On Sunday 24 August 2003 03:54 pm, you wrote:
> Spake Steve on Sunday, August 24, 2003 at 02:31PM -0400:
> > On Sunday 24 August 2003 07:56 am, you wrote:
> > > This is the message RR gives:
> > >
> > > host flmx03.mgw.rr.com[65.32.1.49] said: 550 5.7.1
> > > Mail Refused - rr.com_Residential_Range - See
> > > http://security.rr.com/residential.htm
> > >
> > > Least, that is the relevant portion.
> >
> > Ah, this is what RR has designated to be a "residential" ip range. Have
> > nothing to do with ip addresses. I.e. there's no term related to ip
> > that identifies if it is residential or not.
> >
> > RR has a list of ip ranges a number of ISP's use to sell to their
> > residential customers. It has been arbitrarily assigned to by those
> > ISP's. Mostly only very large ISP's use the term residential ip ranges,
> > or allocate ip ranges to be identified as residential. Thus this is
> > only workable with ISPs that do that.
>
> They're nuts, I know. They're blocking mail from my spaniard friend too,
> he has a static IP on DSL...
>
> > What RR says on that link is that if you are trying to send mail from
> > another network than RR, using RR as the send mail service, they will
> > refuse it. Thus if you run a send mail service on your residential
> > service, for other people, they will block it.
>
> No, no, I think you're slightly mistaken. They're refusing to deliver
> mail from 'residential ips'. That is, say my Spaniard friend
> sends mail to me using his localhost SMTP server. Once the message
> gets to the RR mail server, the RR mail server bounces it.
Go back and read it. It says "incoming port 25 blocks". Since 25 is the port
you use to send mail it means mail intended for them to act as the sender.
> I don't run a SMTP service for other people, I run it for *myself*,
> as it is the easiest way of getting Mutt and a few other MUAs to send
> mail.
Exactly! But you could be open for other to send mail from.
> > This is normal as it stops you from having an open relay where others
> > can spam through your account (which after all is on their servers).
>
> Er? This may be common, but it isn't normal. This is contrary to several
> RFCs on email, I think...
This the safest and least intrusive way to guarantee that you are allowed to
send mail from their servers. The option is to have you login every time
you send mail. Now it just remembers that you are OK since you logged in to
check mail.
We might be talking slightly different things though. We have stopping
others from turning you into a open relay for others to use/abuse. Versus
identifying who you are.
Blocking RR's incoming 25 does not affect legit traffic. If it does you
probably have a misconfigured client. (Not that I could not have
misunderstood them myself, but I think I got them right based on what I
used to do when I built ISP's, and the fact that I don't have a problem
sending/receiving to and from my various accounts (on and off RR).)
> > Realize that since it is only blocking outsiders from using your
> > private account to send mail from, to you or others. I never noticed
> > this for my external accounts as they are external accounts who have
> > their own send mail service and does not depend on RR mail servers for
> > delivery.
Read my earlier replies and see if it clears it up.
> I don't understand that paragraph very well. ;)
>
> > All ISP's should use this policy. If it was the true spamming would be
> > very easily stopped and traced in most cases.
>
> Oh yes, it stops spam wonderfully. Only 90 messages in my Spam/
> folder this morning! And several people I actually want mail from,
> have to modify their mailserver setup in order to mail me.
> Wonderful system. ;)
I'd love to see how they were configured. Where they are, and who they sent
and received from. Usually users misconfigures clients while the ISP's know
what they are doing.
> At least, I don't feel bad about having Fetchmail poll their POP3
> servers for mail every minute or so any more.
>
> However, if RR were to just ignore all mail from Asia and former Soviet
> bloc countries, I'd have a *lot* less spam...
: )
--Steve _________________________________________________ This sig is pending approval by SCO's legal team. Licensing fee's expected to be "fair", i.e. $999. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:33:18 EDT