didnt exist or that Paul's address was bad.
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
paul@vix.com SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<paul@vix.com>: host sa.vix.com [204.152.187.1]: 553 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host [209.86.89.61] blocked using reject-all.vix.com; created / reason
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
- James R. Cutler james.cutler@consultant.com - James R. Cutler james.cutler@consultant.com
James R. Cutler [05/04/07 16:30 -0400]:
Todd makes my point exactly. As he notes, the rejection message tells me that the message was rejected by some system. It does not tell my why it was rejected. Thus, just like this message, it adds more to the noise to signal ratio!
Has anyone ever thought of standardizing the 500-responses from the DATA phase? For instance, maybe 571 could always mean "rejected because of the spam filter". If there was a standard for these response codes then maybe clients like Microsoft Outlook could do something useful with the error message. Regards, Ken
At 4/5/2007 12:28 PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: <mailto:james.cutler@consultant.com>James R. Cutler To: <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:08 PM Subject: Re: Blocking mail from bad places
At 4/5/2007 08:38 AM -0700, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
One problem with the "bounce" solution is that <snip/> ========================== So, I (Cutler) add:
And, even the best-intentioned bounce messages often give lots of data, but no information, thus increasing the noise to signal ratio. For example, Paul most likely knows what the following means to him. To me it just means I can't send mail to Paul.
Except that this message tells you why you cant send mail to Paul - because Paul's system refused it, not because Paul's system didnt exist or that Paul's address was bad.
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
paul@vix.com SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<paul@vix.com>: host sa.vix.com [204.152.187.1]: 553 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host [209.86.89.61] blocked using reject-all.vix.com; created / reason
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
- James R. Cutler james.cutler@consultant.com
- James R. Cutler james.cutler@consultant.com
-- Ken Simpson, CEO MailChannels Corporation Reliable Email Delivery (tm) http://www.mailchannels.com
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:01:10 -0700 Ken Simpson <ksimpson@mailchannels.com> wrote:
James R. Cutler [05/04/07 16:30 -0400]:
Todd makes my point exactly. As he notes, the rejection message tells me that the message was rejected by some system. It does not tell my why it was rejected. Thus, just like this message, it adds more to the noise to signal ratio!
Has anyone ever thought of standardizing the 500-responses from the DATA phase? For instance, maybe 571 could always mean "rejected because of the spam filter".
If there was a standard for these response codes then maybe clients like Microsoft Outlook could do something useful with the error message.
Regards, Ken
I had a good chuckle after reading your message. It's a great suggestion BUT... Microsoft products already ignore 5xx responses. From what I've seen, Outlook and Exchange will indefinitely retry a message after receiving a 5xx error. Outlook keeps the message in the user's PersonalFolders/Outbox for subsequent delivery attempts when you hit Send/Receive. We've seen lots of clients here attempt to send the same message every minute for weeks when the message exceeds our message size restrictions. Have they recently fixed this or released patches for all older product versions? Best regards, matthew black network services california state university, long beach 1250 bellflower boulevard long beach, ca 90840-0101
participants (3)
-
James R. Cutler -
Ken Simpson -
Matthew Black