|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Praise to XO's Security/Abuse
On 02:14 AM 8/31/02, Simon Lyall wrote: >At least with RFC-ignorant you know who to contact Since rfc-ignorant *uses* rfc-ignorant, I can't directly contact him/them (as the bounce below shows). I refuse to jump thru hoops to inform them of the errors of their ways. If they want to play games pretending that a large ISP with an efficient and responsive abuse desk somehow doesn't get abuse email addressed to one of their many domains, they can stick their head(s) in the sand and pretend. It doesn't mean I have to silently go along with it. Derek, please don't send me private email unless you are going to accept replies from the address you are sending to (see bounce, below). Sending, but refusing replies, that's rude. Note on cnchost: When we launched this service (I worked for Concentric and was the product manager for this service during its development and beta in 1996, and launch in 1997), we offered customers the option of a default mailbox for [email protected] (with additional restricted mailboxes as desired), or restricting their mailboxes where only email addressed to actual usernames was delivered, all other email bounces. However, an exception was made for the role accounts of abuse, postmaster, and webmaster. If the customer creates user accounts with those names, email is delivered to the appropriate email box. If the customer does not create these accounts, and elects to only receive email addressed to the customer's named accounts, email addressed to postmaster, abuse, and webmaster is still delivered to the primary user account for that domain (while other "non-existant" usernames will still bounce). We did this in 1996, years before rfc-ignorant thought up their listing idea, and when other webhosts were allowing these role accounts to bounce, or hijacking (and then badly handling) all email to those usernames for every hosted domain (no matter what the domain name was) due to less configurable virtual hosting schemes. So the idea that someone believes that cnchost is "rfc-ignorant" REALLY rubs me the wrong way. jc >From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email protected]> >Subject: Returned mail: User unknown >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Errors-To: <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) >X-UIDL: 30537 > >The original message was received at Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:27:57 -0400 (EDT) >from adsl-208-201-244-240.sonic.net [208.201.244.240] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- ><[email protected]> > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >... while talking to mail.megacity.org.: >>>> RCPT To:<[email protected]> ><<< 550 5.7.1 <[email protected]>... Message rejected because the >connecting host (tonnant.concentric.net) does not have abuse contact - see >www.rfc-ignorant.org >550 <[email protected]>... User unknown > > ----- Original message follows ----- > >Return-Path: <[email protected]> >Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (adsl-208-201-244-240.sonic.net >[208.201.244.240]) > by tonnant.cnchost.com > id FAA08735; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:27:57 -0400 (EDT) > [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14] >Errors-To: <[email protected]> >Message-Id: <[email protected]> >X-Sender: jcdill%[email protected] >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 >Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:29:27 -0700 >To: "Derek J. Balling" <[email protected]> >From: JC Dill <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Praise to XO's Security/Abuse >In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> >References: <[email protected]> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >On 07:04 PM 8/30/02, Derek J. Balling wrote: > >I don't show a listing at all for cnchost.com ... (or vo.cnchost.com, > >which we wouldn't list anyway). > > > >what hostname does your mail server's IP address in-addr to? > > cnchost runs off a server cluster, you can get different IP addresses >each time you query (or at least, you are supposed to), as it does >automatic load balancing. <snip>
|