Der von ihnen angeschriebene Mitarbeiter arbeitet nicht mehr bei der Firma GPS Technik AG.
Bitte wenden sie sich an info@gpstechnik.ch oder 0041 44 732 99 77.
On Thursday 17. January 2008, f.jachiet@gpstechnik.ch wrote:
Der von ihnen angeschriebene Mitarbeiter arbeitet nicht mehr bei der Firma GPS Technik AG.
Bitte wenden sie sich an info@gpstechnik.ch oder 0041 44 732 99 77.
Hi Firma GPS Technik AG.
*** For your information: You have an autoresponder loop on the account f.jachiet@gpstechnik.ch <-> swinog@swinog.ch: http://marmoset.init7.net/public/swinog/2008-January/thread.html#2419 ***
I would rather be writing about the topic UCE-pro* and their autocratic point of view. But what you guys show here is just plain embarrassing and awkward (and is about to eliminate allmost every legitimation to argue with UCE-pro*). Haven't we had it here for a dozen of times? Do you know what precedence: list is?
Is it possible that you either:
* don't use autoresponders * use working autoresponders * use seperate accounts for mailinglists (and don't use autoresponders on it!) * don't use Mailinglists?
Why is it that swinog is the only of the many mailinglist I read where people are unable to interfere technically correct? The mailinglist of the swiss NETWOK OPERATORS group? Are we swiss all plain fools? (This doesn't apply to gpstechnik only)
Sorry for my very direct wording, but the convenient versions seem to lack on efficiency.
Tanks for your attention.
regards, Michael
Michael Naef wrote: [..]
Why is it that swinog is the only of the many mailinglist I read where people are unable to interfere technically correct? The mailinglist of the swiss NETWOK OPERATORS group? Are we swiss all plain fools? (This doesn't apply to gpstechnik only)
Because SwiNOG is one of the only lists that forces a reply-to: swinog@swinog.ch. As such, stupid vacation programs who are subscribed will nicely reply to the list and embarras themselves there instead of only spamming the sender with that message, the latter which would go unnoticed as on every other list. Try spamming NANOG once and you will see what pops up :)
Greets, Jeroen
Hi Jeroen
On Thursday 17. January 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote: [..]
Because SwiNOG is one of the only lists that forces a reply-to: swinog@swinog.ch. As such, stupid vacation programs who are subscribed will nicely reply to the list and embarras themselves there instead of only spamming the sender with that message, the latter which would go unnoticed as on every other list.
Swinog is by far not the only one which uses this set-up (after a swift check I would say it's about 40% of the lists I read). But it is indeed the only one to have an autoresponder gone mad every two weeks :-/
cheers,
Michael
Hi Michael,
we have Level 1 listed the IP 195.162.162.159 spamming the list with it's stupid autoresponder, so if swinog uses UCEPROTECT-Level 1 the loop should be broken now.
http://www.uceprotect.net/de/rblcheck.php?ipr=195.162.162.159
Yours
Claus von Wolfhausen UCEPROTECT-Network
On Thursday 17. January 2008, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote:
Hi Michael,
Hi Claus
we have Level 1 listed the IP 195.162.162.159 spamming the list with it's stupid autoresponder, so if swinog uses UCEPROTECT-Level 1 the loop should be broken now.
http://www.uceprotect.net/de/rblcheck.php?ipr=195.162.162.159
Yours
Claus von Wolfhausen UCEPROTECT-Network
I hope you don't expect me to award you with the King's cross for doing that. I don't like your reaction. It seems childish to me. This specific behaviour inidcates to me one more time that UCE-pro* is acting out of resigantion (and arrogance?) rather than trying to be usefull. But that again just reflects the impression I got a few years ago.
Just for to mention: This posting stands oposite to your last one where you suggested to add spampoints rather block mail due to a listing.
There are many blacklist which can be used as a quite efficient and reliable sources to help tag email. Yours unfortunately lacks the last. If you question it or not. And - I musst admit - I resigned, myself, along time ago argueing with UCE-pro*
Have fun,
Michael
Hi Michael,
I hope you don't expect me to award you with the King's cross for doing that. I don't like your reaction. It seems childish to me. This specific behaviour inidcates to me one more time that UCE-pro* is acting out of resigantion (and arrogance?) rather than trying to be usefull. But that again just reflects the impression I got a few years ago.
No i just tried to be helpfull, and it seems to work. Would you preferre that stupid autoresponder had continued the loop up till someone at GPSTECHNIK will stop it?
I guess you would not.
That said i really have no idea what your problem is.
Perhaps you don't know that i took over the UCEPROTECT-Project in June 2007, so if you had any problems with UCEPROTECT some years ago, then you had differences with my predecessor and not with me.
Many things have changed here since i am responsible for the project.
Yours
Claus von Wolfhausen UCEPROTECT-Network
Hi there
are you located in marketing or engineering?
br simon
Claus v. Wolfhausen schrieb:
Hi Michael,
..
Claus von Wolfhausen UCEPROTECT-Network
Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote:
Perhaps you don't know that i took over the UCEPROTECT-Project in June 2007, so if you had any problems with UCEPROTECT some years ago, then you had differences with my predecessor and not with me.
Many things have changed here since i am responsible for the project.
It does seem somewhat problematic that you would list someone for having a poorly configured auto-responder. How does that fit in with the blacklist policy for Level1?
/Per Jessen, Herrliberg
Dear Claus
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 02:41 +0100, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote:
we have Level 1 listed the IP 195.162.162.159 spamming the list with
it's
stupid autoresponder, so if swinog uses UCEPROTECT-Level 1 the loop should be broken now.
Tell me, that you are not really blocking IPs because of some email domains behind are throwing automatically created reponses back? You are really comparing apple to pears. You should block email domains but not IPs.
Let's say you have a load balanced environment with let's say 100'000 domains and 1 mio email addresses, using a /24 for email services. The collateral damage you are taking in account if one single address is throwing back automated responses is immense. Not to mention if you are blocking one IP - you then have a lottery if email will get transmitted.
Sorry, but that gets me upset.
Cheerz - Dan
Once again.
It seems uceprotect has some feedback-mechanism, where an email to a nonexistant address can automatically get the sending server added to a blacklist. See http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=0
Pity that this also affects addresses which are not existant anymore, and double the pity that people of course keep mailing to those, or do not deinstall their mailforwards.
But the best things is the following. The users and their respective domains have been anonymized, however, the IPs and ISPs NOT.
Aug 21 08:40:09 10.0.2.1 exim-mxin[95536]: 2008-08-21 08:40:09 1KW3q5-000Oqu-6m <= user@some-domain.ch H=(mailgate1.webhost4u.ch) [193.138.29.15] P=esmtp S=13147 id=000f01c90358$bfd51cf0$2c01a8c0@user.local
user@some-domain.ch sends a mail. His webhoster seemingly reports to uceprotect.
Aug 21 08:40:11 10.0.2.15 exim-dist[48224]: 2008-08-21 08:40:11 1KW3q5-000CXo-Dy <= user@some-domain.ch H=(mxin001.mail.hostpoint.ch) [10.0.2.1] P=esmtp S=13618 id=000f01c90358$bfd51cf0$2c01a8c0@user.local Aug 21 08:40:11 10.0.2.15 exim-dist[48239]: 2008-08-21 08:40:11 1KW3q5-000CXo-Dy => otheruser@some-other-domain.ch R=local_delivery_router T=local_delivery S=13708 QT=2s DT=0s Aug 21 08:40:12 10.0.2.15 exim-dist[48239]: 2008-08-21 08:40:12 1KW3q5-000CXo-Dy => otheruser otheruser@some-other-domain.ch R=autoresponder T=autoresponder S=13684 QT=3s DT=1s Aug 21 08:40:12 10.0.2.15 exim-dist[48239]: 2008-08-21 08:40:12 1KW3q5-000CXo-Dy Completed
The mail arrives at otheruser@some-other-domain.ch. This otheruser uses an autoresponder which sends a mail back to user@some-domain.ch.
Aug 21 08:40:12 10.0.2.16 exim-mxout[21209]: 2008-08-21 08:40:12 1KW3q8-0005W5-GD <= <> H=(dist004.mail.hostpoint.ch) [10.0.2.15] P=esmtp S=1064 Aug 21 08:40:13 10.0.2.16 exim-mxout[21210]: 2008-08-21 08:40:13 1KW3q8-0005W5-GD ** user@some-domain.ch R=smtp_router T=remote_smtp: SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:user@some-domain.ch: host mailgate1.webhost4u.ch [193.138.29.15]: 571 Access denied and blocklisted: 990 (V4.07-RULE-0901) Sorry your IP is blacklisted at http://www.backscatterer.org/?ip=217.26.49.182
Sadly, user@some-domain.ch doesn't really exist, so the mailserver of otheruser@some-other-domain.ch gets into the uceprotect blacklist.
The point of this is of course, that EVERY ISP which has some customer which uses autoreply can be blacklisted. This is very bad.
Cheers Seegras
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Peter Keel schrieb:
[193.138.29.15]: 571 Access denied and blocklisted: 990 (V4.07-RULE-0901) Sorry your IP is blacklisted at http://www.backscatterer.org/?ip=217.26.49.182
Sadly, user@some-domain.ch doesn't really exist, so the mailserver of otheruser@some-other-domain.ch gets into the uceprotect blacklist.
The point of this is of course, that EVERY ISP which has some customer which uses autoreply can be blacklisted. This is very bad.
Which concerns backscatterer.org, and _not_ Uceprotect. Same organisation behind, but different policies.
And yes, autoreplies are bad. This also includes out-of-office notifications. If you allow them out to the Internet at large, you're almost as bad as the next pill spammer.
An admin that still allows such autoreplies should be tarred and feathered and hunted out of the city. He/she has no business in running a mailserver.
- -- Matthias
An admin that still allows such autoreplies should be tarred and feathered and hunted out of the city. He/she has no business in running a mailserver.
You were right, if a mail-admin was actually the person with the right to decide on the auto-reply policy. Unfortunately in most organizations, he is not. We should all start to teach management the ways of the forc...aehmm...internet.
Kind regards, Viktor
* on the Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:10:29AM +0200, Matthias Leisi wrote:
[193.138.29.15]: 571 Access denied and blocklisted: 990
Which concerns backscatterer.org, and _not_ Uceprotect. Same organisation behind, but different policies.
Hm, I'm not so sure. However the company using this seems to have technical difficulties anyway, and I can't reach them by mail.
And yes, autoreplies are bad. This also includes out-of-office notifications. If you allow them out to the Internet at large, you're almost as bad as the next pill spammer.
Try to explain that to the users at large and _any_ management.
Cheers Seegras
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Peter Keel schrieb:
And yes, autoreplies are bad. This also includes out-of-office notifications. If you allow them out to the Internet at large, you're almost as bad as the next pill spammer.
Try to explain that to the users at large and _any_ management.
"Do you want to send email, or do you want to send Out-of-Office replies?"
- -- Matthias
*arrrrrrrghhh*
I'll rather not try postmaster. It's probably time to go for a sleep.
----
This is the mail system at host mxpolicygw2.as8833.net.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail system
abuse@gpstechnik.ch: host psa1.as8833.net[195.162.162.159] said: 550 sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.7.17) (in reply to RCPT TO command)
Salut,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:01:38AM +0100, Michael Naef wrote:
*arrrrrrrghhh*
abuse@gpstechnik.ch: host psa1.as8833.net[195.162.162.159] said: 550 sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.7.17) (in reply to RCPT TO command)
This has been a known problem for a long time already: http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/detail.php?domain=gpstechnik.ch&submit...
Sometimes I'm tempted to use rfc-ignorant.org as a blacklist.
Tonnerre
Tonnerre LOMBARD wrote:
This has been a known problem for a long time already:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/detail.php?domain=gpstechnik.ch&submit...
Sometimes I'm tempted to use rfc-ignorant.org as a blacklist.
I know you won't, but be careful anyway - whois.rfc-ignorant also lists 165 TLDs (.dk, .de, .eu ...) due to "no WHOIS server or incomplete data in server".
/Per Jessen, Herrliberg
On the Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:01:38AM +0100, Michael Naef blubbered:
Hoi Michi, hoi Swinoggers.
*arrrrrrrghhh*
I'll rather not try postmaster. It's probably time to go for a sleep.
Oh come on. This whole case made my day. =:-) (Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude)
-----8<-----
This is the mail system at host mxpolicygw2.as8833.net.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail systemabuse@gpstechnik.ch: host psa1.as8833.net[195.162.162.159] said: 550 sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.7.17) (in reply to RCPT TO command)
----->8-----
Can't help it but:
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
AFAIR, postmaster should work. It's been almost two years, since I was the mail-hosli there.
CU, Venty
Hello,
On 17.01.2008, at 11:30, Martin Ebnoether wrote:
Can't help it but:
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
AFAIR, postmaster should work. It's been almost two years, since I was the mail-hosli there.
Hmmm, if I'm looking at what happens if you're trying to send a message to abuse@gpstechnik.ch I wouldn't be too surprised if you'd get a "mailbox over quota" for the postmaster@gpstechnik.ch account.....
CU Tobias
-
Claus v. Wolfhausen -
CSI/GoldNet Simon Spring -
Daniel Kamm -
f.jachiet＠gpstechnik.ch -
Jeroen Massar -
Martin Ebnoether -
Matthias Leisi -
Michael Naef -
Per Jessen -
Peter Keel -
Tobias Göller -
Tonnerre LOMBARD -
Viktor Steinmann