[SC-Help] Re: about blacklist

[The Shetainhe]

Hi all.
i am hinder all autorespond messages in the my server.
thank you for all.

"John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw at qsl.network> wrote in message
news:d0n01t$ad0$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> The Shetainhe wrote:
> > my server ip : 62.244.208.82
> >
> > www.spamcop.net
> >
> > 62.244.208.82 listed in bl.spamcop.net (127.0.0.2)If there are no
reports of
> > ongoing objectionable email from this system it will be delisted
> > automatically in approximately 12 hours.
>
> Spamcop reports for that I.P. address would have been sent to
> mehmetd(at)e-grup.net.
>
> A paying spamcop.net member can look at the spamcop.net evidence to
> determine what triggered the listing. I can not do so.
>
> I can only look at public evidence:
>
> http://ops.mail-abuse.com/cgi-bin/nph-ops-sview?62.244.208.82
>
> This looks like a badly misconfigured mail server, which is probably the
> cause for the spamcop.net listing, and is probably going to cause other
> networks to refuse or silently delete all e-mail from your network until
> it is fixed.
>
> The mail server appears to be accepting all e-mail and then generating a
> new bounce message for the messages that can not be delivered.
>
> This is very bad, as almost all e-mail that can not be delivered is
> either spam or a virus that has forged some other person's e-mail address.
>
> In effect, your mail server is being used by spammers and viruses to
> attack other mail servers.
>
> While this behavior is technically allowed by the protocol, it is now
> too abusive for a mail server to be doing that.
>
> The mail server should be checking to see if it can deliver the mail
> before it accepts the e-mail, and then if it can not deliver the e-mail,
> it should use an SMTP reject code.  This is the only way to reliably
> notify a sender that their e-mail was not received.
>
> Until this problem is fixed, you can expect to have other networks
> refuse mail from that server.
>
> According to the MAPS evidence, this misbehavior was first detected on
> January of 2004.  Which is when your provider should have received the
> first complaint about it.
>
> So a spamcop.net blocking should not have been unexpected, since this
> problem has existed now for well over a year.
>
> It is highly likely that many other networks which are not using the
> spamcop.net or other public blocking lists are now either refusing
> e-mail from that server, or silently deleting all e-mail.
>
>
> Other problems:
>
> Parsing input: 62.244.208.82
> host 62.244.208.82 = host-62-244-208-82.borusantelekom.com (cached)
>
> Your network provider has assigned a generic rDNS for that mail server
> that makes it look like a DHCP assigned address.  This may cause
> problems with people accepting your e-mail, or cause spam filters to
> silently delete such mail.
>
> I strongly recommend that the rDNS for a mail server have either the
> string "mail" or "smtp" in it so that everyone in the world will see it
> as a valid mail server and is not on a temporary DHCP address.
>
>
> As to other problems:
>
> + SORBSSPEWS-L1 Spam Prevention Early Warning System
>   - Level 1 Mirror: l1.spews.dnsbl.sorbs.net -> 127.0.0.2
>   ! [1] Paul Mentesidis/WebFills/rxmedicals/palmnet,
>    see   http://spews.org/ask.cgi?S1958
>
> This will cause many networks to reject or silently delete e-mail from
> you.  Contact your ISP to get it resolved.
>
> According to the evidence file at SPEWS, your network provider or one of
> the network providers they are using is allowing a criminal to use their
> servers to sell fake pills.
>
> If that ISP considers the money from that more important than what you
> pay or your ISP pays them, then you can expect more problems with
> sending e-mail.  The hosting of such a criminal will cause some networks
> to refuse or silently delete all e-mail from that network, even if they
> do not use SPEWS.
>
> SPEWS will not remove the listing until all spammers are removed from
> the network.  Other networks will need to be individually contacted once
> you determine that your mail is not getting through to them.
>
> So you have at least three visible problems that until they are fixed
> will cause you problems with e-mail delivery.  All of which need to be
> fixed on the sending side.
>
> -John
> wb8tyw at qsl.network
> Personal Opinion Only