Thread: Fwd: Postfix SMTP server: errors from relay2.pgsql.com[64.49.215.143]
I've been receiving various pgsql lists for months, but just recently, with no change in my MX, it has been begun rejecting the pgsql list traffic. see below. Has somebody broken the pgsql list server? This is the only discussion list that I subscribe too that is broken this way. hmm, I guess I won't get this response, so whoever can email me directly. Thanks Len ========================================= >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 23:28:41 +0100 (CET) >From: MAILER-DAEMON@mgw1.meiway.com (Mail Delivery System) >To: spambox@meiway.com (Postmaster) >Subject: Postfix SMTP server: errors from relay2.pgsql.com[64.49.215.143] > >Transcript of session follows. > > Out: 220 mgw1.meiway.com - ESMTP - Postfix - Attn: UCE trespassers will be > pursued. > In: EHLO relay2.pgsql.com > Out: 250-mgw1.meiway.com > Out: 250-PIPELINING > Out: 250-SIZE 10240000 > Out: 250-ETRN > Out: 250-XVERP > Out: 250 8BITMIME > In: MAIL FROM:<pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org> SIZE=2629 > Out: 250 Ok > In: RCPT TO:<lconrad@go2france.com> > Out: 450 <pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org>: Sender address rejected: > unverified sender address: host mail.postgresql.org[64.49.215.8] > said: 450 > <pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org>: User unknown in local > recipient > table (in reply to RCPT TO command) > In: DATA > Out: 554 Error: no valid recipients > In: RSET > Out: 250 Ok > In: QUIT > Out: 221 Bye
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Len Conrad wrote: > I've been receiving various pgsql lists for months, but just recently, with > no change in my MX, it has been begun rejecting the pgsql list traffic. see > below. > > Has somebody broken the pgsql list server? This is the only discussion > list that I subscribe too that is broken this way. > > hmm, I guess I won't get this response, so whoever can email me directly. 'K, this doesn't make sense ... is lconrad@go2france.com a valid recipient? *puzzled look* > > Thanks > Len > > ========================================= > > > >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 23:28:41 +0100 (CET) > >From: MAILER-DAEMON@mgw1.meiway.com (Mail Delivery System) > >To: spambox@meiway.com (Postmaster) > >Subject: Postfix SMTP server: errors from relay2.pgsql.com[64.49.215.143] > > > >Transcript of session follows. > > > > Out: 220 mgw1.meiway.com - ESMTP - Postfix - Attn: UCE trespassers will be > > pursued. > > In: EHLO relay2.pgsql.com > > Out: 250-mgw1.meiway.com > > Out: 250-PIPELINING > > Out: 250-SIZE 10240000 > > Out: 250-ETRN > > Out: 250-XVERP > > Out: 250 8BITMIME > > In: MAIL FROM:<pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org> SIZE=2629 > > Out: 250 Ok > > In: RCPT TO:<lconrad@go2france.com> > > Out: 450 <pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org>: Sender address rejected: > > unverified sender address: host mail.postgresql.org[64.49.215.8] > > said: 450 > > <pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org>: User unknown in local > > recipient > > table (in reply to RCPT TO command) > > In: DATA > > Out: 554 Error: no valid recipients > > In: RSET > > Out: 250 Ok > > In: QUIT > > Out: 221 Bye > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org >
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> 'K, this doesn't make sense ... is lconrad@go2france.com a valid
> recipient? *puzzled look*
> In: MAIL FROM:<pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org> SIZE=2629
> Out: 250 Ok
> In: RCPT TO:<lconrad@go2france.com>
> Out: 450 <pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org>: Sender address rejected:
> unverified sender address: host mail.postgresql.org[64.49.215.8]
> said: 450
> <pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org>: User unknown in local
> recipient
> table (in reply to RCPT TO command)
Reading between the lines of the error message, it looks to me like
meiway.com's mail server is programmed to take the MAIL FROM address,
connect back to the sending server, and see if it can RCPT TO that
address before it will accept the incoming mail.
I have zero sympathy for that approach, but won't waste our list
bandwidth on exactly why it's a brain-dead sociopathic antispam
technique.
What seems odd is that it didn't work. Shouldn't postgresql.org
have accepted pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org as an incoming
mail address?
regards, tom lane
yOn Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > > 'K, this doesn't make sense ... is lconrad@go2france.com a valid > > recipient? *puzzled look* > > > In: MAIL FROM:<pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org> SIZE=2629 > > Out: 250 Ok > > In: RCPT TO:<lconrad@go2france.com> > > Out: 450 <pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org>: Sender address rejected: > > unverified sender address: host mail.postgresql.org[64.49.215.8] > > said: 450 > > <pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org>: User unknown in local > > recipient > > table (in reply to RCPT TO command) > > Reading between the lines of the error message, it looks to me like > meiway.com's mail server is programmed to take the MAIL FROM address, > connect back to the sending server, and see if it can RCPT TO that > address before it will accept the incoming mail. > > I have zero sympathy for that approach, but won't waste our list > bandwidth on exactly why it's a brain-dead sociopathic antispam > technique. > > What seems odd is that it didn't work. Shouldn't postgresql.org > have accepted pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org as an incoming > mail address? Hrmmmm: venus# telnet mail.postgresql.org smtp Trying 64.49.215.8... Connected to mail.postgresql.org. Escape character is '^]'. 220 postgresql.org ESMTP Postfix (2.0.2) vrfy pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org 252 pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org should have worked ... I know I was having problems with the use of the + in the email address, that I just fixed .. maybe this was just before that fix/
> > Reading between the lines of the error message, it looks to me like > > meiway.com's mail server is programmed to take the MAIL FROM address, > > connect back to the sending server Wrong, but it's an understandable error when firing from the hip with head up the ass. The attempt to deliver is made against the @sender.domain's MX RDATA fields. This is a perfectly valid prerequisite: "we´ll accept mail from the sender if the sender domain's MX hosts accepts mail from us". Not very BOFH at all. >, and see if it can RCPT TO that > > address before it will accept the incoming mail. It's called "sender address verification" in postfix terms. > > I have zero sympathy for that approach, but won't waste our list > > bandwidth on exactly why it's a brain-dead sociopathic antispam > > technique. Excellent decision! Opionated, self-righteous, half-informed assholes waste enough bandwidth. >220 postgresql.org ESMTP Postfix (2.0.2) >vrfy pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org >252 pgsql-admin-owner+M7187@postgresql.org > >should have worked ... I know I was having problems with the use of the + >in the email address, that I just fixed .. maybe this was just before that >fix/ I will un-whitelist that ip and we'll see very quickly: Feb 3 03:07:41 Mgw1 postfix/smtp[74990]: 929D1EF908: to=<pgsql-admin-owner+M7227@postgresql.org>, relay=mail.postgresql.org[64.49.215.8], delay=1, status=deliverable (250 Ok) Excellent, thanks for fixing postgres list server. It now validates like every other discussion list servers we subscribe to, and as it did until it was very recently broken. Len