Spam Block

Old, inactive threads
Post Reply
dparish
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:29 pm

Spam Block

Post by dparish » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:26 pm

I have been spam blocked this morning on my Exetel service, and have got connection returned. I have done a thorough check through my SMTP email system and only have found email being sent as non delivery reports in response to incoming SPAM email. I could find no actual SPAM email messages being sent. I have checked my IP against spam blacklists and it is not listed anywhere. I have performed multiple open relay tests all of which have not relayed an email. Could someone please provide me with more info on the email which apparently caused this issue. My service IP is 220.233.9.240

NetworkAdmin
Exetel Staff
Posts: 559
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:19 am
Contact:

Post by NetworkAdmin » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:48 pm

[ SpamCop V647 ]
This message is brief for your comfort. Please use links below for details.

Unsolicited bounce from: 220.233.xxx.xxx
http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?i=z275007525 ... 3f8256822z
220.233.xxx.xxx appears to be sending unsolicited bounces, please see:
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html

[ Offending message ]
Return-Path: <postmaster@bayleafstud.com>
Delivered-To: spamcop-net-x
Received: (qmail 29047 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2008 10:07:49 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on filter7
X-Spam-Level: ********************
X-Spam-Status: hits=20.0 tests=BODY_ENHANCEMENT,BODY_ENHANCEMENT2,
DRUGS_ERECTILE,HTML_MESSAGE,SARE_ADULT2,URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_BLACK,
URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_SBL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL
version=3.2.3
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.108)
by filter7.cesmail.net with QMQP; 10 Jan 2008 10:07:49 -0000
Received: from mx53.cesmail.net (216.154.195.53)
by mx71.cesmail.net with SMTP; 10 Jan 2008 10:07:49 -0000
Original-Recipient: rfc822;x
Received: from pne-msproxy1.glb.skanova.net [81.228.11.36]
by mx53.cesmail.net with POP3 (fetchmail-6.2.1)
for x (single-drop); Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:07:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pne-smtpin3-sn1.fre.skanova.net (81.228.11.100) by pne-ms2.vip.skanova.net (7.3.129)
id 47613F2B01026E5D for x; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:54:37 +0100
Received: from bldc.bayleaf.dynu.com (220.233.xxx.xxx) by pne-smtpin3-sn1.fre.skanova.net (7.3.127)
id 4784DA71000BF617 for x; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:55:08 +0100
From: postmaster@bayleafstud.com
To: x
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:55:11 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary="9B095B5ADSN=_01C85005840930B400002C49bldc.bayleaf.dyn"
X-DSNContext: 335a7efd - 4523 - 00000001 - 80040546
Message-ID: <vHAT_________0ab8@bldc.bayleaf.dynu.com>
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
X-SpamCop-Checked:
X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked SpamAssassin=20

This is a MIME-formatted message.
Portions of this message may be unreadable without a MIME-capable mail program.

--9B095B5ADSN=_01C85005840930B400002C49bldc.bayleaf.dyn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unicode-1-1-utf-7

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

x

dparish
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:29 pm

Post by dparish » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Looking at the contents of the E-mail, my server has bounced the message as a non delivery report to the proposed original sender.

The spam filter on my box sends a non delivery report in response to SPAM message automatically, and it looks like spamcop picked up the non delievery report response that was sent. This is the first time a non delivery response has been an issue like this. If I have future issues I will disable the generation of Non Delivery Reports in response to SPAM email.

NetworkAdmin
Exetel Staff
Posts: 559
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:19 am
Contact:

Post by NetworkAdmin » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:19 pm

dparish wrote:Looking at the contents of the E-mail, my server has bounced the message as a non delivery report to the proposed original sender.
Yes. The best thing would be to stop it doing that. Spam never has the real sender as the return address for some reason.

Anthony Michaud
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:59 am
Location: Victoria
Contact:

Post by Anthony Michaud » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:59 pm

NetworkAdmin wrote:
dparish wrote:Looking at the contents of the E-mail, my server has bounced the message as a non delivery report to the proposed original sender.
Yes. The best thing would be to stop it doing that. Spam never has the real sender as the return address for some reason.
I don't like this suggestion. If you're running a business, clients need to know if a mail has not been sent (eg: sending to Nathony - its not going to work).

Being blocked for sending NDR's is just an example of how shoddy SpamCop's service can be. Yes - they have some value - but they're far to zealous when it comes to adding legitimate users to the list of bad boys.
Linux/*SD: How do you want to work quickly, reliably, cheaply and .... oooh look - something shiney over there. We'll be back to finish this later ...

Post Reply