[RFCI-Discuss] Rejected <> evidence

[Richard Johnson]

At 08:22 -0400 on 2002-10-21, John A. Martin wrote:
> 
> Why is the following evidence rejected?
> 
> ,----
> | $ telnet mail.psychoanalysis.net 25
> | Trying 216.95.181.251...
> | Connected to mail.psychoanalysis.net.
> | Escape character is '^]'.
> | 220 mail.psychoanalysis.net FirstClass ESMTP Mail Server v7.0 ready
> | ehlo venice.essential.org
> | 250-mail.psychoanalysis.net Hello venice.essential.org (65.222.222.36), pleased to meet you
> | 250-PIPELINING
> | 250-AUTH=CRAM-MD5 LOGIN PLAIN
> | 250-AUTH CRAM-MD5 LOGIN PLAIN
> | 250 8BITMIME
> | mail from:<>
> | 550 Sorry, your site is blocked from connecting to us
> | Connection closed by foreign host.
> `----


Perhaps because it's actually your sending host/net that's blocked by them?
Putting it another way, perhaps their addresses work in general for
networks they haven't banned:

| % nc 216.95.181.251 25
| 220 mail.psychoanalysis.net FirstClass ESMTP Mail Server v7.0 ready
| helo ..me..
| 250 mail.psychoanalysis.net Hello loc (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx), pleased to meet you
| mail from:<>
| 250 mailer-daemon... Sender ok
| rset
| 250 Reset state
| quit
| 221 mail.psychoanalysis.net closing connection


> The result of all three of these nominations is, as seen by one site,
> to make psychoanalysis.net inexplicably and totally unreachable
> through the mail system without recourse to other services.


The reason for refusal looked narrowly tailored to me.  Your intended
recipient has your network in their block list, and told you so.  (Most
likely, they've given up on all of uu.net, but that's just an assumption.)

Speaking for our domains, postmaster@ and abuse@ are some of the most
heavily protected addresses.  They have to be in order to remain useful for
their intended purposes.  Without the protection, postmaster@ would receive
upwards of 30 direct spams a day.

If someone tries to mail to them from a network we consider spamaceous, the
sender simply needs to find alternate means of communication.  Sending from
a non-blocked network works.  Our web form works.  The phone works.

Being irritated at someone for telling you they consider your network
spamaceous, no matter how unjustified, should not warrant an rfc-ignorant
nomination in return.

Instead, contact them from another network to ask them what's up.  If they
don't respond, give up on them, as they clearly don't want to speak with
you.  Their loss.


Richard