Apple blocking listmail sent via bulk_mailer
Jeff Wasilko
appears that Apple thinks bulk_mailer is a spammer's tool and
they're now blocking mail that has bulk_mailer in the Received
lines:
The original message was received at Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:59:55 -0500 (EST)
from jane.smoe.org [24.30.216.55]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<USER...@apple.com>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mail-in.apple.com.:
>>> DATA
<<< 550 Banned Received: text was found: 'bulk_mailer'
554 <USER...@apple.com>... Service unavailable
Anyone else seeing this?
-jeff
Chuq Von Rospach
Apple installed a new anti-spam tool that has that as part of it's
default settings. It'll be turned off shortly at Apple. I do suggest
that users who use bulk-mailer recompile it so that is identifies
itself with some other string (I do it in pig latin), simply because
people do restrict on that string, and now it looks like a commercial
product is doing so in its published defaults.
Apple will be fixed shortly, though. I've already talked to the
postmaster about it.
At 8:13 PM -0500 1/12/2000, Jeff Wasilko wrote:
> We use bulk_mailer to pre-sort our list mail by domain, and it
> appears that Apple thinks bulk_mailer is a spammer's tool and
> they're now blocking mail that has bulk_mailer in the Received
> lines:
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chu...@plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:ch...@apple.com)
Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry
little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight.
Jeff Wasilko
>
> Apple installed a new anti-spam tool that has that as part of it's
> default settings. It'll be turned off shortly at Apple. I do suggest
> that users who use bulk-mailer recompile it so that is identifies
> itself with some other string (I do it in pig latin), simply because
> people do restrict on that string, and now it looks like a commercial
> product is doing so in its published defaults.
I spoke to the author of bulk_mailer about this type of problem a
while ago, and he threatened to sue me if I altered the Received:
line that bulk_mailer adds. Given that he's now releasing it
under the GNU General Public License, I doubt he'd succeed now.
-jeff
Robert A. Hayden
> We use bulk_mailer to pre-sort our list mail by domain, and it
> appears that Apple thinks bulk_mailer is a spammer's tool and
> they're now blocking mail that has bulk_mailer in the Received
> lines:
Simply recompile bilk_mailer with some other arbitrary string that doesn't
offend apple's gestapo. Works for my lists.
=-=-=-=-=-=
Robert Hayden rha...@geek.net UIN: 16570192
Chuq Von Rospach
> I spoke to the author of bulk_mailer about this type of problem a
> while ago, and he threatened to sue me if I altered the Received:
> line that bulk_mailer adds.
Then he ought to be off talking to the anti-spam folks that are
blocking it for us... That'd be a great way to convince us all to
stop using it, no?
> I doubt he'd succeed now.
or then....
Ronald F. Guilmette
In message <2000011220...@smoe.org>,
Jeff Wasilko <je...@smoe.org> wrote:
>We use bulk_mailer to pre-sort our list mail by domain, and it
>appears that Apple thinks bulk_mailer is a spammer's tool and
>they're now blocking mail that has bulk_mailer in the Received
>lines:
>
>The original message was received at Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:59:55 -0500 (EST)
>from jane.smoe.org [24.30.216.55]
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
><USER...@apple.com>
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>.. while talking to mail-in.apple.com.:
>>>> DATA
><<< 550 Banned Received: text was found: 'bulk_mailer'
>554 <USER...@apple.com>... Service unavailable
>
>Anyone else seeing this?
No, but frankly, I'm not surprised.
That one almost went on my blacklists too.
That "bulk_mailer" thing _is_ clearly used by some people for 100% legit
opt-in lists, but quite a few spammers have used that mailing list software
also.
-- rfg
P.S. Is the E-mail address <j...@smoe.org> taken? If not, can I have it?
:-)
John R Levine
>> while ago, and he threatened to sue me if I altered the Received:
>> line that bulk_mailer adds.
Seems to me that it'd be easier all around to switch to an MTA like postfix
or qmail that runs fast without needing gross hacks like b*lk*m**l*r.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
Nathan J. Mehl
>
> I spoke to the author of bulk_mailer about this type of problem a
> while ago, and he threatened to sue me if I altered the Received:
> line that bulk_mailer adds.
Wow. How...unique. Guess I won't be recommending b_m to any of my
consulting clients any more.
-n
------------------------------------------------------------<mem...@blank.org>
"When the people who are doing the work are 12 time zones away from the people
who understand what the code does, you get problems." (--H.B. Messenger)
<http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Hayden
> At 10:16 PM -0500 1/12/2000, Jeff Wasilko wrote:
>
> > I spoke to the author of bulk_mailer about this type of problem a
> > while ago, and he threatened to sue me if I altered the Received:
> > line that bulk_mailer adds.
>
> Then he ought to be off talking to the anti-spam folks that are
> blocking it for us... That'd be a great way to convince us all to
> stop using it, no?
This from the bulk_mailer README...
--
License to copy and use this program is granted according to the terms
of the current version of the GNU General Public License. However,
there is one exception: this program may not be used to send unsolicited
commercial messages.
There's no warranty on this, but you're welcome to use it if you want.
--
Welp...guess what....the GNU Public License allows us to change that line
since it's open source.
Chuq Von Rospach
> Wow. How...unique. Guess I won't be recommending b_m to any of my
> consulting clients any more.
I wouldn't, anyway. John's right, and I'd look into a setup that
doesn't require it. I'm going to be looking at using postfix down the
road, and removing b_m for a custom module that does full verping.
Or go to a more modern MLM. Basically, only majordomo needs it. And
majordomo's long in the tooth. Newer MLM's, whether it's listar,
sympa, or whatever, do this for you, so b_m is fixing a problem in
older systems that new systems take care of better.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> >> I spoke to the author of bulk_mailer about this type of problem a
> >> while ago, and he threatened to sue me if I altered the Received:
> >> line that bulk_mailer adds.
>
> Seems to me that it'd be easier all around to switch to an MTA like postfix
> or qmail that runs fast without needing gross hacks like b*lk*m**l*r.
Or exim. Any of these MTAs entirely obviate the need for bulk_mailer, and
are far more reliable.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826
Cranfield Computer Centre FAX 751 814
J.Gol...@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice.
Jeff Wasilko
> >> I spoke to the author of bulk_mailer about this type of problem a
> >> while ago, and he threatened to sue me if I altered the Received:
> >> line that bulk_mailer adds.
>
> Seems to me that it'd be easier all around to switch to an MTA like postfix
> or qmail that runs fast without needing gross hacks like b*lk*m**l*r.
John:
We really don't want to get sucked into MTA battles now, do we?
I suspect postfix could benefit greatly from bulk_mailer's domain
sorting, and I'd rather not talk about the network abuse that
qmail does...
-jeff
Jeremy Blackman
> We really don't want to get sucked into MTA battles now, do we?
Please, no. Thank you.
> I suspect postfix could benefit greatly from bulk_mailer's domain
> sorting, and I'd rather not talk about the network abuse that
> qmail does...
However, I will note that, last time I checked, Postfix did the
domain-sorting stuff internally. One reason that Listar's sort-tolist
function can be turned off; there's really no point to it on some MTAs.
Now, Sendmail with smtpfeed can compare pretty favorably to the others,
except in memory usage. (Smtpfeed is a RAM /hog/.)
--
Jeremy Blackman - lo...@maison-otaku.net / lo...@listar.org / jer...@lith.com
Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com
Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org