At 1:06 AM 3/9/07, Russel Oliver wrote:
Kyle Wheeler wrote:
Read that carefully. They're not saying they couldn't verify the
sender by talking to YOUR server, they're saying that 206.46.232.11
didn't like the sender for some reason, and unless you own
relay.verizon.net (aka 206.46.232.11), that's not you.
sender is meaning the "mail from" sender in my understanding.
You're both right. It's the "mail from" sender (which is in your
domain) that is being rejected. But Kyle's point is that it's being
rejected by relay.verizon.net, for unknown reasons. It might be, as
you suspect, that it's trying to verify the sender by talking to your
server. But it might be some completely different reason. They're
not telling you why. You can make some assumptions, which may or may
not be correct. As Kyle points out, all you know is something about
your mail is bothering them.
In general, this message from them usually means "we think your
message is spam, so why don't you keep it." (Say it in a snooty
voice, and you'll get the sentiment a bit more accurately.) It
doesn't mean something simple like "we couldn't verify your sender
when we contacted your server", it means "somewhere in the bowels
of our anti-spam heuristics, this message triggered a no-no rule."
You might see them connecting to your SMTP server in your logs. But
that doesn't necessarily indicate where the problem is. It's
possible that they're connecting, verifying the sender exists, and
then rejecting your message for some other reason.
I have an ethical problem with the fact that I need to configure my own
domain in anyway to conform to what one particular isp thinks is the
right way to control email servers.
In this case, it may well be true that Verizon's behavior is moronic
and unreasonable. But, as a blanket statement, your "ethical
problem" is not valid. As an extreme example, suppose you were
running an open relay. You would be very likely to find that your
mail was rejected by several ISPs. But I doubt that anybody here
would sympathize with your refusal to close your open relay "to
conform to what one particular isp thinks is the right way to control
email servers." If you don't know what Verizon thinks you
should/shouldn't be doing, it's hard to say they're wrong. But they
should definitely do a better job of telling you what they want.
At 1:06 AM 3/9/07, Russel Oliver wrote:
I have made no changes in over 2 years. qmail has just been humming
away. This is in no way a qmail problem, it is verizon.
Again, very likely correct in this particular case, but also not
valid as a blanket statement. Just because you have made no changes
in over 2 years doesn't prove it's Verizon's problem and not yours.
Using the open relay example again, suppose you had been running an
open relay for over 2 years, and Verizon suddenly decided to start
blocking mail from open relays. No changes on your end, yet Verizon
suddenly stops blocking your mail. Whose problem is it?
I realize you are (probably) not running an open relay. I just used
that as an easy example of a situation where it is reasonable for
some other ISP to decide how people who send email to them should
configure their own servers. So you can't say that's always an
unreasonable demand. At this point, about all you can confuse
Verizon of is being unreasonable by rejecting mail without an
adequate explanation of what their reason is.
|