Seems rather unwise to filter your abuse mailbox.
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<abuse@btopenworld.com>
(reason: 554 Message not allowed - UP Email not accepted for policy reasons. Please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defer/defer-04.html [120])
-Dan
Try filling out this form to reach Y's abuse dept? http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/postmaster/defer.html
--bc
I'm not sure which is worse:
1) That they filter their abuse mailbox.
2) That they outsource their abuse mailbox (and potentially others) to Yahoo.
3) That they're doing (2) and they're apparently a few orders of magnitude
bigger than "Joe's Bait, Tackle, and Internet Emporium".
"And they wonder why we block their e-mail.." -- the NANOG lurker in the
next cubicle, standard response when a site's demonstrated configuration clue
level is so low to render constructive dialog improbable.
<abuse@btopenworld.com>
I'm not sure which is worse:
1) That they filter their abuse mailbox.
2) That they outsource their abuse mailbox (and potentially others) to Yahoo.
BT outsources all of their mail to Yahoo. It actually works pretty well,
either POP or web mail.
R's,
John
assume i have already done this, and received a completely and utterly useless response from yahoo indicating they have absolutely not the slightest clue.
-Dan
On the topic of mail rejection I have come across a few sites that reject mail, even to postmaster@, from domains that have one or more ipv6-only MX records listed (i.e. a domain name with AAAA but no A record(s)). The common factor seems to be mimedefang.
* Chris Hills:
On the topic of mail rejection I have come across a few sites that
reject mail, even to postmaster@, from domains that have one or more
ipv6-only MX records listed (i.e. a domain name with AAAA but no A
record(s)). The common factor seems to be mimedefang.
Plain sendmail has got a similar issue, especially if the best MX is
IPv6-only. I learnt that the hard way---and it speaks for the quality
of IPv6 testing that the "IPv6 considerations for SMTP" RFC (forgot
its number) doesn't even come close to mentioning this issue,
preferring to talk about bizarre reachability concerns. 8-P
Is it an antispam test that fails in sendmail, or does delivery fail after the first MX lookup is 'unexpected' (yikes)?
As a small ISP that runs our own mail for the most part, I'm curious if there are any lists out there of antispam tools that have been tested in a functional ipv6 environment.
By antispam tools, I mean things like mimedefang, snertsoft's milters, mailscanner, spamassassin (and dns perl modules), and other 3rd party milters or filters that might be less well known, but that do dns tests, or sanity tests of some kind (milter-dnsrbl, milter-regex, etc).
Thanks,
Ken
so far btopenworld.com looks like bullet proof phishing drop boxes, based on yahoo's cluefree response.
anyone from yahoo with clue around? or is this a lost cause...
-Dan
> BT outsources all of their mail to Yahoo. It actually works pretty well,
> either POP or web mail.so far btopenworld.com looks like bullet proof phishing drop boxes, based
on yahoo's cluefree response.
How about writing to Bruce Schneier and explaining the problem? He's
Chief Security Technology Officer at BT. http://www.schneier.com/
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no