I've recently adopted a greyhound and joined a forum which for some reason doesn't like emails from a aol.com address. They are not sure why and i would be grateful if someone could explain. Below is a quote from that email.
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- sally@greyhoundhomer.org.uk
----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to greyhoundhomer.org.uk.:
RCPT To:sally@greyhoundhomer.org.uk
<<< 550-Callback setup failed while verifying jessejazza@aim.com <<< 550-Called: 64.12.138.120 <<< 550-Sent: initial connection <<< 550-Response: 554- (RTR:CH) http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554rtrch.html <<< 550-554 Connecting IP: 65.98.59.114 <<< 550-The initial connection, or a HELO or MAIL FROM:<> command was <<< 550-rejected. Refusing MAIL FROM:<> does not help fight spam, disregards <<< 550-RFC requirements, and stops you from receiving standard bounce <<< 550-messages. This host does not accept mail from domains whose servers <<< 550-refuse bounces. <<< 550 Sender verify failed 550 sally@greyhoundhomer.org.uk... User unknown
Final-Recipient: RFC822; sally@greyhoundhomer.org.uk Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Remote-MTA: DNS; greyhoundhomer.org.uk Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550-Callback setup failed while verifying jessejazza@aim.com Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:28:37 -0500 (EST)
thanks james
On 11-Dec-07 16:42:46, James Freer wrote:
I've recently adopted a greyhound and joined a forum which for some reason doesn't like emails from a aol.com address. They are not sure why and i would be grateful if someone could explain. Below is a quote from that email.
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- sally@greyhoundhomer.org.uk
----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to greyhoundhomer.org.uk.:
> RCPT To:sally@greyhoundhomer.org.uk
<<< 550-Callback setup failed while verifying jessejazza@aim.com <<< 550-Called: 64.12.138.120 <<< 550-Sent: initial connection <<< 550-Response: 554- (RTR:CH) http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554rtrch.html <<< 550-554 Connecting IP: 65.98.59.114 <<< 550-The initial connection, or a HELO or MAIL FROM:<> command was <<< 550-rejected. Refusing MAIL FROM:<> does not help fight spam, disregards <<< 550-RFC requirements, and stops you from receiving standard bounce <<< 550-messages. This host does not accept mail from domains whose servers <<< 550-refuse bounces. <<< 550 Sender verify failed 550 sally@greyhoundhomer.org.uk... User unknown
Final-Recipient: RFC822; sally@greyhoundhomer.org.uk Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Remote-MTA: DNS; greyhoundhomer.org.uk Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550-Callback setup failed while verifying jessejazza@aim.com Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:28:37 -0500 (EST)
thanks james
Reading the URL
http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554rtrch.html
givem in the respomse suggests that the greyhoundhomer.org.uk domain (or the IP address of its mail-server) may have been the source of mail which has been flagged as SPAM by an aol users. As a result, aol.com refuses to talk to that IP address.
In turn, greyhoundhomer.org.uk's mail-server doesn't talk to mail-servers' that won't talk to it!
Classic domestic Catch-22. Thinks A: "I won't talk to you until you talk to me." Thinks B: "I won't talk to you until you apologise for what you said last time we spoke." Thinks A: "Why won't [s]he talk to me?"
(Of course, this may not be the true explanation, but it is seriously compatible with the information).
If that is the case, the solution would seem to be that greyhoundhomer.org.uk should take steps to get back into aol's good books (as suggested in the URL).
Best wishes, Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 11-Dec-07 Time: 17:55:34 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
(Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
If that is the case, the solution would seem to be that greyhoundhomer.org.uk should take steps to get back into aol's good books (as suggested in the URL).
That's just for show - it involves contacting AOL postmasters, but AOL seems to apply its buggy anti-spam systems to their postmaster address.
Circular insanity!
James Freer jrjfreer@googlemail.com wrote:
I've recently adopted a greyhound and joined a forum which for some reason doesn't like emails from a aol.com address. They are not sure why and i would be grateful if someone could explain. Below is a quote from that email.
Summary: greyhoundhomer.org.uk is using a sender-verify callback and AOL is rejecting the verification calls because they set off anti-spam traps. As far as I can see, both mailservers are doing something wrong, but it only causes bounces when they interact. Sender-verify is harmful (making other mailservers work for you is rude) and AOL's anti-spam rejection tactics are harmful (too many false positives and not documented accurately).
Solutions: 1. get greyhoundhomer.org.uk to stop using sender-verify; 2. ban AOL addresses from the forums.
If I ruled the world, I'd do both.
----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to greyhoundhomer.org.uk.:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ keywords about where we got this info from
> RCPT To:sally@greyhoundhomer.org.uk
<<< 550-Callback setup failed while verifying jessejazza@aim.com <<< 550-Called: 64.12.138.120
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AOL's mailserver
<<< 550-Sent: initial connection <<< 550-Response: 554- (RTR:CH) http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554rtrch.html <<< 550-554 Connecting IP: 65.98.59.114 <<< 550-The initial connection, or a HELO or MAIL FROM:<> command was <<< 550-rejected. Refusing MAIL FROM:<> does not help fight spam, disregards <<< 550-RFC requirements, and stops you from receiving standard bounce <<< 550-messages. This host does not accept mail from domains whose servers <<< 550-refuse bounces. <<< 550 Sender verify failed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ keywords
550 sally@greyhoundhomer.org.uk... User unknown
This seems to be greyhoundhomer.org.uk reporting a response from aol.com's mailservers. http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554rtrch.html suggests that they reject greyhoundhomer.org.uk because some AOL members complained about email from it, but I've found that to give false positives before. It beggars belief that AOL implemented a similar system to spamcop, but it looks like they did just that. It's still September!
Hope that helps,
James Freer wrote:
... while talking to greyhoundhomer.org.uk.:
> RCPT To:sally@greyhoundhomer.org.uk
<<< 550-Callback setup failed while verifying jessejazza@aim.com <<< 550-Called: 64.12.138.120 <<< 550-Sent: initial connection <<< 550-Response: 554- (RTR:CH) <<< 550-554 Connecting IP: 65.98.59.114
The server handling greyhoundhomer.org.uk is performing some tests against your email address. I assume it testing whether or not your address is valid (presumably jessejazza@aim.com is your address?) and so looked up the mail server which handles your email and connected to it, or rather tried to.
That server (belonging to AOL) rejected the connection, and so the assumption was made that your address was invalid and your email not accepted.
For whatever reason (based on http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554rtrch.html confirms) the address in question (that of greyhoundhomer.org.uk) has been blacklisted, perhaps because spam has been sent from that address in the past.
Now the IP address in question (Connecting IP: 65.98.59.114) belongs to FortressITX in the US (according to "whois 65.98.59.114" , so I assume this is some 3rd party email server, not one belonging to greyhoundhomer.org.uk (unless its some cheap US hosting package). According to MXToolbox (www.mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx) the IP is not listed in any of the 120+ blacklists it checks. Therefore it may be that the problem is resolved, unless AOL has its own lists.
To cut a long story short: AOL (and similar free addresses) are not reliable for anything these days; they are heavily targetted by spammers (both for sending from and to), and the varied, changeable, and largely random methods used to stop spam tend to cause at least as many problems as they solve. I would not advise anyone use them for anything!
PS: Also: What Ted said!
Mark Rogers wrote:
James Freer wrote:
... while talking to greyhoundhomer.org.uk.:
>> RCPT To:sally@greyhoundhomer.org.uk
<<< 550-Callback setup failed while verifying jessejazza@aim.com <<< 550-Called: 64.12.138.120 <<< 550-Sent: initial connection <<< 550-Response: 554- (RTR:CH) <<< 550-554 Connecting IP: 65.98.59.114
The server handling greyhoundhomer.org.uk is performing some tests against your email address. I assume it testing whether or not your address is valid (presumably jessejazza@aim.com is your address?) and so looked up the mail server which handles your email and connected to it, or rather tried to.
That server (belonging to AOL) rejected the connection, and so the assumption was made that your address was invalid and your email not accepted.
For whatever reason (based on http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554rtrch.html confirms) the address in question (that of greyhoundhomer.org.uk) has been blacklisted, perhaps because spam has been sent from that address in the past.
Now the IP address in question (Connecting IP: 65.98.59.114) belongs to FortressITX in the US (according to "whois 65.98.59.114" , so I assume this is some 3rd party email server, not one belonging to greyhoundhomer.org.uk (unless its some cheap US hosting package). According to MXToolbox (www.mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx) the IP is not listed in any of the 120+ blacklists it checks. Therefore it may be that the problem is resolved, unless AOL has its own lists.
To cut a long story short: AOL (and similar free addresses) are not reliable for anything these days; they are heavily targetted by spammers (both for sending from and to), and the varied, changeable, and largely random methods used to stop spam tend to cause at least as many problems as they solve. I would not advise anyone use them for anything!
PS: Also: What Ted said!
Thanks Ted, Mark, MJ Ray for your help.
I wondered if this was one of those cases where a logger (think that's what they're called) gets onto the computer or website where greyhoundhomer.org is located and then sends spam using that address, and hence why aol.com picks it up. You have said that aol.com spam control is poor... but is it any different to yahoo or gmail.
When i had an email with my isp, BT back in 2002 i had such a problem and it was only after about a year that someone emailed me to ask if i was a spammer - i changed then to webmail. It seemed i couldn't have the same problem i thought... and i seemed to be free from viruses.
AOL, yahoo and gmail seem fairly good for controlling spam and viruses from what i can gather. This problem it would seem is the greyhoundhomer.org side. I've tested all three using test viruses and have to say that i've been quite impressed - aol were the first with server scanning i believe. Gmail claim to scan but i think they just put a block on any attachments other than photos extensions [but then i found that i didn't receive some that folk have sent me... hence i dropped gmail].
As i'm getting round to setting up a home server for a website should i consider imap - but the problem there is one's server has always got to be running? Sorry i'm not as computer literate as i should be but i'm slowly learning about all these things.
thanks james
James Freer jessejazza@yahoo.co.uk wrote: [...]
I wondered if this was one of those cases where a logger (think that's what they're called) gets onto the computer or website where greyhoundhomer.org is located and then sends spam using that address, and hence why aol.com picks it up. You have said that aol.com spam control is poor... but is it any different to yahoo or gmail.
It could be a "joe job" which is what I think you're describing, but it seemed more like AOL disliked the server rather than the domain. If greyhoundhomer.org is on a typical hosting server and its owner isn't sharp at keeping spammer signup attempts tied down, then that could be the problem.
AOL are very poor at spam, but in a way different to yahoo or gmail. AOL send misleading error messages and hard-to-reach postmasters. Yahoo do anti-social things to mailservers they don't "like". Googlemail do a bit of both, but less aggressively AFAICT.
I've not heard of problems with the British Gmail (not Google's). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4354954.stm
When i had an email with my isp, BT back in 2002 i had such a problem
Much of BT's email is now through Yahoo, so just as unreliable.
AOL, yahoo and gmail seem fairly good for controlling spam and viruses from what i can gather.
Excuse my surprise, but where did you gather that and how much are AOL, yahoo and gmail paying them?
[...]
As i'm getting round to setting up a home server for a website should i consider imap - but the problem there is one's server has always got to be running?
If you host the IMAP yourself, yes. If you have the IMAP at your hosting provider, then it has some advantages:
- only download email when you choose - delete spam without downloading most of it;
- offline/disconnected working and synchronisation is possible;
and one big disadvantage:
- less widely supported and tested than POP or SMTP.
Sorry i'm not as computer literate as i should be but i'm slowly learning about all these things.
Aren't we all?
MJ Ray wrote:
James Freer jessejazza@yahoo.co.uk wrote: [...]
AOL, yahoo and gmail seem fairly good for controlling spam and viruses from what i can gather.
Excuse my surprise, but where did you gather that and how much are AOL, yahoo and gmail paying them?
I think it's down to the definition of "good". It is, after all, pretty easy to completely eradicate spam altogether; just dump all email to /dev/null (or bounce it). Of-course 100% spam reduction doesn't sound so good when you also have a 100% false positives rate.
Once you start to take the false positives seriously, a drop in spam performance is inevitable. From what I can tell - and somewhat inevitably for a free service that has to pay for server capacity, processing, bandwidth, etc - the likes of Hotmail and Yahoo accept a higher level of false positives in order to achieve a higher level of true positives. Therefore blocking any server which has any hint of suspicion is a great tactic: you reduce spam by a large amount, and when you dump legitimate email you can blame the sender for using an account blocked for sending spam.
Then, by ignoring mails to postmaster@ etc, they get to pass the support problem on to the sender's provider(s). Result: a more manageable service, that most people will put up with given the price.
In defence of Gmail I haven't yet had any issues to deal with from the sender's side which can be laid at their door. Yahoo I don't have much dealing with at all, but BT Connect I do (largely the same thing nowadays) and get problems there. Hotmail/MSN and AOL are the worst though (anecdotally).
-
James Freer -
James Freer -
Mark Rogers -
MJ Ray -
Ted.Harding＠manchester.ac.uk