nanog mailing list archives
Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:33:37 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, goemon () anime net wrote:
<abuse () cox net>(reason: 552 5.2.0 F77u1Y00B2ccxfT0000000 Message Refused. A URL in the content of your message was found on...uribl.com. For resolution do not contact Cox Communications, contact the block list administrators.)
An unfortunate limitation of the SMTP protocol is it initially only looks at the right-hand side of an address when connecting to a server to send e-mail, and not the left-hand side. This means abuse () example com first passes through the same server as all of the rest of *@example.com e-mail. A single high-volume or specialaddress can easily overwhelm the normal email infrastructure (i.e. mailbox full) or the normal server administrators may make changes which affects all addresses passing through that server (i.e. block by IP address).
Even the FTC's UCE uce () ftc gov e-mailbox has had problems, which affected the rest of *@ftc.gov e-mail. So the FTC created a separate right-hand side name spam () uce gov to separate UCE reports from normal FTC e-mail channels which lets them route the mail with separate mail handling policies based on the right-hand side.
Current thread:
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net, (continued)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net S. Ryan (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Jeff Shultz (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Joe Greco (Nov 20)
- [admin] Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Alex Pilosov (Nov 20)
- Re: [admin] Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Martin Hannigan (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net S. Ryan (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Martin Hannigan (Nov 20)
- RE: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Raymond L. Corbin (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Chris Owen (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net chuck goolsbee (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Sean Donelan (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Paul Jakma (Nov 21)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Barry Shein (Nov 21)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 21)
- BOTNET reference involving oscilloscope Howard C. Berkowitz (Nov 23)
- Re: BOTNET reference involving oscilloscope Leigh Porter (Nov 23)
- Re: BOTNET reference involving oscilloscope Adrian Chadd (Nov 23)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Paul Jakma (Nov 21)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Chris Edwards (Nov 21)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Robert E. Seastrom (Nov 21)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Leigh Porter (Nov 21)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 22)