Mail delivery to yahoo blocked
Andy
It seems that yahoo has blacklisted demon, possibly due to open mail relays.
See below.
Andy
> Date forwarded: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:57:31 +0100
> From: Mail Delivery System
> <Mailer...@anchor-fallback-93.mail.demon.net>
> To: SOMEBODY@DEMON
> Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
> Date sent: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 19:33:10 +0100
>
> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software
> (Exim).
>
> 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:
>
> SOME...@yahoo.com
> SMTP error from remote mailer after initial connection:
> host mx2.mail.yahoo.com [64.157.4.88]: 421 VS2-IP5
> Excessive unknown
> recipients - possible Open Relay
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/spam/spam-18.html (#4.1.8):
> retry
> timeout exceeded
--
Andy
BIGBEATNUT AT GO DOT TO
http://go.to/bigbeatnut
Andrea J Chee
<to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> writes
>Has anyone else had problems getting email delivered to yahoo addresses ?
>
>It seems that yahoo has blacklisted demon, possibly due to open mail relays.
>See below.
Yep, I've been receiving bounces for all the Yahoo addresses subbed to
my humour mailing list for several days now. Unfortunately, Yahoo seem
to take several days to send the bounces, so I don't know things are
failing until long after the fact - the bounces I've been getting over
the past few days are for mail going back about a week.
- ANDREA
--
^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^
<and...@bloodaxe.com> http://www.bloodaxe.com/
Bloodaxe's History Links: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5055/
The Loony Bin Archive: http://loonies.net800.co.uk/
news
<to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> writes
I blacklisted yahoo long ago because it spawns spammers [Yes, I now
people forge yahoo addresses, but I had problems with genuine yahoos who
continued to spam weeks after complaints]
--
David Lawson
Mark Stevens
<to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> wrote:
>Has anyone else had problems getting email delivered to yahoo addresses ?
Oh yes!
>It seems that yahoo has blacklisted demon, possibly due to open mail relays.
>See below.
I've been having exactly the same problem. Emails send to Yahoo addresses
will either never be delivered or bounced back, will never be delivered
and eventually bounce or will take any time between 8-96 hours to be
delivered. I sent an email to my Yahoo address via both post.demon.co.uk
and relay.clara.net. The latter took mere seconds to be delivered. The
former took approx. 12 hours to be delivered.
It doesn't just appear to be Yahoo who have blacklisted Demon either --
I've had email bounce (or fail to be delivered) to a variety of mail
services and ISPs. I dread to think what other emails I've sent that
haven't got through to the recipients -- quite a few, I suspect.
I've emailed Demon on several occasions to enquire what they're doing
about this but have received ZERO response. I shouldn't expect to have to
dial up another ISP just to ensure a reliable delivery of my outgoing
email, nor should I expect to constantly be asking my
friends/family/colleagues if they received my last email in case it's
disappeared (which it invariably will).
I just wish Demon would put their hands up and admit that other ISPs and
mail services are actively blocking/filtering mail from Demon, because
it's obviously happening to a lot of people. Their complete silence on the
matter suggests they're aware of the problem and haven't got a fucking
clue how to go about rectifying it.
Anyway, one of my latest bounces:
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 06:16:27 +0100
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
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:
SMTP error from remote mailer after initial connection:
host mx2.mail.yahoo.com [64.157.4.88]: 421 VS2-IP5 Excessive unknown
recipients - possible Open Relay
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/spam/spam-18.html (#4.1.8):
retry timeout exceeded
Return-path: <ma...@headspin.clara.net>
Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.85])
by anchor-fallback-93.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
id 17PCXx-000HBk-1V
for xxxx...@yahoo.com; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 02:33:37 +0100
Received: from sonance.demon.co.uk ([158.152.122.108]
helo=headspin-tykvfg)
by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #2)
id 17P8JL-0003cc-0U
for xxxx...@yahoo.com; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 22:02:15 +0100
From: Mark Stevens <ma...@headspin.clara.net>
To: xxxx...@yahoo.com
--
Mark Stevens
http://www.insertdisc.com/
Steve Woodford
>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:
> xxxx...@yahoo.com
> SMTP error from remote mailer after initial connection:
> host mx2.mail.yahoo.com [64.157.4.88]: 421 VS2-IP5 Excessive unknown
>recipients - possible Open Relay
>http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/spam/spam-18.html (#4.1.8):
> retry timeout exceeded
You know, I wonder if this is as a result of more and more Demon
customers simply blocking all email with yahoo.com in the smtp
envelope. This would cause the punts to bounce the messages to
yahoo.
Since most of these yahoo addresses will be forged, yahoo will assume
the punts are just "splatter-gunning" random addresses and put up
a filter when the number of bad addresses exceeds some threshold.
If this is the case, it's not Demon's fault so ranting at them won't
help.
I wonder how long it'll be before my mail server exceeds their
threshold too for the same reason. ;-)
Cheers, Steve
David Woolley
"Andy <to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message>" <> (bogus TLD
potentially wasting root nameserver resources) wrote:
> Has anyone else had problems getting email delivered to yahoo addresses ?
Not personally; I send direct.
> It seems that yahoo has blacklisted demon, possibly due to open mail relays.
If you look carefully, it would appear that they have blacklisted Demon
because too much mail was being sent to non-existent mailboxes, which
given that even my dial up Demon account gets more such mail that genuine
mail, does tend to hint that the mail is spam.
It would seem to be an automated heuristic, although Demon, like all
ISPs operating smarthosts (when I last checked, some time ago, PSI were
almost permanently blacklisted, generally because of open relays of their
business customers) will get put onto open relay black lists, as the output
MTA, from time to time. (Getting off those blacklists can only be done
after closing down the input open relay, which is why dial up open relays
will not get any grace period.)
In the current case, either the number of bad addresses does represent spam,
or it represents that they don't scale their thresholds appropriately to allow
for the number of legitimate messages sent via Demon to yahoo and the number
of misremembered addresses used in those. If it is a case of real spam,
then I think the block will automatically clear soon after the local problem
is removed, as the proportion of bad mailboxes will drop.
Note that this is a weekend, and unless Demon have improved their policy
recently, they have an open season for spammers from about 17:00 on Friday
to about 09:00 on Monday (or at least this is what the last auto answer
to an abuse report to Demon implied - i.e. they do not man the abuse desk
out of normal office hours).
In any case, it is only a temporary error that is being reported (although
the messages quoted here have been the final attempt at delivery). The
machine reporting the problem should have been giving a mail delayed
message, allowing one some time to chase the problem, before the final
rejection. Is the Demon post machine really not giving first warnings,
or are the clients discarding them as noise?
Andy
Steve Woodford <st...@mctavish.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ag8vtm$j1$1...@dungeon.mctavish.co.uk...
I don't follow all the technical stuff ... but it seems to me that you're
saying that Yahoo is operating an automated policy which is almost
guaranteed to shoot themselves in the foot. I.e. preventing genuine mail
from getting to their customers.
How does that block that you're talking about work, how would it result in a
bounce outwards from the punts ? Are you talking about demon accounts that
operate a mailserver that refuses to accept mails from yahoo addresses ?
Is it the policies of these demon accounts that are the real problem ?
Andy.
Andy
David Woolley <da...@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:T1026...@djwhome.demon.co.uk...
> In any case, it is only a temporary error that is being reported (although
> the messages quoted here have been the final attempt at delivery). The
> machine reporting the problem should have been giving a mail delayed
> message, allowing one some time to chase the problem, before the final
> rejection. Is the Demon post machine really not giving first warnings,
> or are the clients discarding them as noise?
The demon post machine certainly used to give warnings, maybe it's config
has been changed.
Andy.
michael lefevre
> Mark Stevens <ma...@headspin.clara.net> writes:
>
>>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:
>
>> xxxx...@yahoo.com
>> SMTP error from remote mailer after initial connection:
>> host mx2.mail.yahoo.com [64.157.4.88]: 421 VS2-IP5 Excessive unknown
>>recipients - possible Open Relay
>>http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/spam/spam-18.html (#4.1.8):
>> retry timeout exceeded
>
> You know, I wonder if this is as a result of more and more Demon
> customers simply blocking all email with yahoo.com in the smtp
> envelope. This would cause the punts to bounce the messages to
> yahoo.
>
> Since most of these yahoo addresses will be forged, yahoo will assume
> the punts are just "splatter-gunning" random addresses and put up
> a filter when the number of bad addresses exceeds some threshold.
that all sounds like a reasonable explanation of why they'd block the
punts. however, blocking the punts wouldn't block anything but those
bounces - the message above is from one of the post.dcu machines - they
wouldn't be sending bounces unless Demon customer machines were accepting
the email, and then generating a bounce and relaying it through
post.dcu. I guess that's quite possible.
> If this is the case, it's not Demon's fault so ranting at them won't
> help.
true.
> I wonder how long it'll be before my mail server exceeds their
> threshold too for the same reason. ;-)
I've seen similar issues mentioned elsewhere, both by people getting
bounces back from yahoo, and from yahoo users who are finding their email
bouncing.
--
michael
Denis Mcmahon
>Anyway, one of my latest bounces:
>
>To: ma...@headspin.clara.net
>Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
>Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 06:16:27 +0100
>
>This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
>
>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:
>
> xxxx...@yahoo.com
> SMTP error from remote mailer after initial connection:
> host mx2.mail.yahoo.com [64.157.4.88]: 421 VS2-IP5 Excessive unknown
>recipients - possible Open Relay
>http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/spam/spam-18.html (#4.1.8):
> retry timeout exceeded
The yahoo system is bouncing the email because it doesn't recognise
the yahoo "to" or "cc" or "bcc" addresses that have been sent to it
...
Possibly mis-spelt or incorrectly despammed destination addresses, or
the mail server at yahoo is using out of date or inaccurate customer
email identity list etc ....
... assuming the message is meaningful of course.
Rgds
Denis
--
Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / de...@pickaxe.net
sulfnbk is not a virus, see the symantec virus encyclopaedia!
Now restocking killfile, new entrants welcome: trolls, spam,
xpost cascades, OT ads, top posters & terminally clueless!
Denis Mcmahon
>Note that this is a weekend, and unless Demon have improved their policy
>recently, they have an open season for spammers from about 17:00 on Friday
>to about 09:00 on Monday (or at least this is what the last auto answer
>to an abuse report to Demon implied - i.e. they do not man the abuse desk
>out of normal office hours).
Demon do have an immediate action policy and procedures for such
cases, although I'm not sure how it gets activated - I guess that
maybe the abuse email is routed somewhere that it get's scanned
periodically looking for cases that immediate action is appropriate
(eg open relays) as opposed to newsgroup spam etc.
At a guess some automated checks and message routing could also be
done (ie this is the sort of thing I would consider doing):
(a) does the complaint message body contain internet message headers?
N = abuse desk & stop.
(b) newsgroup or email (is there a newsgroups line)? newsgroup = abuse
desk & stop.
(c) do the received headers in the message in the complaint message
body suggest relaying through or UCE/UBE from a demon customer? y =
manual check.
etc .......
Until the level of abuse actions needed against demons customers is
sufficient to justify enough staff to operate a multi shift system,
the abuse team is never going to be a 24 hour operation.
Putting that another way - demon customers don't commit enough net
abuse to justify a 24 * 7 abuse desk.
You may or may not see this as a "good" thing.
Carl Inglis
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 13:49:57 +0100, Denis Mcmahon
<den...@pickaxe.net> wrote:
> Mark Stevens <ma...@headspin.clara.net> wrote:
>
>>Anyway, one of my latest bounces:
>>
>>To: ma...@headspin.clara.net
>>Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
>>Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 06:16:27 +0100
>>
>>This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
>>
>>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:
>>
>> xxxx...@yahoo.com
>> SMTP error from remote mailer after initial connection:
>> host mx2.mail.yahoo.com [64.157.4.88]: 421 VS2-IP5 Excessive unknown
>>recipients - possible Open Relay
>>http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/spam/spam-18.html (#4.1.8):
>> retry timeout exceeded
>
> The yahoo system is bouncing the email because it doesn't recognise
> the yahoo "to" or "cc" or "bcc" addresses that have been sent to it
<snip>
Looking at the URL given in the error message, and reading the sentence
before it, it looks as if Yahoo have blocked the machine that is trying
to deliver to them because it has had too many "unknown recipient" errors.
They appear to have decided that this is indicative of an "Open Relay"
To quote from the page found at the URL given:
"In the upcoming months, Yahoo! Mail will become more aggressive in its
acceptance of SMTP connections and will begin denying connections by
IP address when these connections do not conform to Internet standard
practices."
That's how it looks to me anyway.
Carl
- --
"..as to who I am now, if you're prompted to ask: I'm the ghost of my
future and the sum of my past."
- Talis Kimberly, Small Mended Corners, Archetype Cafe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9KEEQ5bb2gBgJox8RAsWSAKCRAheTKUuFVqN36zGxZmnY9e5U6QCgiP1V
4dtpZbR+xLuiLUaIl5IwkXw=
=TvPr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James Hoddinott
>Has anyone else had problems getting email delivered to yahoo addresses ?
>
>It seems that yahoo has blacklisted demon, possibly due to open mail relays.
>See below.
This is currently being investigated. When I have more info I'll let you
know.
[snipped Yahoo bounce message]
--
James Hoddinott email: ab...@demon.net
Network Abuse Team fax: 0870 051 9970
Demon Internet <URL:http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/aup/>
Mark Stevens
wrote:
>The yahoo system is bouncing the email because it doesn't recognise
>the yahoo "to" or "cc" or "bcc" addresses that have been sent to it
>...
The Yahoo address(es) I'm sending the emails to are legitimate and in
perfect working order. One of them is my girlfriend's -- I've had no
problem sending email to her Yahoo address in the past. Indeed, I've now
abandoned all hope of email sent via Demon reaching her, so I now have to
dial into Clara in order to send it (in which case it gets sent instantly,
without any problems).
I've also sent test emails to my own Yahoo address. I sent the same email
to my Yahoo address via Demon and Clara. The one sent via Clara took 10
seconds to reach my Yahoo address. The one sent via Demon was bounced back
after 96 hours with the open relay warning.
Julian Moore
Yes, my email to yahoo address is being blocked; they are legit and
often single addresses; it can take several days for the bounce to
complete, and the effect is erratic. It's the unpredictability which is
killing - do I send once twice or more to be sure of getting through?
I had not thought to look here before posting to demon helpdesk, but I'm
pleased to see that
>This is currently being investigated. When I have more info I'll let you
>know.
My reservations are the open-endedness of this and the lack of specific
information: I am not happy about waiting in ignorance for an indefinite
period.
There should be an implicit SLA in place - if there is, I withdraw any
implied criticism and apologise unreservedly - failing that I rely on my
own past experience of Demon's inability to respond to specific and
reasonable questions and despite this cynicism ask the following:
1/ Who has accepted ownership of this problem within Demon
2/ Has Demon contacted Yahoo (at an appropriate level) or is the
investigation deductive and in-house rather than pro-active?
3/ Since this problem potentially affects all demon customers (It
is highly likely that everyone has at least one yahoo contact), at what
level within Demon has this problem been given visibility? [The higher
it goes, the easier it is to get necessary resources...]
4/ Would it be possible to receive updates (end of each working
day?) here on the progress of investigation - regardless of progress
towards resolution! - telling us what steps have been taken, and what
further steps will be taken and when. I need to know whether I must
plan on re-routing my email; I can manage for a couple of days more.
I hope it's all sorted out before the first progress report is due;)
Thank you,
Julian
michael lefevre
> Omitting all but the briefest summary:
>
> Yes, my email to yahoo address is being blocked; they are legit and
> often single addresses; it can take several days for the bounce to
> complete, and the effect is erratic. It's the unpredictability which is
> killing - do I send once twice or more to be sure of getting through?
>
> I had not thought to look here before posting to demon helpdesk, but I'm
> pleased to see that
>
>>This is currently being investigated. When I have more info I'll let you
>>know.
>
> My reservations are the open-endedness of this and the lack of specific
> information: I am not happy about waiting in ignorance for an indefinite
> period.
I don't see what else Demon can offer, given that it's not their problem.
[snip bunch of other requests]
you seem to be under the impression that this is a Demon problem which
they can fix. if yahoo decided to block email from ISPs beginning with
"D", would you expect Demon to immediately rename their brand in order
that yahoo would accept their email?
FWIW, I've seen reports of 2 major US ISPs whose mail relays are also
getting blocked by yahoo. if demon can negotiate with yahoo something
reasonable they can do that will mean yahoo lift the blocks, that's good.
if yahoo don't want to cooperate, there's nothing Demon can do to force
yahoo to accept email from Demon.
--
michael
Denis Mcmahon
I'd suggest here that maybe you are in a better position as a yahoo
customer to challenge them about (a) why they are bouncing such
emails, and (b) why they are not using a permanent fatal error code
when they have no intention of accepting the messages "later".
The delay in getting the bounce response is probably because demon are
seeing a "temporary error - please try later" numeric error code, and
are trying again later until the demon system times out on delivery.
(The mailer does not translate textual error messages but relies on
RFC 821 numeric codes to determine whether it should retry or give up
before it's own timeout on retries.)
If yahoo responded with a more appropriate error code (we will never
accept this message) then at least the bound would arrive quicker.
It is perhaps ironic that the reason yahoo is now having to take this
action is yahoos own historical stance of letting anyone have a yahoo
address to the extent that there are now millions of currently unused
yahoo addresses existing in spammers email lists.
Indeed it is likely that many of the no longer active yahoo addresses
are ones that have been in the past used either by spammers or by the
net ignorant as spamtraps.
And of course I don't miss the irony of the fact that the problem is
blocking email from one of the more aggressive "thou will not spam"
isp's on the planet either!
Denis Mcmahon
>There should be an implicit SLA in place - if there is, I withdraw any
>implied criticism and apologise unreservedly - failing that I rely on my
>own past experience of Demon's inability to respond to specific and
>reasonable questions and despite this cynicism ask the following:
SLA where? Between you and demon? between demon and a.n.other ISP
somewhere on the planet with whom the connection is through an
indeterminate number of third party shunters of electrons?
>1/ Who has accepted ownership of this problem within Demon
Who says this is a demon problem? Yahoo is being an asshole, you are
blaming demon.
>2/ Has Demon contacted Yahoo (at an appropriate level) or is the
>investigation deductive and in-house rather than pro-active?
Why should demon contact yahoo at any level? Yahoo customers should be
screaming at yahoo about the blocking of their legitimate email.
This is the sort of reason that demon does not implement filtering -
so that customers email isn't blocked by the ISP.
>3/ Since this problem potentially affects all demon customers (It
>is highly likely that everyone has at least one yahoo contact), at what
>level within Demon has this problem been given visibility? [The higher
>it goes, the easier it is to get necessary resources...]
Bollocks - you seem to be focusing on the wrong issue here. The
problem is yahoo, not demon.
>4/ Would it be possible to receive updates (end of each working
>day?) here on the progress of investigation - regardless of progress
>towards resolution! - telling us what steps have been taken, and what
>further steps will be taken and when. I need to know whether I must
>plan on re-routing my email; I can manage for a couple of days more.
How, and why, and what is the mechanism - for you to receive updates
from demon on what yahoo are doing to fix a yahoo problem.
Yahoo are using irrational criteria which incorrectly prevents fully
RFC compliant ISPs with fully RFC compliant customers from sending
emails to yahoo customers. Why is this a demon problem?
Example:
A spam email is received here "from" a yahoo address to a non existent
recipient. The _RFC_correct_ behaviour here is to bounce the email
back to the from address. Yahoo will consider that bounce to indicate
demon as a spam source as it is received from demon and addressed to
an invalid yahoo email address. The fault is that of the person who
sent the spam here, and the reason they are using a yahoo address is
because yahoo addresses are popular with spammers because of the way
yahoo have in the past marketed their services ....
but you see this as all demons problems ...
Julian Moore
>>>This is currently being investigated. When I have more info I'll let you
>>>know.
>>
>> My reservations are the open-endedness of this and the lack of specific
>> information: I am not happy about waiting in ignorance for an indefinite
>> period.
>
>I don't see what else Demon can offer, given that it's not their problem.
>
>[snip bunch of other requests]
>
>you seem to be under the impression that this is a Demon problem which
>they can fix. if yahoo decided to block email from ISPs beginning with
>"D", would you expect Demon to immediately rename their brand in order
>that yahoo would accept their email?
My very negative experience of service support (as opposed to technical
support) from Demon, which may not be typical, has shaped my response.
I did not intend to give the impression that it is necessarily a Demon
problem, particularly since rejection of mail by Yahoo is obviously
under Yahoo's control and not Demon's. My issue concerned information:
I have no problem with Demon if this is some arbitrary decision of
Yahoo, but if - and I stress IF - the problem has arisen because of some
reasonable issue that Yahoo has with Demon (e.g. open mail relay,
failure to deal with abuse by a Demon customer) then I would like Demon
to put it's hand up and say so, and say whether and how they plan to
address Yahoo's issues in order to be de-blacklisted.
I am most definitely under the impression that this is a problem whose
resolution Demon can influence, and as an issue with potentially very
wide impact on Demon customers it is a problem that Demon should be seen
to be addressing.
It is not "Demon's problem" insofar as the effects and resolution are
not under Demon's direct control, but it is a problem *for* Demon.
To be fair, I have received a direct reply from Jason, via the helpdesk,
which has already bucked the trend on service support, but I still don't
know what the prognosis is.
>if yahoo don't want to cooperate, there's nothing Demon can do to force
>yahoo to accept email from Demon.
Absolutely - I simply wish to know what the status quo is without
prevarication. I don't even have a problem with Demon if it has
contributed to the problem through error or omission - as long as there
are reasonable grounds for believing that Demon is on guard against a
repetition.
Julian
michael lefevre
wrote:
> Mark Stevens <ma...@headspin.clara.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 13:49:57 +0100, Denis Mcmahon <den...@pickaxe.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The yahoo system is bouncing the email because it doesn't recognise
>>>the yahoo "to" or "cc" or "bcc" addresses that have been sent to it
>>>...
>>
>>The Yahoo address(es) I'm sending the emails to are legitimate and in
>>perfect working order. One of them is my girlfriend's -- I've had no
>>problem sending email to her Yahoo address in the past. Indeed, I've now
>>abandoned all hope of email sent via Demon reaching her, so I now have to
>>dial into Clara in order to send it (in which case it gets sent instantly,
>>without any problems).
>
>>I've also sent test emails to my own Yahoo address. I sent the same email
>>to my Yahoo address via Demon and Clara. The one sent via Clara took 10
>>seconds to reach my Yahoo address. The one sent via Demon was bounced back
>>after 96 hours with the open relay warning.
>
> I'd suggest here that maybe you are in a better position as a yahoo
> customer to challenge them about (a) why they are bouncing such
> emails, and (b) why they are not using a permanent fatal error code
> when they have no intention of accepting the messages "later".
actually that's probably not the case with yahoo. as a yahoo customer you
won't get any more communication from them than reading their website or
getting a form message back with the same info.
[snip]
> If yahoo responded with a more appropriate error code (we will never
> accept this message) then at least the bound would arrive quicker.
[snip]
I guess the thinking behind it is that they might change their minds and
accept the message - if the sending host gets taken off their list before
it gives up retrying, the pending email will go through.
--
michael
Richard Clayton
re...@tiger2.demon.co.uk> writes
[of email delivery problems]
>There should be an implicit SLA in place
I know of no plans to redesign the Internet so that individual machines
and networks are compelled to accept packets or communications from any
other. I continue to be amazed that the system works as well as it does
and I usually attribute this to the lack of any compulsion, which would
probably only serve to raise prices and lower overall connectivity.
>3/ Since this problem potentially affects all demon customers (It
>is highly likely that everyone has at least one yahoo contact)
I write to dozens of people every day, but the only yahoo address I can
recall sending email to in the past year has been their abuse team (they
were popular with 419 scammers for a while)... I suppose that means that
I'm not a counterexample - but if I had a bit less time for complaining
then I would be :)
--
richard Richard Clayton
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
James Hoddinott
I guess this issue is owned by myself ATM.
>2/ Has Demon contacted Yahoo (at an appropriate level) or is the
>investigation deductive and in-house rather than pro-active?
As with any instance of someone blocking us, we attempt to contact them
by any means available to us. Unfortunately some Providers are not very
talkative which means that we never actually find out what the problem
is or indeed when it is resolved.
>3/ Since this problem potentially affects all demon customers (It is highly
>likely that everyone has at least one yahoo contact), at what level within Demon
>has this problem been given visibility? [The higher it goes, the easier it is to
>get necessary resources...]
Like everything the Abuse Team do, it is included in the daily/weekly
reports and escalated upwards.
>4/ Would it be possible to receive updates (end of each working day?) here
>on the progress of investigation - regardless of progress towards resolution! -
>telling us what steps have been taken, and what further steps will be taken and
>when. I need to know whether I must plan on re-routing my email; I can manage
>for a couple of days more.
I can update you when I have something to update.
Thomas Sandford
> ...
> Yahoo are using irrational criteria which incorrectly prevents fully
> RFC compliant ISPs with fully RFC compliant customers from sending
> emails to yahoo customers. Why is this a demon problem?
>
> Example:
>
> A spam email is received here "from" a yahoo address to a non existent
> recipient. The _RFC_correct_ behaviour here is to bounce the email
> back to the from address. Yahoo will consider that bounce to indicate
> demon as a spam source as it is received from demon and addressed to
> an invalid yahoo email address. The fault is that of the person who
> sent the spam here, and the reason they are using a yahoo address is
> because yahoo addresses are popular with spammers because of the way
> yahoo have in the past marketed their services ....
>
> but you see this as all demons problems ...
And indeed, my IP has now been blocked by yahoo as a potential spammer,
for precisely this reason.
yahoo administrators are complete fuckwits. They have now dreamed up the
perfect DOS exploit against themselves, and I predict within the next 2 or
3 days there will be no significant ISP on the planet _not_ blocked by
yahoo!
Any mail processor who
1) bounces on invalid addresses and
2) does not do so on the initial external connection
will be caught.
--
Thomas Sandford | $Thomas/98b$@prds-grn.demon.co.uk
Paradise Green Technical Services: S'ware/Hw design and Theatre Tech. Services
Email to this address from commercial mailing lists constitutes unauthorised
computer access, and appropriate action will be taken against offenders.
Julian Moore
>
>I know of no plans to redesign the Internet so that individual machines
>and networks are compelled to accept packets or communications from any
>other. I continue to be amazed that the system works as well as it does
>and I usually attribute this to the lack of any compulsion, which would
>probably only serve to raise prices and lower overall connectivity.
It was perhaps ambiguous; I did not think at the time of writing that it
would be understood as suggesting that Demon should take responsibility
for the operation of the whole Internet. I meant that there should be an
SLA for Demon customers covering the response to service enquiries,
complaints etc.
It would/should be enlightened self-interest to demonstrate clearly and
promptly what is not one's fault (minimise the down-side) and to be seen
to be making appropriate efforts to mitigate the impact (maximise the
up-side).
Why does best-practice in customer service (as opposed to technical
service delivery) appear to be such a black-art?
Julian
Julian Moore
Thank you so much for your reply... you answered all my questions and
for that I am very grateful.
Therefore, in a more conciliatory vein, may I just observe that the
reason for suggesting regular progress updates was that IMH(?:)O, there
should always be something to report - if there is a nominal plan of
action - even if there is no "progress" per se.
In principle, AFAIAC it's about visibility: experience suggests that, in
the absence of trust established by previous performance, unless one can
see something happening it usually isn't. A sad and cynical view I
would be only too happy to dispense with. And if it's not your fault
that nothing's happening, point at the culprit and shout it out!
You didn't actually say that Yahoo has been unable/unwilling to
communicate effectively with Demon about this issue, but that would be
my inference... if you can confirm that then I will also take it up with
Yahoo.
Thank you again,
Julian
James Hoddinott
re...@tiger2.demon.co.uk> writes
>Thank you so much for your reply... you answered all my questions and for that I
>am very grateful.
>
>Therefore, in a more conciliatory vein, may I just observe that the reason for
>suggesting regular progress updates was that IMH(?:)O, there should always be
>something to report - if there is a nominal plan of action - even if there is no
>"progress" per se.
I've been attempting to get hold of a human being at Yahoo for most of
this afternoon but have spent 99% of that time on hold. The other 1%
accounts for navigating their menu system. So your update for today is
that there hasn't been any progress :(
I have sent another mail off to them asking for more info on why they
have taken this action so we'll see if they respond to that.
If you have a copy of a more recent bounce message (more recent that 6th
that is) then could you mail it to me?
>In principle, AFAIAC it's about visibility: experience suggests that, in the
>absence of trust established by previous performance, unless one can see
>something happening it usually isn't. A sad and cynical view I would be only
>too happy to dispense with. And if it's not your fault that nothing's
>happening, point at the culprit and shout it out!
>
>You didn't actually say that Yahoo has been unable/unwilling to communicate
>effectively with Demon about this issue, but that would be my inference... if
>you can confirm that then I will also take it up with Yahoo.
As ever with this type of issue, if our customers are able to help out
and contact, in this case, Yahoo then we would appreciate their help.
Thomas Sandford
> Denis Mcmahon <den...@pickaxe.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> Yahoo are using irrational criteria which incorrectly prevents fully
>> RFC compliant ISPs with fully RFC compliant customers from sending
>> emails to yahoo customers. Why is this a demon problem?
>>
>
> And indeed, my IP has now been blocked by yahoo as a potential spammer,
> for precisely this reason.
On the subject of which, can _anyone_ tell me how to persuade fetchmail
(5.9.11) not to send bounces on spam.
I've set the sendmail spam response codes
I've set nospambounce (in every conceivable combination)
I cannot get it not to send the bounce messages.
My .fetchmailrc currently reads:
# start here
set daemon 900
set postmaster bit-bucket
set no spambounce
poll pop3.demon.co.uk protocol SDPS aka mailstore no dns:
localdomains prds-grn.demon.co.uk
user prds-grn with password @@@@ is * here
#end here
Sendmail is set (using access map) to refuse with code 550 certain usernames
which have been contaminated on usenet.
Warren Leggatt
>
servers, this would stop all spam from idiot users machine that do not
protect themselves and this problem would not have happened.
1) Close the open relay for demon customers. If you allow users to send
emails from any address they feel like you create spammer heaven when they
find idiot users machines.
2) Allow users to request domains that they can send emails from. E.g. if
you have a site at www.hahaha.com they will allow emails from @hahaha.com to
be sent by your account.
End of the internal spam problem in one hit. Which improves network
performance as there will not be masses of spam in the system and also
allows Demon to identify people that have left their machine open to abuse
so they can close their account.
How hard can it be?
>
> you seem to be under the impression that this is a Demon problem which
> they can fix.
It is demons problem for allowing the hackers/spammers to get away with so
much to create the blacklisting in the first place.
> if yahoo decided to block email from ISPs beginning with
> "D", would you expect Demon to immediately rename their brand in order
> that yahoo would accept their email?
>
> FWIW, I've seen reports of 2 major US ISPs whose mail relays are also
> getting blocked by yahoo. if demon can negotiate with yahoo something
> reasonable they can do that will mean yahoo lift the blocks, that's good.
> if yahoo don't want to cooperate, there's nothing Demon can do to force
> yahoo to accept email from Demon.
>
Lets just hope that demon don't p*ss of too many other ISP's etc or we wont
have anyone left to communicate with!
Warren Leggatt
You might have read my other post but if not here is a simple solution to
the amount of spam sent out through demon servers. If this yahoo problem was
caused by the open relay nightmare we all suffered over the past few weeks
then why not add a pass list of addresses/domains that users are allowed to
send emails from.
By this I mean that if any customer tries to send an email where the reply
address is not their ISP address or an address/domain in the pass list then
its bounced before it leaves demon. If that user tries to send 1000's of
emails from that reply address then they are one of the following
1) Idiot user that left their machine unprotected. (Help them solve problem
or shut them down.)
2) Spammer. (Shut them down)
3) User that didn't know they had to request the entry in the pass list.
(Update their list)
Just a thought
Warren
"James Hoddinott" <jam...@demon.net> wrote in message
news:QP4A0KBJ...@demon.net...
Warren Leggatt
are from both accounts I have with your. Email me if you want them
Warren
"James Hoddinott" <jam...@demon.net> wrote in message
news:MlxnuUBu...@demon.net...
news
<jam...@demon.net> writes
>I've been attempting to get hold of a human being at Yahoo for most of
>this afternoon but have spent 99% of that time on hold.
Not much different to contacting Demon support then? :]
--
David Lawson
Richard Clayton
Warren Leggatt <war...@leggatt.demon.co.uk> writes
>You might have read my other post but if not here is a simple solution to
>the amount of spam sent out through demon servers. If this yahoo problem was
>caused by the open relay nightmare we all suffered over the past few weeks
>then why not add a pass list of addresses/domains that users are allowed to
>send emails from.
have you any idea how large this list would be ?
>By this I mean that if any customer tries to send an email where the reply
>address
you presumably mean the SMTP return path ?
>is not their ISP address or an address/domain in the pass list then
>its bounced before it leaves demon.
so it inconveniences everyone until they sort out the "pass list", but
does not inconvenience anyone who is capable of forging the return path
>If that user tries to send 1000's of
>emails from that reply address then they are one of the following
>
>1) Idiot user that left their machine unprotected. (Help them solve problem
>or shut them down.)
so that's no different from at present
>2) Spammer. (Shut them down)
there are customers who send large amounts of email without being
"spammers" - so this isn't a sufficiently clear category.
>3) User that didn't know they had to request the entry in the pass list.
>(Update their list)
#3 doesn't follow ... you don't need to be a sender of 1000's to be in
this category.
>Just a thought
needs a little longer cogitation :(
[BTW you top posted and quoted a signature. Neither is wise.]
--
richard writing to inform and not as company policy
"Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM
michael lefevre
Leggatt wrote:
>> I don't see what else Demon can offer, given that it's not their problem.
>>
> They could stop the risk of open relays with a simple change to the SMTP
> servers, this would stop all spam from idiot users machine that do not
> protect themselves and this problem would not have happened.
>
> 1) Close the open relay for demon customers. If you allow users to send
> emails from any address they feel like you create spammer heaven when they
> find idiot users machines.
>
> 2) Allow users to request domains that they can send emails from. E.g. if
> you have a site at www.hahaha.com they will allow emails from @hahaha.com to
> be sent by your account.
>
> End of the internal spam problem in one hit.
great. you could also solve the problem by simply turning off the
post.dcu cluster.
> How hard can it be?
[snip]
well we've got a couple of mailing lists here, so that's about 200
domains we need to send email from. our list of 200 or so domains tends
to change in some way every few weeks. and then if one of our users sets
up forwarding, then our system would be sending whatever was sent in to
us out again, using whatever sending address was given. we'd need Demon
to employ someone full time just to keep up with us, and we're just one
of many Demon customers with arrangement more complicated than simply
sending out email from a few addresses.
there are better technical solutions based on filtering actual
connections rather than addresses, which some ISPs do use, but seeing as
many customers run their own email services of various kinds, that type
of thing would not be terribly popular.
Demon could implement something like this on an opt-out basis, so that
the restrictions would apply unless the customer asked for them to be
taken off, but then you have lost the ease of a simple solution. there
are options, but I don't think any of them are as simple as you seem to
think...
--
michael
Julian Moore
the brick wall of Yahoo on our behalf;)
>I've been attempting to get hold of a human being at Yahoo for most of
>this afternoon but have spent 99% of that time on hold. The other 1%
>accounts for navigating their menu system. So your update for today is
>that there hasn't been any progress :(
I also went to Yahoo but was unable to find any customer care contact
apart from a spam abuse email address, so I mailed them at that address;
there has been no reply so far.
>I have sent another mail off to them asking for more info on why they
>have taken this action so we'll see if they respond to that.
>
>If you have a copy of a more recent bounce message (more recent that 6th
>that is) then could you mail it to me?
There's been no recurrence in the last couple of days, but it was never
"solid": given the usually rapid pace of delivery, when emails were not
going through within a couple of hours they were resent - and they
seemed to arrive OK... maybe the Yahoo system is not in internal sync
and different routing produced different results.
Julian
Denis Mcmahon
>Thank you so much for your reply... you answered all my questions and
>for that I am very grateful.
Warning.
Your total usenet experience may become blighted by
robust or vulgar comments on your posting style unless
you (a) learn what top posting is and (b) stop doing it.
See the following websites for more info:
http://fmf.fwn.rug.nl/~anton/topposting.html
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_chr0.htm
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html
http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/nquote.html
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
http://www.malibutelecom.fi/yucca/usenet/brox.html
http://www.planefacts.ndirect.co.uk/group/advice/
http://www.planefacts.ndirect.co.uk/group/advice/index.htm
http://www.star-one.org.uk/computer/format.htm
http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html
http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html
http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html
Rgds
Denis
Denis Mcmahon
>By this I mean that if any customer tries to send an email where the reply
>address is not their ISP address or an address/domain in the pass list then
>its bounced before it leaves demon. If that user tries to send 1000's of
>emails from that reply address then they are one of the following
So you are suggesting that demon block all email being sent by their
customers as a solution.
It will certainly solve congestion in the access network very swiftly
as customers flock elsewhere.
Incidentally:
Dr John Stockton
news:demon.service, James Hoddinott <jam...@demon.net> posted at Tue, 9
Jul 2002 17:06:06 :-
>
>I've been attempting to get hold of a human being at Yahoo for most of
>this afternoon but have spent 99% of that time on hold. The other 1%
>accounts for navigating their menu system. So your update for today is
>that there hasn't been any progress :(
ISTM that it could be useful, presuming reliable updating, to have a
published list of sites that Demon are currently and unsuccessfully
trying to reach, and which therefore Demon do not currently need to be
told about.
The implication would be that if JamesH et al cannot make contact then
there may be little point in others expecting to do better.
>I have sent another mail off to them asking for more info on why they
>have taken this action so we'll see if they respond to that.
I hope that Demon have invested in some entirely independent means of
Net access - e.g. a compuserve account, or a dial-in to a friendly
.ac.uk, etc. - and are not relying on E-mailing Yahoo from a pseudo-TAM
account to say that TAM accounts cannot E-mail Yahoo ... !!! <g>.
KOWTGW,
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Plaintext, quoting : see <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)
Warren Leggatt
> >the amount of spam sent out through demon servers. If this yahoo problem
was
> >caused by the open relay nightmare we all suffered over the past few
weeks
> >then why not add a pass list of addresses/domains that users are allowed
to
> >send emails from.
>
> have you any idea how large this list would be ?
It does not stop other ISP's doing this so the technology is already out
there. If an ISP like BT can get their act together on this then why not
demon?
>
> >By this I mean that if any customer tries to send an email where the
reply
> >address
>
> you presumably mean the SMTP return path ?
I mean that you can only use @account.demon.co.uk as your reply address or
addresses that you have informed demon about. The only people this will
cause issue to are people that send out spam!
>
> >is not their ISP address or an address/domain in the pass list then
> >its bounced before it leaves demon.
>
> so it inconveniences everyone until they sort out the "pass list", but
> does not inconvenience anyone who is capable of forging the return path
? What do you mean by return path.
>
Warren Leggatt
> customers as a solution.
>
The only mail demon will need to block is mail sent from people where the
reply address used in the email is not the same as either their ISP address
(???@account.demon.co.uk) or one of the reply addresses that the user as
asked demon to let through.
BTW. BT operate this system on their servers and it did not result in
blocking users outgoing emails. I'm not saying that they offer a good
service but when you think about it does protect outgoing bandwidth with
only a minor inconvenience for users while their account gets set up.
It has to be better that what we have at the moment which caused the
problems we have just experienced with mail/routing issues followed by the
ISP email server being blacklisted.
If you prefer the later then no worries.
Just a thought
Warren
Warren Leggatt
> domains we need to send email from. our list of 200 or so domains tends
> to change in some way every few weeks. and then if one of our users sets
> up forwarding, then our system would be sending whatever was sent in to
> us out again, using whatever sending address was given. we'd need Demon
> to employ someone full time just to keep up with us, and we're just one
> of many Demon customers with arrangement more complicated than simply
> sending out email from a few addresses.
>
> there are better technical solutions based on filtering actual
> connections rather than addresses, which some ISPs do use, but seeing as
> many customers run their own email services of various kinds, that type
> of thing would not be terribly popular.
>
> Demon could implement something like this on an opt-out basis, so that
> the restrictions would apply unless the customer asked for them to be
> taken off, but then you have lost the ease of a simple solution. there
> are options, but I don't think any of them are as simple as you seem to
> think...
>
Just bouncing ideas around. I have been with demon for about 6 years now and
just recently the service has been plagued with issues. Keeping the above
idea in place with the option of trusted users having the pass list disabled
is still viable.
There can only be a small percentage of the total users with needs such as
yourself and with what you have described, you probably have good firewalls
and security in place anyway.
IP Filtering could also run in the same way, with opt out. Again the number
of people that need this will be a small percentage of the total.
It will still provide much better security that there currently is?
Julia Jones
Leggatt <war...@leggatt.demon.co.uk> writes
>I mean that you can only use @account.demon.co.uk as your reply address or
>addresses that you have informed demon about. The only people this will
>cause issue to are people that send out spam!
Ho hum. Take a look at my headers...
--
Julia Jones
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California; do not send
unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org
address.
Suzanne Mace
<sc...@tikt0k.dem0n.c0.uk> writes
>On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:17:26 +0100, "Andy"
><to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> wrote:
>
>>Has anyone else had problems getting email delivered to yahoo addresses ?
>>
>>It seems that yahoo has blacklisted demon, possibly due to open mail relays.
>>See below.
>
>Who cares? Yahoo email is mostly used by spammers anyway. Anyone you actually
>need (or want) to contact would give you their real address. I drop anything
>from yahoo.com into the bit bucket. Is someone's hiding behind and anonymizing
>system, they have something to hide.... guess that's obvious really, heh...
>
Nope,
I have just had a quotation to a potentially valuable new client in
Thailand bounced by Yahoo. Many in the Far East use such addresses.
Fortunately I also have their fax number and have been able to Fax the
quotation.
Why do people always assume their view of the net is the same as
everyone else's.
--
Tony Mace
The Cactus and Succulent Plant Mall
http://www.cactus-mall.com
Richard Clayton
Leggatt <war...@leggatt.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >By this I mean that if any customer tries to send an email where the
>reply
>> >address
>>
>> you presumably mean the SMTP return path ?
>
>I mean that you can only use @account.demon.co.uk as your reply address
finding the reply address requires parsing the email itself :(
> or
>addresses that you have informed demon about. The only people this will
>cause issue to are people that send out spam!
>? What do you mean by return path.
it is part of the SMTP protocol conversation - and where it would be
most convenient to implement this type of block (if anyone actually
wished to do it)
Warren Leggatt
"Julia Jones" <jaj...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:uRRQwglI$5K9...@jajones.demon.co.uk...
And the problem with that account in idea would be?
James Coupe
<sc...@tikt0k.dem0n.c0.uk> writes:
>I think it's more "spoddy" to set up an email acct at hotmail/yahoo/other spam
>hangout.
The many non-computer spods I know who use Hotmail (and similar) would
suggest otherwise.
Using a web-browser is easy for them. And they can use it anywhere.
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
13D7E668C3695D623D5D
Warren Leggatt
> >reply
> >> >address
> >>
> >> you presumably mean the SMTP return path ?
> >
> >I mean that you can only use @account.demon.co.uk as your reply address
>
> finding the reply address requires parsing the email itself :(
So if its so difficult to do, why can "BT" manage to do it.for their mail
servers. The format of the SMTP protocol is not really difficult to process
and will normally appear before the body of the message if contructed
correctly so in 99% of cases you will have to pass a handful of bytes at
most.
> > or
> >addresses that you have informed demon about. The only people this will
> >cause issue to are people that send out spam!
>
> >? What do you mean by return path.
>
> it is part of the SMTP protocol conversation - and where it would be
> most convenient to implement this type of block (if anyone actually
> wished to do it)
Even better, so adding it at this point would make it even easier to
implement.
As a side note and not aimed at any one individual - I find it so strange
peoples reactions to this idea or something similar that might cause a minor
inconvienience when everyone has complained so much about the poor service
we received recently because of this hole in the demon mail servers. That
coupled with the fact that because of this risk area we are now blocked from
sending emails to yahoo. I bet the situation would be different if it was
someone like AOL or freeserve that decided to block main from demon because
of this problem.
Andy
Scott <sc...@tikt0k.dem0n.c0.uk> wrote in message
news:jk1niu0j3os5pde4u...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:17:26 +0100, "Andy"
> <to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> wrote:
>
> >Has anyone else had problems getting email delivered to yahoo addresses ?
> >
> >It seems that yahoo has blacklisted demon, possibly due to open mail
relays.
> >See below.
>
> Who cares? Yahoo email is mostly used by spammers anyway. Anyone you
actually
> need (or want) to contact would give you their real address. I drop
anything
> from yahoo.com into the bit bucket. Is someone's hiding behind and
anonymizing
> system, they have something to hide.... guess that's obvious really,
heh...
>
Thats a very narrow view ... I have friends who keep in permanent contact
with people via Yahoo addresses as they move from contract to contract or
job to job . I imagine they also find it a benefit not to to have personal
email
mixed up with work email (lots of reasons).
If it's not an issue that affects you, you're not obliged to contribute to
this discussion.
Andy.
michael lefevre
Leggatt wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Demon could implement something like this on an opt-out basis, so that
>> the restrictions would apply unless the customer asked for them to be
>> taken off, but then you have lost the ease of a simple solution. there
>> are options, but I don't think any of them are as simple as you seem to
>> think...
>
> Just bouncing ideas around. I have been with demon for about 6 years now and
> just recently the service has been plagued with issues. Keeping the above
> idea in place with the option of trusted users having the pass list disabled
> is still viable.
>
> There can only be a small percentage of the total users with needs such as
> yourself and with what you have described, you probably have good firewalls
> and security in place anyway.
>
> IP Filtering could also run in the same way, with opt out. Again the number
> of people that need this will be a small percentage of the total.
>
> It will still provide much better security that there currently is?
I actually argued similar points that you're arguing, and it seems that
the percentage isn't that small - lots of Demon users are techie-types
with email arrangements beyond a simple email client sending from one
address, a LAN in their house, or small businesses, so the numbers opting
out would be higher than you might expect...
--
michael
Richard Clayton
Warren Leggatt <war...@leggatt.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >> >By this I mean that if any customer tries to send an email where the
>> >reply
>> >> >address
>> >>
>> >> you presumably mean the SMTP return path ?
>> >
>> >I mean that you can only use @account.demon.co.uk as your reply address
>>
>> finding the reply address requires parsing the email itself :(
>
>So if its so difficult to do, why can "BT" manage to do it.
I expect they have spent lots of money on big beefy machines that will
be able to handle the processing load... (or alternatively their
machines struggle at times of high throughput).
>for their mail
>servers. The format of the SMTP protocol is not really difficult to process
I agree - which is why I suggested that it would make more sense to use
the SMTP return path
>and will normally appear before the body of the message if contructed
>correctly
I would consider it compulsory
>so in 99% of cases you will have to pass a handful of bytes at
>most.
I think you need to read up about SMTP :(
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt
(also available by FTP from Demon's repository of course)
>As a side note and not aimed at any one individual - I find it so strange
>peoples reactions to this idea or something similar that might cause a minor
>inconvienience
Personally, I think it would entirely break the service for a very large
number of customers for some considerable time.
Besides all the issues surrounding the processing load on the mail
service and the need to develop easy-to-use mechanisms for configuring
the service, it would cause significant delays to everyone reaching the
helpdesk and would have a limited impact on the actual problem because
of the way that the senders of unsolicited email are already morphing
their product to avoid this type of block.
I think many people grasp at least some of the downside for this
particular proposal (even giving it the benefit of the doubt from a
technical point of view) even if the entirety of its awfulness is not
apparent to them.
>> --
>> richard Richard Clayton
>>
>> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
>> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
unless you wish to make a point about the .sig I use (which is always
possible, I sometimes choose them very deliberately) then please DO NOT
QUOTE IT :(
--
richard @ highwayman . com "Nothing seems the same
Still you never see the change from day to day
And no-one notices the customs slip away"
Warren Leggatt
> the percentage isn't that small - lots of Demon users are techie-types
> with email arrangements beyond a simple email client sending from one
> address, a LAN in their house, or small businesses, so the numbers opting
> out would be higher than you might expect...
>
Oh well, Although the main problem for the service appears to be the non
techie people as these are the people that leave mail relays open on their
machine, do not install firewalls and run that files with names like
"runme.exe" when they get it emailed to them from someone they do not know.
Warren
Warren Leggatt
> number of customers for some considerable time.
>
> Besides all the issues surrounding the processing load on the mail
> service and the need to develop easy-to-use mechanisms for configuring
> the service, it would cause significant delays to everyone reaching the
> helpdesk and would have a limited impact on the actual problem because
> of the way that the senders of unsolicited email are already morphing
> their product to avoid this type of block.
>
> I think many people grasp at least some of the downside for this
> particular proposal (even giving it the benefit of the doubt from a
> technical point of view) even if the entirety of its awfulness is not
> apparent to them.
>
Oh well, at least I got the idea bounced around. Hopefully it will kick
someone else into action for a solution that will scale better.
I started off with a rant to vent frustration over what happened to the
demon service over the past month. I just hope they manage to keep on top of
open mail relays issue so we don't get blacklisted by a major ISP somewhere
before they find a workable/scaleable solution to this.
Warren
Thomas Sandford
> So if its so difficult to do, why can "BT" manage to do it.for their mail
> servers. The format of the SMTP protocol is not really difficult to process
> and will normally appear before the body of the message if contructed
> correctly so in 99% of cases you will have to pass a handful of bytes at
> most.
Because BT has a much simpler and less flexible email system.
>> > or
>> >addresses that you have informed demon about. The only people this will
>> >cause issue to are people that send out spam!
No. It will cause huge problems to a significant number of demon users.
Almost anyone who has registered their own domain (or a number of them) and
wishes to send email from their Demon dial-up so that the emails appear
to come from (and replies/bounces automatically go to) that/those domain(s).
Since this will now encompass a significant portion of Demon's user base
what you propose would require a very large and complex system to eliminate
the false positives.
> As a side note and not aimed at any one individual - I find it so strange
> peoples reactions to this idea or something similar that might cause a minor
> inconvienience when everyone has complained so much about the poor service
> we received recently because of this hole in the demon mail servers. That
> coupled with the fact that because of this risk area we are now blocked from
> sending emails to yahoo. I bet the situation would be different if it was
> someone like AOL or freeserve that decided to block mail from demon because
> of this problem.
The problem with email to yahoo is that the administrators their have
chosen a fuckwitted, poorly thought through method in their attempt to
reduce the spam load on their servers.
You are suggesting a poorly thought through way to tackle a non-problem
which additionally would do nothing to cure the yahoo problem. There are
numerous highly computer literate people reading this group who recognise
and shout down a terrible idea when they see it.
Repeat after me:
1) The problem with yahoo is that yahoo are fuckwits.
2) There are numerous legitimate and good reasons for sending email
from a Demon dialup that does not "appear" to originate from that dialup.
Paul Wright
Warren Leggatt <war...@leggatt.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>They could stop the risk of open relays with a simple change to the SMTP
>servers, this would stop all spam from idiot users machine that do not
>protect themselves and this problem would not have happened.
>
>1) Close the open relay for demon customers. If you allow users to send
>emails from any address they feel like you create spammer heaven when they
>find idiot users machines.
What happens when the spammer decides to use a Demon customer's open
relay to send mail apparently from a Demon address?
The open relay blacklists test for this vulnerability (that is, they
will attempt to relay using a MAIL FROM address which belongs to the
target machine), so it is likely that the spammers know about it too.
>2) Allow users to request domains that they can send emails from. E.g.
>if you have a site at www.hahaha.com they will allow emails from
>@hahaha.com to be sent by your account.
>
>End of the internal spam problem in one hit.
Your suggestion would cause needless inconvenience to Demon users for
little benefit. ISPs which have already implemented this policy are
clueless.
>Which improves network performance as there will not be masses of spam
>in the system and also allows Demon to identify people that have left
>their machine open to abuse so they can close their account.
Your other postings suggest there's an important document you have not
read:
<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html>
Demon can solve this problem by collaborating with the open relay
blacklists or by doing their own testing.
--
Paul Wright | http://pobox.com/~pw201 |
Andrea J Chee
>If you have a copy of a more recent bounce message (more recent that 6th
>that is) then could you mail it to me?
That could be tricky, depending on whether you want a more recent bounce
or a more recent message that's bounced. For whatever reason there's a
delay on the bounces. I've received 8 so far that they've sent me today,
which you are welcome to, but they're all related to messages I sent on
the 6th.
- ANDREA
--
^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^
<and...@bloodaxe.com> http://www.bloodaxe.com/
Bloodaxe's History Links: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5055/
The Loony Bin Archive: http://loonies.net800.co.uk/
Julia Jones
>
>"Julia Jones" <jaj...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
>news:uRRQwglI$5K9...@jajones.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <1026260727.1568.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Warren
>> Leggatt <war...@leggatt.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >I mean that you can only use @account.demon.co.uk as your reply address
>or
>> >addresses that you have informed demon about. The only people this will
>> >cause issue to are people that send out spam!
>>
>> Ho hum. Take a look at my headers...
>> --
>> Julia Jones
>> The suespammers.org mail server is located in California; do not send
>> unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail to my
>suespammers.org
>> address.
>
>And the problem with that account in idea would be?
>
using a Demon account with connectivity supplied by another ISP - but if
you have a look around this newsgroup you'll find quite a few people
using a domain name that doesn't match where they're getting their
connectivity from. Now, demon.service is an excellent example of how not
to get a random sample, but it does illustrate the point.
I could quite legitimately use that suespammers address in my From as
the Reply-to address in email, and there are situations where I wouldn't
*want* to use one of my demon addresses.
My university's alumini association has a free email address service. I
finally got around to setting mine up yesterday. I will want to use that
address as the Reply-to in any email using it as the From.
I'm an enthusiastic larter of spam. I haven't made use of sneakemail's
service's yet, but I probably will in the end. That very definitely
won't involve anything connecting back to my Demon account other than
the X-mailer header.
Back when I had a job, there were reasons why I might receive an email
at my personal account, and respond to it with a work address (not
necessarily mine) in the Reply-to
I do some work on a fan website belonging to someone else. I have a
couple of addresses associated with that website, which forward to an
address on my Demon hostname. Some of the emails I get through those
addresses can be quite happily dealt with from my normal Demon
addresses, but with some it's more appropriate to use the website
address.
One of these days I might actually get my own domain.
There are many legitimate reasons why people don't want to use their
Demon hostname in the Reply-to. It's not uncommon for people to collect
other addresses for various purposes. It's going to be fun dealing with
all those requests and authenticating them. And re-authenticating them
when they change. Consider that at least one of the reasons quoted above
uses disposable addresses...
Julia Jones
>need (or want) to contact would give you their real address. I drop anything
>from yahoo.com into the bit bucket. Is someone's hiding behind and anonymizing
>system, they have something to hide.... guess that's obvious really, heh...
Quite a few of my friends use yahoo or hotmail. Lots of reasons, and yes
they do include anonymity. I don't have a problem with some of my
efriends being scared to be outed as slash fans - I spent enough years
in a small country town to understand why someone might not want to be
outed as a science fiction fan, let alone one that thinks it's ok for a
couple of guys to slap their bits together.
And Hotmail is not as anonymizing as some people think, as the person
making death threats on one list found out...
Suzanne Mace
>>>need (or want) to contact would give you their real address. I drop anything
>>>from yahoo.com into the bit bucket. Is someone's hiding behind and
>anonymizing
>>>system, they have something to hide.... guess that's obvious really, heh...
>>>
>>
>>Nope,
>>
>>I have just had a quotation to a potentially valuable new client in
>>Thailand bounced by Yahoo. Many in the Far East use such addresses.
>>Fortunately I also have their fax number and have been able to Fax the
>>quotation.
>
>legal costs of the will etc, but you'll get 10 times your investment back.
>
We are quite capable of checking that this is a genuine enquiry from a
valid business thank you.
Aquarion
<war...@leggatt.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> you presumably mean the SMTP return path ?
>
>I mean that you can only use @account.demon.co.uk as your reply address or
>addresses that you have informed demon about. The only people this will
>cause issue to are people that send out spam!
Ah, yes. of course, those people who have their own domain (Um, me) or
use a relaying service to keep mail seperate (Gosh, me again) or for
various reasons want to be able to send messages from accounts
separate to the demon one (mailin...@aquarion.freeserve.co.uk, to
take a random example), or even want to send mail from a domain that
is hosted *by* demon (not me, but a company I admin for). All those
people are spammers.
Hmm.
Now, really I am acting on behalf of the president of Nigeria, and due
to banking problems I need a friend in the UK or US to help me move
one meeelion dollars into my swiss account, all you have do do is send
your banking details to...
Yours in total sincerity,
Aquarion De'blue
--
I must not filk. Filk is the thread killer. Filk is the little post
that causes total thread-kill. I will face my filk.I will let it rhyme
over me. And when the tune has passed, I will set winamp to it's path.
Where the filk has gone there will be nothing. Only rhyme will remain.
James Coupe
<vo...@unews.midair.co.uk> writes:
>Mailing list messages for users other than myself pass through my
>server, and many are from Yahoo and (particularly) Hotmail users. I
>wouldn't be popular if I bounced them all indiscriminately.
In general, mailing lists tend to set it up so that the SMTP envelope
appears to come from the list, not the author of the article.
This allows the list to maintain a relatively accurate idea of which
accounts are still active (which may be problematic if bounces never go
to the list admin), anonymises the list (so that bounces of 'lurkers'
never go senders - e-mail bombing a mailing list as a way of determining
a large number of readers on size limited accounts) and doesn't
inconvenience the sender (which sender wants to receive 300 bounce
messages, if it's a huge list).
As a result, the originating point of the e-mail will often not be of
relevance. And bounces occur on SMTP envelopes, not the From: header,
though some systems can be crafted to do such if you *really* want.
What *would* be of relevance, however, are mailing lists hosted by the
appropriate places e.g. Yahoo Groups.
David Woolley
"Scott <sc...@tikt0k.dem0n.c0.uk>" <> (Bogus address potentially wasting uk SLD
domain server resources) wrote:
> Who cares? Yahoo email is mostly used by spammers anyway. Anyone you actually
That's simply not true. Spammers use popular email domain names not
because they actually expect to receive email there (most such addresses
are completely bogus and bounces them to are one trigger of the Yahoo problem
at the moment), but because being popular domain names means that most
people receive legitimate email from them and can't simply block the whole
domain. Most spam, arriving at demon, has not arrived via any Yahoo
or Hotmail machine.
If you find a web address in a spam that leads to such a service, it is
likely to be genuine, as are addresses in tbe body (although even there
people sometimes include red-herrings, and people obfuscate addresses
to give the surface impression that they belong to popular ISPs). (Spammers
with any sense, either use rogue ISPs, and rely on the laisser faire
attitude of back bone ISPs, particularly those in financial crisis, or
use telephone numbers, to support their response channel.)
In reality, a lot of Yahoo addresses are used as spam avoidance measures,
either as completely bogus addresses, or, more likely, as throw away
addresses that are abandoned once the level of spam gets too high.
Moreover students, people on the move and people who want, or only have,
access from the office or internet cafes use them. In an adult education
language class I attend, 4 out of about 10 email addresses are Yahoo or
Hotmail, and one of those is the teacher, a foreign student in a UK
university (1990s variety).
> need (or want) to contact would give you their real address. I drop anything
A lot of people don't have "real addresses", or cannot use them from
internet cafes when on the move.
> from yahoo.com into the bit bucket. Is someone's hiding behind and anonymizing
> system, they have something to hide.... guess that's obvious really, heh...
So whey did you obfuscate your email address, causing a possible distributed
denial of service on the .uk nameserver, as failed lookups are not cached
for very long. Yahoo and Hotmail are not designed as anonymising services,
although obviously can be used as such, but then, so can a Demon account.
Reasons for anonymising with web based email services include:
- avoiding incoming spam;
- avoiding revealing personal details to burglars;
- avoiding revealing company plans when making technical enquiries;
- being able to make comments which might annoy your employer's customers, etc.
- protecting the identity of children;
- avoiding immature remarks catching up with you in later life....
I notice an X-No-Archive header, implying that you are worried about the
last of these points. You've even used the message ID to misrepresent
the source.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
war...@leggatt.demon.co.uk "Warren Leggatt" writes:
> 1) Idiot user that left their machine unprotected. (Help them solve problem
> or shut them down.)
How about the idiot that has failed to understand the thread entirely,
and is making totally unwarranted assumptions about the nature of
Yahoo!'s blocking?
PS Read <http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/nquote.html> to learn how
properly to post to Usenet.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of
distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr-
easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
war...@leggatt.demon.co.uk "Warren Leggatt" writes:
> I started off with a rant to vent frustration over what happened to the
> demon service over the past month. I just hope they manage to keep on top of
> open mail relays issue so we don't get blacklisted by a major ISP somewhere
> before they find a workable/scaleable solution to this.
Despite Thomas (and others) having already pointed out that THIS problem
is because Yahoo!'s administrators have been displaying even less of a
clue than your goodself, you persist in imagining that the reported
problem has ANYTHING to do with "open relays".
It hasn't; Yahoo are treating ANY machine that sends too many mails
addressed to non-existent usernames @yahoo.com as being an "open relay
that's being used for spamming". Whereas in reality, it's just the
incoming SMTP server of various ISPs bouncing mail back to their
purported originators, where that identity has been forged with a fake
yahoo.com address (and often when the [Demon customer] recipient doesn't
exist either, such as Message-IDs being used as usernames).
In short, as had already been said a number of times, Yahoo! are total
fuckwits and will soon manage to block off ALL incoming mail from any
ISP. Perhaps the only way of getting this stupidity to the attention of
their management is exposure in the press (not excepting things like The
Register, as well).
This is not to say that there is not a problem with idiots creating open-
relays; but they are not the cause of this particular problem. Besides
which, your "solution" is laughably immature.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
$thomas/98b$@prds-grn.demon.co.uk "Thomas Sandford" writes:
> yahoo administrators are complete fuckwits. They have now dreamed up the
> perfect DOS exploit against themselves, and I predict within the next 2 or
> 3 days there will be no significant ISP on the planet _not_ blocked by
> yahoo!
IIRC, Yahoo sacked their only team member that had the slightest amount
of "clue", because he was resolutely fighting spammers that genuinely
were abusing Yahoo. He used to post into the n.a.n-a.? froups, and was a
useful man to have around.
The rest of them are, as you say, complete fuckwits.
> Any mail processor who
> 1) bounces on invalid addresses and
> 2) does not do so on the initial external connection
>
> will be caught.
Which includes, of course, any Demon customer that rejects mails incoming
addressed to non-extant mailboxes, since the *initial* transaction will
have succeeded with the punt.
Steve Woodford
>In article <jk1niu0j3os5pde4u...@4ax.com>,
>"Scott <sc...@tikt0k.dem0n.c0.uk>" <> (Bogus address potentially wasting uk SLD
>domain server resources) wrote:
>> Who cares? Yahoo email is mostly used by spammers anyway. Anyone you actually
>That's simply not true. Spammers use popular email domain names not
>because they actually expect to receive email there (most such addresses
>are completely bogus and bounces them to are one trigger of the Yahoo problem
As long as the spammers continue to use these dropbox addresses (valid
or not), people will continue to filter ALL email from the freeby
domains such as hotmail, yahoo, msn, etc. Trust me, it's a VERY effective
way to block spam.
>at the moment), but because being popular domain names means that most
>people receive legitimate email from them and can't simply block the whole
>domain.
If you regularly deal with people who insist on using an email address
from one of the filtered domains, chances are your MTA/MUA can be
instructed to make an exception for their particular address. I know
mine can (postfix)...
>If you find a web address in a spam that leads to such a service, it is
>likely to be genuine, as are addresses in tbe body (although even there
Trouble is, that entails reading the spam. Let's not go there.
Cheers, Steve
ro...@127.0.01
<b...@dsl.co.uk> writes
>Yahoo are treating ANY machine that sends too many mails
>addressed to non-existent usernames @yahoo.com as being an "open relay
>that's being used for spamming".
It's far worse than that ... they're bouncing mails with *valid*
@yahoo.com addresses, seemingly because they were bcc'd with half a
dozen other *valid* addresses ...
Unless, of course, they just don't like me (I've reported abuse
from Yahoo! before and they were a little less than helpful, even at one
time deliberately bouncing my reports of abuse directly with "not
welcome here").
I *thought* I'd found an address on their site to send technical
problems to. Turned out to be an autoresponder. Fortunately I only have
two Yahoo! correspondents and one of them lives down the hall!
--
Rex M F Smith
Denis Mcmahon
>> So you are suggesting that demon block all email being sent by their
>> customers as a solution.
>The only mail demon will need to block is mail sent from people where the
>reply address used in the email is not the same as either their ISP address
>(???@account.demon.co.uk) or one of the reply addresses that the user as
>asked demon to let through.
So you think that the solution is for demon to block my emails because
someone else ran an open relay.
How does blocking my outgoing email stop anyone else operating an open
relay.
Rgds
Denis
--
Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / de...@pickaxe.net
sulfnbk is not a virus, see the symantec virus encyclopaedia!
Now restocking killfile, new entrants welcome: trolls, spam,
xpost cascades, OT ads, top posters & terminally clueless!
Stewart Wilkinson
> You might have read my other post but if not here is a simple solution to
> the amount of spam sent out through demon servers. If this yahoo problem
> was caused by the open relay nightmare we all suffered over the past few
> weeks then why not add a pass list of addresses/domains that users are
> allowed to send emails from.
>
> By this I mean that if any customer tries to send an email where the reply
> address is not their ISP address or an address/domain in the pass list
> then its bounced before it leaves demon. If that user tries to send 1000's
> of emails from that reply address then they are one of the following
This doesn't sound like a workable system to me.
I and the rest of my family use a number of email addresses, some of which
are not of the form <user>@gb7lgs.dcu . I am the legitimate owner of
several domains for which all incoming mail is re-directed to one or more
<user>@gb7lgs.dcu addresses, and from which I sometimes post messages via
the only ISP I use (demon).
For me to be able to continue to use those legitimate addresses, any
checking performed by the Demon mail servers on outgoing mail from my
system would have to done against a whole list of different user &
hostnames.
I can't see demon wanting to manage such a list.
----
Stewart
John Washington
> > So you are suggesting that demon block all email being sent by their
> > customers as a solution.
> >
>
> The only mail demon will need to block is mail sent from people where the
> reply address used in the email is not the same as either their ISP address
> (???@account.demon.co.uk) or one of the reply addresses that the user as
> asked demon to let through.
>
> blocking users outgoing emails. I'm not saying that they offer a good
> service but when you think about it does protect outgoing bandwidth with
> only a minor inconvenience for users while their account gets set up.
What system do you believe "BT operate"?
I send mail thru BT's servers, I use other domains in my envelope
and headers. I've never given any list of my other addresses to
BT. Are you suggesting my outgoing mail is being blocked?
How long has this been going on? And when did my correspondents
(they still reply to my mails) acquire psychic powers?
--
jw
Gordon Hodgson
>addressed to non-existent usernames @yahoo.com as being an "open relay
>that's being used for spamming". Whereas in reality, it's just the
>incoming SMTP server of various ISPs bouncing mail back to their
>purported originators, where that identity has been forged with a fake
>yahoo.com address (and often when the [Demon customer] recipient
>doesn't exist either, such as Message-IDs being used as usernames).
I believe there is also an issue with yahoo bouncing mail which has more
than a certain number of addresses in the to-line. I had a message
bounced from two yahoo addresses in my address-book, because I was
sending the mail to 50 people. Or that's what I gathered. I then resent
the message with only the two bounced yahoo addresses in the to-line and
it worked fine. It is however blatant stupidity, regardless of the
cause.
--
Gordon Hodgson
thatboyneedstherapy
news(at)popculture(dot)demon(dot)co(uk)
Gordon Hodgson
<sc...@tikt0k.dem0n.c0.uk> writes
>Who cares? Yahoo email is mostly used by spammers anyway. Anyone you
>drop anything from yahoo.com into the bit bucket. Is someone's hiding
>that's obvious really, heh...
Just not true. Some people want address that enables them to move
around, and not subscribe to an internet connection (for instance at
university). I know plenty of people that don't have proper email
addresses.
ro...@127.0.01
<ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <102634...@dsl.co.uk>, Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
><b...@dsl.co.uk> writes
>>It hasn't; Yahoo are treating ANY machine that sends too many
>>mails addressed to non-existent usernames @yahoo.com as being
>>an "open relay that's being used for spamming".
>
>more than a certain number of addresses in the to-line.
... :-(
> I had a message bounced from two yahoo addresses in my address-
>book, because I was sending the mail to 50 people.
The number causing such problems is a lot less than 50 :-(
Warren Leggatt
domains that we wanted to use before their email server would allow the mail
through.
I.e.
if my account was na...@btconnect.com and I wanted to send emails with a
reply address of na...@someothersite.com then I would have to tell them that
they should allow emails from someothersite.com through when sent from my
account. If I didn't they would bounce.
As you can see, this works well for blocking abuse of open relays on
customer machines unless they use a reply address in the valid list for that
account.
I don't know if they still run this system as I left BT over a year ago due
to the huge limitations on their business sometimes (anytime) account.
Warren
"John Washington" <google200...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:184af7ab.02071...@posting.google.com...
James Coupe
<ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Just not true. Some people want address that enables them to move
>around, and not subscribe to an internet connection (for instance at
>university). I know plenty of people that don't have proper email
>addresses.
Erm, if it receives e-mail for them it is a proper email address.
Gordon Hodgson
<ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes
>In message <Wedo$aDEAdM9Ew$3...@popculture.demon.co.uk>, Gordon Hodgson
><ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Just not true. Some people want address that enables them to move
>>around, and not subscribe to an internet connection (for instance at
>>university). I know plenty of people that don't have proper email
>>addresses.
>
>Erm, if it receives e-mail for them it is a proper email address.
Meaning,
SMTP/POP3 dealy which gets downloaded to a home computer (and yes, I did
used to have OE picking up hotmail)
Andy
James Hoddinott <jam...@demon.net> wrote in message
news:4Q36DJB3...@demon.net...
> In article <1025961527.29671....@news.demon.co.uk>, Andy
> <to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> writes
> >Has anyone else had problems getting email delivered to yahoo addresses ?
> >
> >It seems that yahoo has blacklisted demon, possibly due to open mail
relays.
> >See below.
>
> This is currently being investigated. When I have more info I'll let you
> know.
>
Could we have an update please, even if it's only "still trying to contact
yahoo" ?
Thanks, Andy.
James Hoddinott
<to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> writes
>James Hoddinott <jam...@demon.net> wrote in message news:4Q36DJB3UVK9gAz
>F...@demon.net...
>> In article <1025961527.29671....@news.demon.co.uk>, Andy
>> <to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> writes
>> >Has anyone else had problems getting email delivered to yahoo addresses ?
>> >
>> >It seems that yahoo has blacklisted demon, possibly due to open mail
>relays.
>> >See below.
>>
>> This is currently being investigated. When I have more info I'll let you
>> know.
>>
>
>Could we have an update please, even if it's only "still trying to
>contact yahoo" ?
Erm, "still trying to contact Yahoo" :)
--
James Hoddinott
Michael J Davis
<to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> writes
>
My son has a Yahoo account. I tried to mail him on Friday last, it was
bounced by Yahoo last night.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
James Coupe
<ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Erm, if it receives e-mail for them it is a proper email address.
>
>Meaning,
>
>SMTP/POP3 dealy which gets downloaded to a home computer (and yes, I
>did used to have OE picking up hotmail)
That's probably not of a great deal of use to the many people using IMAP
instead.
Or people using e-mail on their computers at work.
Or people using various proprietary systems - such as AOL - which
certainly appears to be a proper e-mail address, even if their clients
suck big time.
Or people hosting their e-mail on a shell account elsewhere, for access
from all sorts of places.
Hint: attempting to claim that perfectly usable systems aren't "proper"
ones because they aren't how you do it is probably not very useful.
Gordon Hodgson
<ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes
>Hint: attempting to claim that perfectly usable systems aren't "proper"
>ones because they aren't how you do it is probably not very useful.
I wasn't arguing the right of a given method of email communication to
be deemed 'proper', I was merely using the simplest way of
differentiating between the email system where email is delivered to a
client computer and that such as hotmail, where it just sort of sits
far away on a host, that is accessed through the web. I'm trying very
hard not to be a smart-ass here.
Phew.
James Coupe
<ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I wasn't arguing the right of a given method of email communication to
>be deemed 'proper', I was merely using the simplest way of
>differentiating between the email system where email is delivered to a
>client computer and that such as hotmail, where it just sort of sits
>far away on a host, that is accessed through the web.
E-mail is delivered, by SMTP, to servers, not clients. (The client-
server relationship is sometimes obfuscated in some people's views
especially since - from an end-user on Demon's point of view - the
situation is reversed from that of POP3, where the customer is the
client.)
Keeping mail in remote locations, and then using that location from the
web, a shell account, an IMAP client or whatever is also entirely
sensible, in many situations. For instance, people running co-located
servers which they access via work (thus their place of work never has
to take responsibility for personal mail hitting their servers) is a
perfectly proper use of e-mail.
This also allows people who don't have "always on" connections (at home,
at work, whatever) to have their e-mail in a central location. Also,
use of web browsers can make 'secure' connections simpler - https
webmail is useful for such things, as is ssh for a shell account. This
can certainly be much simpler for people who don't want to set up
tunnelled POP3 connections, or who cannot use secure POP or IMAP
protocols.
It's also notable that many systems provide different interfaces. A
Demon customer can choose to leave all their e-mail on a computer that
is not their own and just use WebMail, if they prefer. Does that
customer not have proper e-mail? Similarly, a person using Yahoo! or
similar can purchase POP3 access. This then means that @yahoo.com or
@hotmail.com style addresses cease to be 'improper' e-mail, and you have
no way of knowing what they do unless they let you know, or e-mail you
back from their desktop. (And even then, that's not proof positive.)
How someone accesses, and why someone uses that method, their e-mail is
generally fairly irrelevant, and there are literally dozens of different
possible configurations with dial-up computers, ADSL computers, roaming
laptops, work servers/computers, smart-hosts, direct MX delivery,
WebMail interfaces, exclusively web-mail based providers, IMAP, POP3,
SMTP,
Julian Moore
<ja...@hoddinott.org> writes
FWIW I also contacted Yahoo at the only address I could find (abuse@...
and it wouldn't have bounced 'cos I used my yahoo account).
Seems they are as disinterested in their own users as they are in
responding to anyone else... :(
Julian
James Hoddinott
re...@tiger2.demon.co.uk> writes[snip]
>>Erm, "still trying to contact Yahoo" :)
>>
>
>FWIW I also contacted Yahoo at the only address I could find (abuse@...
>and it wouldn't have bounced 'cos I used my yahoo account).
>
>Seems they are as disinterested in their own users as they are in
>responding to anyone else... :(
Yes, this was a trick I tried a couple of years ago. Even pretending to
be an irate Yahoo user didn't generate a human response.
--
James Hoddinott
Julian Moore
<jam...@demon.net> writes
>In article <AnDl9DQn...@tiger2.demon.co.uk>, Julian Moore <news-
>re...@tiger2.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In message <luiScnAgbwM9EwL$@hoddinott.org>, James Hoddinott
>><ja...@hoddinott.org> writes
>[snip]
>>>Erm, "still trying to contact Yahoo" :)
I have contacted Yahoo! UK ltd and made contact with a real person; I
have provided a contact name and telephone number to James... hopefully
the next update will contain news of something!
My Yahoo contact has promised to call me back with an update in due
course...
FWIW Yahoo said it was unlikely they have "blacklisted" a whole domain,
but admitted that their servers may *automatically* take exception to a
particular IP range... human involvement seems to be non-existent until
someone shouts at them, which is not easy as they also admitted that
they are deliberately difficult to contact because they are focussing on
their premium services...
Please don't bother pointing out the holes or flaws in that or ask me to
clarify - it was a very brief chat intended only to elicit a meaningful
contact point. Job done.
Julian
Peter Ibbotson
news:EUnx4uE3...@tiger2.demon.co.uk...
> Please don't bother pointing out the holes or flaws in that or ask me to
> clarify - it was a very brief chat intended only to elicit a meaningful
> contact point. Job done.
>
Perhaps they could stop sending me bounce messages. Returning me bounces for
over quota or invalid account is a bit pointless (esp. as it was a forged
email address) returning 550 or 552 codes to the MTA would be a better
action.
If they keep doing it I'll just block their mailservers and have done with
it.
--
Work pet...@lakeview.co.uk.plugh.org | remove magic word .org to reply
Home pe...@ibbotson.co.uk.plugh.org | I own the domain but theres no MX
Andy
James Hoddinott <ja...@hoddinott.org> wrote in message
news:luiScnAgbwM9EwL$@hoddinott.org...
James, I understand you now have a direct contact at Yahoo UK. Has there
been any progress please ?
It looks likely that there is still a problem. I sent email to my
correspondent at Yahoo and have received neither reply nor bounce message.
Still, that was a mere 3 days ago and the last bounce took 4+ days ... fully
expecting a bounce tomorrow.
Andy
James Hoddinott
<to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> writes
>James, I understand you now have a direct contact at Yahoo UK. Has there
>been any progress please ?
Yes, I spoke with my contact in Yahoo UK this morning to get an update
on our conversation yesterday evening. He has spoken to the engineers in
the US who are "currently investigating" [tm].
>It looks likely that there is still a problem. I sent email to my
>correspondent at Yahoo and have received neither reply nor bounce message.
>Still, that was a mere 3 days ago and the last bounce took 4+ days ... fully
>expecting a bounce tomorrow.
I sent a mail off to all those that sent me copies of the bounce message
they were getting, asking them to try again and if they got a bounce to
forward it on to me. Feel free to forward your bounce, if you receive
one.
--
James Hoddinott email: ab...@demon.net
Network Abuse Team fax: 0870 051 9970
Demon Internet <URL:http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/aup/>
Andrea J Chee
<to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> writes
>
>correspondent at Yahoo and have received neither reply nor bounce message.
>Still, that was a mere 3 days ago and the last bounce took 4+ days ... fully
>expecting a bounce tomorrow.
I've got several bounces today, from mail sent on Monday.
- ANDREA
--
^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^
<and...@bloodaxe.com> http://www.bloodaxe.com/
Bloodaxe's History Links: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5055/
The Loony Bin Archive: http://loonies.net800.co.uk/
Andrea J Chee
<jam...@demon.net> writes
>I sent a mail off to all those that sent me copies of the bounce message
>they were getting, asking them to try again and if they got a bounce to
>forward it on to me. Feel free to forward your bounce, if you receive
>one.
>
One on the way. I have several today, let me know if you want them all.
Andy
> In article <1027069699.881.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Andy
> <to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> writes
> >James, I understand you now have a direct contact at Yahoo UK. Has there
> >been any progress please ?
>
> Yes, I spoke with my contact in Yahoo UK this morning to get an update
> on our conversation yesterday evening. He has spoken to the engineers in
> the US who are "currently investigating" [tm].
>
Any news, please ?
Andy
Julia Jones
<nos...@merp.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes
>We have at last got rid of that
>bloody unwanted bookshelf.
There is no such thing as an unwanted bookshelf, only a bookshelf which
has not yet been filled with books...
Oh, sorry, wrong newsgroup...
--
Julia Jones
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California; do not send
unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org
address.
James Hoddinott
<to.send.di...@please.read.end.of.message> writes
It appears that a couple of the post machines are still blocked by Yahoo
giving an "Excessive Unknown Recipients" message (although the mails are
only going to one address).
With a bit of luck I'll be bumping into one or more Yahoo UK people this
afternoon so I'll see if they can help any further.
Gordon Hodgson
<jam...@demon.net> writes
>It appears that a couple of the post machines are still blocked by Yahoo
>giving an "Excessive Unknown Recipients" message (although the mails are
>only going to one address).
>
>With a bit of luck I'll be bumping into one or more Yahoo UK people this
>afternoon so I'll see if they can help any further.
>
Do they have a blacklist, such that some people (servers) are allowed
excessive unknown recipients and others aren't?
--
Gordon Hodgson
200 channels and nothing but cat
(news)(at)(popculture)(dot)(demon)(dot)(co)(dot)(uk)
t...@demon.net
> In article <slrnajupqo...@merp.demon.co.uk>, Julie Brandon
> <nos...@merp.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes
>>We have at last got rid of that
>>bloody unwanted bookshelf.
> There is no such thing as an unwanted bookshelf, only a bookshelf which
> has not yet been filled with books...
Hmmm, there's 'the bookshelf which is forcing me to lay all my reference
books [1] on the shelf below flat instead of upright'. Does that count?
[1] I orderded 'World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery' by Lorrin
Rexford Bird & Robert D. Livingston ysterday, along with some other
related titles. Maybe I should get out more... =)
--
Tim Preston Data Network Design Engineer
"He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it"
Demon
"Gordon Hodgson" <ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fS9ZrHBf...@popculture.demon.co.uk...
Andy
[
>The sun is having an interesting session of high activity at the moment,
>even though we're well over the speak of the solar cycle, and is having a
>lot of X radio events & associated flares. In fact there's a coronal mass
>ejection heading towards us from an X4-class event as we speak.
>
Ah, so that's what's causing all the spam this week!
--
Andy [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society]
For Austrian philately <URL:http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps>
For Lupus <URL:http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/lupus>
For my other interests <URL:http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
Julia Jones
writes
>Julia Jones <jaj...@suespammers.org> wrote:
>> In article <slrnajupqo...@merp.demon.co.uk>, Julie Brandon
>> <nos...@merp.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes
>>>We have at last got rid of that
>>>bloody unwanted bookshelf.
>
>> There is no such thing as an unwanted bookshelf, only a bookshelf which
>> has not yet been filled with books...
>
>Hmmm, there's 'the bookshelf which is forcing me to lay all my reference
>books [1] on the shelf below flat instead of upright'. Does that count?
>
with shelves the proper width apart to take *those* books, and you use
the first lot for books of an appropriate size. Although Julie seems to
be claiming to have done this once too often.
I can't do this sort of thing any more, now that I'm actually living
with my husband who objects to books taking over the entire house.
Although his current complaint is that my computer has taken over the
dining room table. I'll move it as soon as he buys it a table of its
own...
Wm...
02:50:01 Julie Brandon <nos...@merp.demon.co.uk.invalid>:
>The sun is having an interesting session of high activity at the moment,
>even though we're well over the speak of the solar cycle,
But, but, The Sun has *always* been unspeakable.
>[ Soooooooooooooooooooooooory :) ]
No you aren't :)
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 31 days from date of posting
{de...@pickaxe.net
(Julie Brandon) wrote:
>coronal mass ejection ... from an X4-class event
Yep, that's todays excuse for crashed systems sorted out. :)
Rgds
Denis
--
Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / de...@pickaxe.net
sulfnbk is not a virus, see the symantec virus encyclopaedia!
Now restocking killfile, new entrants welcome: trolls, spam,
xpost cascades, OT ads, top posters & terminally clueless!
Wm...
08:39:36 Julia Jones <jaj...@suespammers.org>:
[bookshelves]
>No. What you do in that case is that you get another area of shelving
>with shelves the proper width apart to take *those* books,
Width? I thought we were talking length not breadth :)
>I can't do this sort of thing any more, now that I'm actually living
>with my husband who objects to books taking over the entire house.
>Although his current complaint is that my computer has taken over the
>dining room table. I'll move it as soon as he buys it a table of its
>own...
... or a table of his own.
Julia Jones
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I can't do this sort of thing any more, now that I'm actually living
>>with my husband who objects to books taking over the entire house.
>>Although his current complaint is that my computer has taken over the
>>dining room table. I'll move it as soon as he buys it a table of its own...
>
>... or a table of his own.
Unfortunately the existing table is his. He bought it. It is a dining
table, not a computer table. And his computer is a laptop, occupies half
the area mine does even with its external drives plugged in, and does
not need at least ten minutes notice to shut down and lug somewhere else
if the table is required. This has been mentioned a number of times.
I keep mentioning in return that a 15" TFT flatscreen is the same screen
area as a 17" CRT for much less space and weight, but he keeps pointing
out that even at $300 (yes, three hundred dollars), it's more expensive
than a second table for the computers. Not *much* more expensive than a
decent table, mind you.