We just had a list member disabled. Is this likely to be caused by the DMARC problem? Here's the header from the attachment in the bounce action notification email:
xxxxx.xxx@gmail.com (expanded from xxxxx@xxxxx.com.au): host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2607:f8b0:400e:c03::1b] said: 550-5.7.1 [2400:8900::f03c:91ff:fedb:b1ff 12] Our system has detected that 550-5.7.1 this message is likely unsolicited mail. To reduce the amount of spam 550-5.7.1 sent to Gmail, this message has been blocked. Please visit 550-5.7.1 http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=188131 for 550 5.7.1 more information. cb4si7487232pbc.409 - gsmtp (in reply to end of DATA command)
I had a look back through a month or so of these notifications, and don't see any others mentioning spam. I'd expect the occasional list message to be detected as spam, but not for 5 days in a row.
But we must have dozens of gmail members, and this is the only one to get disabled. Makes me think this might not be related to DMARC.
We don't get many disabled like this, maybe one a week, and I rarely look at the reasons given.
We've reenabled him for now, so we'll see if it happens again. We've moderated all the yahoo members.
Peter Shute
On 4/13/14, 6:22 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
We just had a list member disabled. Is this likely to be caused by the DMARC problem? Here's the header from the attachment in the bounce action notification email:
xxxxx.xxx@gmail.com (expanded from xxxxx@xxxxx.com.au): host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2607:f8b0:400e:c03::1b] said: 550-5.7.1 [2400:8900::f03c:91ff:fedb:b1ff 12] Our system has detected that 550-5.7.1 this message is likely unsolicited mail. To reduce the amount of spam 550-5.7.1 sent to Gmail, this message has been blocked. Please visit 550-5.7.1 http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=188131 for 550 5.7.1 more information. cb4si7487232pbc.409 - gsmtp (in reply to end of DATA command)
I had a look back through a month or so of these notifications, and don't see any others mentioning spam. I'd expect the occasional list message to be detected as spam, but not for 5 days in a row.
But we must have dozens of gmail members, and this is the only one to get disabled. Makes me think this might not be related to DMARC.
We don't get many disabled like this, maybe one a week, and I rarely look at the reasons given.
We've reenabled him for now, so we'll see if it happens again. We've moderated all the yahoo members.
Peter Shute My guess on how this works is that when you deliver to Gmail, one message will actually have many recipients, and you will get just a single rejection, which will be charged to the first person on the list by mailman. How they are grouped is likely a function of the full subscriber database, so some might get hit by a few, then someone (un)subscribes, changing who will be charged with the "problem" Whoever is "first" in the list of messages going to Gmail, is much less apt to be moved, so the most likely to get kicked off.
-- Richard Damon
Richard Damon wrote:
We just had a list member disabled. Is this likely to be caused by the DMARC problem? Here's the header from the attachment in the bounce action notification email:
xxxxx.xxx@gmail.com (expanded from xxxxx@xxxxx.com.au): host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2607:f8b0:400e:c03::1b] said: 550-5.7.1 [2400:8900::f03c:91ff:fedb:b1ff 12] Our system has detected that 550-5.7.1 this message is likely unsolicited mail. To reduce the amount of spam 550-5.7.1 sent to Gmail, this message has been blocked. Please visit 550-5.7.1 http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=188131 for 550 5.7.1 more information. cb4si7487232pbc.409 - gsmtp (in reply to end of DATA command)
I had a look back through a month or so of these notifications, and don't see any others mentioning spam. I'd expect the occasional list message to be detected as spam, but not for 5 days in a row.
But we must have dozens of gmail members, and this is the only one to get disabled. Makes me think this might not be related to DMARC.
We don't get many disabled like this, maybe one a week, and I rarely look at the reasons given.
We've reenabled him for now, so we'll see if it happens again. We've moderated all the yahoo members.
Peter Shute My guess on how this works is that when you deliver to Gmail, one message will actually have many recipients, and you will get just a single rejection, which will be charged to the first person on the list by mailman. How they are grouped is likely a function of the full subscriber database, so some might get hit by a few, then someone (un)subscribes, changing who will be charged with the "problem" Whoever is "first" in the list of messages going to Gmail, is much less apt to be moved, so the most likely to get kicked off.
Is that true (assuming your guess is correct) of all domains where there are multiple recipients, or just gmail? And only to spam rejections, or also to disabled mailbox rejections, etc?
Doesn't seem much point disabling accounts for bouncing if you can't be sure which one it is.
Peter Shute
On 4/13/14, 9:06 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
Richard Damon wrote:
My guess on how this works is that when you deliver to Gmail, one message will actually have many recipients, and you will get just a single rejection, which will be charged to the first person on the list by mailman. How they are grouped is likely a function of the full subscriber database, so some might get hit by a few, then someone (un)subscribes, changing who will be charged with the "problem" Whoever is "first" in the list of messages going to Gmail, is much less apt to be moved, so the most likely to get kicked off. Is that true (assuming your guess is correct) of all domains where there are multiple recipients, or just gmail? And only to spam rejections, or also to disabled mailbox rejections, etc?
Doesn't seem much point disabling accounts for bouncing if you can't be sure which one it is.
Peter Shute This is based on my understanding of how email works and mailman works.
When sending a large number of copies of identical emails to a single server, you want to batch it into one message with multiple recipients (this assumes you are not using VERP, which would cause the messages to not be identical).
When the recipient server gets the message, it can reject the message as a whole (which is what seems to be happening here), or it can indicate that a particular recipient can not receive it (which would be more common for things like mail box full or no such address).
My guess is that mailman has no code to specially handle the first case, and when it gets a single bounce notification, assigns that bounce to just one subscription, likely the first.
-- Richard Damon
On 04/13/2014 06:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
When sending a large number of copies of identical emails to a single server, you want to batch it into one message with multiple recipients (this assumes you are not using VERP, which would cause the messages to not be identical).
When the recipient server gets the message, it can reject the message as a whole (which is what seems to be happening here), or it can indicate that a particular recipient can not receive it (which would be more common for things like mail box full or no such address).
My guess is that mailman has no code to specially handle the first case, and when it gets a single bounce notification, assigns that bounce to just one subscription, likely the first.
It depends on the exact format of the DSN, but as long as the DSN contains all the rejected addresses, it is likely that if Mailman recognizes it at all, it will recognize each bouncing address. If the DSN is RFC 3464 compliant, this will be the case.
-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
On 04/13/2014 03:22 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
We just had a list member disabled. Is this likely to be caused by the DMARC problem? Here's the header from the attachment in the bounce action notification email:
xxxxx.xxx@gmail.com (expanded from xxxxx@xxxxx.com.au): host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2607:f8b0:400e:c03::1b] said: 550-5.7.1 [2400:8900::f03c:91ff:fedb:b1ff 12] Our system has detected that 550-5.7.1 this message is likely unsolicited mail. To reduce the amount of spam 550-5.7.1 sent to Gmail, this message has been blocked. Please visit 550-5.7.1 http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=188131 for 550 5.7.1 more information. cb4si7487232pbc.409 - gsmtp (in reply to end of DATA command)
In my experience, based on three posts on Sat, 5 Apr, From: a yahoo.com address to a list which has about 240 individual message deliveries per post, about 90 of those to about 8 domains bounced. gmail.com was not one of the domains that bounced the posts. Gmail may have changed it's behavior in the last 8 days, but this reason doesn't look like the ones I've seen. E.g.:
aol.com/netscape.net/compuserve.com: 521 5.2.1 : (DMARC) This message failed DMARC Evaluation and is being refused due to provided DMARC Policy
yahoo.com/sbcglobal.net: 554 5.7.9 Message not accepted for policy reasons. See http://postmaster.yahoo.com/errors/postmaster-28.html
comcast.net: 550 5.2.0 mfuB1n01M0MH6DU0XfuCv5 Message rejected due to DMARC. Please see http://postmaster.comcast.net/smtp-error-codes.php#DM000001
hotmail.com/msn.com: 550 5.7.0 (BAY0-MC3-F56) Unfortunately, messages from (72.52.113.16) on behalf of (yahoo.com) could not be delivered due to domain owner policy restrictions.
Bottom line: I don't think this is a DMARC bounce.
-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
participants (3)
-
Mark Sapiro
-
Peter Shute
-
Richard Damon