Compu$erve RFC 1123 5.3.3 violation
The following bounce from Comp$Serve violates RFC 1123 5.3.3. They have been repeatedly informed of this and refuse to fix their mail system. Hence mailing lists here prevent subscription by Compu$erve addressees. I suggest that others, e.g. the nanog list, do the same. randy Message-ID: <961115221415_515664.456256_JHO109-62@CompuServe.COM> Date: 15 Nov 96 17:14:16 EST From: Electronic Postmaster <POSTMASTER@CompuServe.COM> Comments: Returned from: <103311.571@CompuServe.COM> Message-Type: Delivery Report To: Randy Bush <rbush@wna.net> Subject: Undeliverable message Your message could not be delivered for the following reason: Mailbox 103311.571 is currently full. Please resend your message at a later time. --- Returned message --- Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by hil-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA08607; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:14:11 -0500 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) with SMTP id QAA12118; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:32 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) id QAA12106 for nanog-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from rip.psg.com (root@rip.psg.com [147.28.0.39]) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) with SMTP id QAA12099 for <nanog@merit.edu>; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by rip.psg.com id m0vOW9V-0007zfC; Fri, 15 Nov 96 13:50 PST (Smail3.1.29.1#1) Message-Id: <m0vOW9V-0007zfC@rip.psg.com> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 96 13:50 PST To: Scott Huddle <huddle@mci.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu From: Randy Bush <rbush@wna.net> Subject: Re: The Cidr Report References: <199611152058.PAA17223@new6.Reston.mci.net> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 737 (378 cidr, 359 classful Wow! Is a correct assumption that some 40% of the ASs could be reclaimed?
I do not see how you get to this conclusion. He did not say number of ASs which only appear through one other unique AS, i.e. are single homed. Oh, Joel!
Largest number of cidr routes: 461 announced by AS3561 Largest number of classful routes: 1266 announced by AS174 Neat stuff. Could you list the top ten or five of each of these?
What is a 'top' prefix? Lowest IP? Shortest prefix? Actually, for embarrassment sake, I would want to see the most likely candidates for aggregation. But if I wanna see it, I can look in one of my routers.
Top 20 Withdrawn Routes from 08Nov96 to 15Nov96 -304 AS174 Performance Systems International Are congrats due to PSI?
Far out! Maybe so!
-50 AS2914 WNA, premasticated for MCI :-) ???
Sorry. I have to convert my RADB RPSL one into a placeholder RIPE-181++ for the MCI-RR, and that's the descr:. For the real aut-num: see the RADB. I would think Tony would be picking up the latter. Old habits, TB? randy
I agree. They should say deferred and let sendmail retry until the local configuration says to bounce a warning or return the message. I will note, students.uiuc.edu also does this if a mailbox is full. - Jared Randy Bush graced my mailbox with this long sought knowledge:
The following bounce from Comp$Serve violates RFC 1123 5.3.3. They have been repeatedly informed of this and refuse to fix their mail system. Hence mailing lists here prevent subscription by Compu$erve addressees. I suggest that others, e.g. the nanog list, do the same.
randy
Message-ID: <961115221415_515664.456256_JHO109-62@CompuServe.COM> Date: 15 Nov 96 17:14:16 EST From: Electronic Postmaster <POSTMASTER@CompuServe.COM> Comments: Returned from: <103311.571@CompuServe.COM> Message-Type: Delivery Report To: Randy Bush <rbush@wna.net> Subject: Undeliverable message
Your message could not be delivered for the following reason:
Mailbox 103311.571 is currently full. Please resend your message at a later time.
--- Returned message ---
Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by hil-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA08607; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:14:11 -0500 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) with SMTP id QAA12118; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:32 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) id QAA12106 for nanog-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from rip.psg.com (root@rip.psg.com [147.28.0.39]) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) with SMTP id QAA12099 for <nanog@merit.edu>; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by rip.psg.com id m0vOW9V-0007zfC; Fri, 15 Nov 96 13:50 PST (Smail3.1.29.1#1) Message-Id: <m0vOW9V-0007zfC@rip.psg.com> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 96 13:50 PST To: Scott Huddle <huddle@mci.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu From: Randy Bush <rbush@wna.net> Subject: Re: The Cidr Report References: <199611152058.PAA17223@new6.Reston.mci.net> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 737 (378 cidr, 359 classful Wow! Is a correct assumption that some 40% of the ASs could be reclaimed?
I do not see how you get to this conclusion. He did not say number of ASs which only appear through one other unique AS, i.e. are single homed. Oh, Joel!
Largest number of cidr routes: 461 announced by AS3561 Largest number of classful routes: 1266 announced by AS174 Neat stuff. Could you list the top ten or five of each of these?
What is a 'top' prefix? Lowest IP? Shortest prefix? Actually, for embarrassment sake, I would want to see the most likely candidates for aggregation. But if I wanna see it, I can look in one of my routers.
Top 20 Withdrawn Routes from 08Nov96 to 15Nov96 -304 AS174 Performance Systems International Are congrats due to PSI?
Far out! Maybe so!
-50 AS2914 WNA, premasticated for MCI :-) ???
Sorry. I have to convert my RADB RPSL one into a placeholder RIPE-181++ for the MCI-RR, and that's the descr:. For the real aut-num: see the RADB. I would think Tony would be picking up the latter. Old habits, TB?
randy
The following bounce from Comp$Serve violates RFC 1123 5.3.3. They have been repeatedly informed of this and refuse to fix their mail system.
They also have another problem which their sysadmins refuse to fix (I've e-mailed them so many times, they just say "well, it works so go away") -- snip -- $ host compuserve.com [...] compuserve.com mail is handled (pri=10) by mailgate.compuserve.com $ host mailgate.compuserve.com mailgate.compuserve.com is a nickname for mx3.compuserve.com mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.206.135 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.177.136 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.217.133 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.217.137 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.217.136 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.217.135 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.177.134 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.177.133 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.206.137 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.206.136 -- snip -- *sigh*
Hence mailing lists here prevent subscription by Compu$erve addressees. I suggest that others, e.g. the nanog list, do the same.
randy
Message-ID: <961115221415_515664.456256_JHO109-62@CompuServe.COM> Date: 15 Nov 96 17:14:16 EST From: Electronic Postmaster <POSTMASTER@CompuServe.COM> Comments: Returned from: <103311.571@CompuServe.COM> Message-Type: Delivery Report To: Randy Bush <rbush@wna.net> Subject: Undeliverable message
Your message could not be delivered for the following reason:
Mailbox 103311.571 is currently full. Please resend your message at a later time.
--- Returned message ---
Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by hil-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA08607; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:14:11 -0500 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) with SMTP id QAA12118; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:32 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) id QAA12106 for nanog-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from rip.psg.com (root@rip.psg.com [147.28.0.39]) by merit.edu (8.7.6/merit-2.0) with SMTP id QAA12099 for <nanog@merit.edu>; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:50:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by rip.psg.com id m0vOW9V-0007zfC; Fri, 15 Nov 96 13:50 PST (Smail3.1.29.1#1) Message-Id: <m0vOW9V-0007zfC@rip.psg.com> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 96 13:50 PST To: Scott Huddle <huddle@mci.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu From: Randy Bush <rbush@wna.net> Subject: Re: The Cidr Report References: <199611152058.PAA17223@new6.Reston.mci.net> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 737 (378 cidr, 359 classful Wow! Is a correct assumption that some 40% of the ASs could be reclaimed?
I do not see how you get to this conclusion. He did not say number of ASs which only appear through one other unique AS, i.e. are single homed. Oh, Joel!
Largest number of cidr routes: 461 announced by AS3561 Largest number of classful routes: 1266 announced by AS174 Neat stuff. Could you list the top ten or five of each of these?
What is a 'top' prefix? Lowest IP? Shortest prefix? Actually, for embarrassment sake, I would want to see the most likely candidates for aggregation. But if I wanna see it, I can look in one of my routers.
Top 20 Withdrawn Routes from 08Nov96 to 15Nov96 -304 AS174 Performance Systems International Are congrats due to PSI?
Far out! Maybe so!
-50 AS2914 WNA, premasticated for MCI :-) ???
Sorry. I have to convert my RADB RPSL one into a placeholder RIPE-181++ for the MCI-RR, and that's the descr:. For the real aut-num: see the RADB. I would think Tony would be picking up the latter. Old habits, TB?
randy
-- jamie g. k. rishaw | jamie@multiverse.com | home e-mail:jamie@arpa.com url-free sig file | corporate support svcs. | "I had a dream .. there was corp: 216.771.0002 |"religious right" is neither| an info-mercial selling an C4 48 1B 26 18 7B 1F D9 BA C4 9C 7A B1 07 07 E8 | awk script for $29.95" -rdm
Jamie wrote ...
$ host mailgate.compuserve.com mailgate.compuserve.com is a nickname for mx3.compuserve.com mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.206.135 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.177.136 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.217.133 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.217.137 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.217.136 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.217.135 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.177.134 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.177.133 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.206.137 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.206.136
Make the DontExpandCnames option true in your /etc/sendmail.cf, and when customers start bitching that they can't send mail to CompuServe addresses, tell them that it is CIS's fault, and give them the CIS customer service number :) Rob -- Rob Misiak - rob@arpa.com - www.arpa.com/~rob/ FF F9 39 44 3E 95 DD 1A 8E BF B1 44 21 3C 1B 8F
This:
$ host mailgate.compuserve.com mailgate.compuserve.com is a nickname for mx3.compuserve.com mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.206.135 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.177.136 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.217.133 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.217.137 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.217.136 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.217.135 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.177.134 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.177.133 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.206.137 mx3.compuserve.com has address 149.174.206.136
...is NOT a variance from RFC1123 or any other specification. It is completely appropriate for a mail domain to be a CNAME pointing at a handful of A's. It's not ok to _advertise_ one of these, as for example in an exported "From:" header, but there's no problem just from being willing to accept mail sent to such a domain or to set up DNS in this way.
Make the DontExpandCnames option true in your /etc/sendmail.cf, and when customers start bitching that they can't send mail to CompuServe addresses, tell them that it is CIS's fault, and give them the CIS customer service number :)
Please don't do that. CIS is committing some real sins against the RFCs elsewhere, and since this isn't one of them it would muddy the waters if we contrive to get them yelled at for it.
Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com> said:
This: [deleted] ...is NOT a variance from RFC1123 or any other specification.
That's true (as far as it goes), and I certainly don't see that bouncing mail with a "mailbox is full" error is a violation of RFC1123 section 5.3.3. But the following piece of evidence was not mentioned before: compuserve.com. MX 10 mailgate.compuserve.com. That MX, in conjunction with the CNAME (which was mentioned before): mailgate.compuserve.com. CNAME mx3.compuserve.com. adds up to a violation of RFC 1034 section 3.6.2: "Domain names in RRs which point at another name should always point at the primary name and not the alias." (which esentially means "If a name appears on the left hand side of a CNAME record then that name should not also appear on the right hand side of any other record").
It is completely appropriate for a mail domain to be a CNAME pointing at a handful of A's. It's not ok to _advertise_ one of these, as for example in an exported "From:" header,
I am not sure that my reading of RFC 1123 section 5.2.2 awould support you there. But anyway, the "compuserve.com" domain *does* get advertised in "From:" headers, so there is clearly a problem. --apb (Alan Barrett)
from the quill of Alan Barrett <apb@iafrica.com> on scroll <Pine.NEB.3.95.961117113159.131G-100000@apb.iafrica.com>
I certainly don't see that bouncing mail with a "mailbox is full" error is a violation of RFC1123 section 5.3.3.
The fact that there was a bounce was not the complaint. The fact that the bounce went back to the author of the article, not the sender was the complaint. b. -- Brian J. Murrell Brian_Murrell@bctel.net BCTel Advanced Communications brian@ilinx.com Vancouver, B.C. brian@wimsey.com 604 454 5279
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Randy Bush wrote:
The following bounce from Comp$Serve violates RFC 1123 5.3.3. They have been repeatedly informed of this and refuse to fix their mail system.
AmerikaOffLine does the same thing. #include <standard.disclaimer> _ __ __ _____ ____ / | / /__ / /_/ ___/__ _______/ __/__ _____ / |/ / _ \/ __/\__ \/ / / / ___/ /_/ _ \/ ___/ / /| / __/ /_ ___/ / /_/ / / / __/ __/ / ================/_/=|_/\___/\__//____/\__,_/_/==/_/==\___/_/===============
participants (8)
-
Alan Barrett -
Brian Murrell -
Jamie -
Jared Mauch -
NetSurfer -
Paul A Vixie -
randy＠psg.com -
Rob Misiak-Rishaw