Topic: MAILER-DAEMON

[Der Robe]

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at byte-this.com.
I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce bounced!

:
217.57.198.166 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 5.3.0 ... Sender could be a victim of spam
Giving up on 217.57.198.166.

--- Below this line is the original bounce.

Return-Path: <>
Received: (qmail 16189 invoked for bounce); 5 Nov 2002 04:22:05 -0000
Date: 5 Nov 2002 04:22:05 -0000
From: MAILER-DAEMON@byte-this.com
To: firstline@idgroup.it
Subject: failure notice

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at byte-this.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.







I get the above message or something simalir at least 5 times a day I have tried black listing it but to no avail any ideas on how to get rid of it.

[Tom Carroll]

The problem could be that you do not have reverse lookup turned on.  However, this may not be an end-all solution.  I turned on reverse lookup and it worked for a few months, but some scumbag spammers get smarter and start using open SMTP servers to relay their messages, which will have a valid reverse lookup, but they claim to be someone else like bite-me.com, yahoo.com, etc...

Spam filters will help, but it doesn't solve the issue of bandwidth usage in that your server still receives the entire message and then tries to return a bounce message that most likely gets bounced back to you...

Tom

[Bob King]

Check out this thread on the developer list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo@lists.e-smith.org/msg07395.html

Also do a search there for "bounced bounce"

The fix sems to be here
http://myezserver.com/downloads/mitel/contrib/smtpdcheckrules-0.0.1/

dmc-mitel-smtpdcheckrules-bugfix-0.0.1-2.noarch.rpm
dmc-mitel-smtpdcheckrules-bugfix-0.0.1-2.src.rpm

[Tom Carroll]

Thanks Bob!  I thought I would have seen this...  I guess I missed it.  Do you know if it will stop the spammer at the front door, or will my server still get the full message before realizing the user does not exist?  In other words, will it prevent the bandwidth usage?

Thanks again!

Tom

[Bob King]

Sorry To, I'm not really up to speed on this. You will be better off checking with Darrell May.

Good Luck,
Bob