[Mailman-Users] Call me Don Quixote... :-(

[John]

Mark Sapiro wrote:
> John wrote:
> 
>> answers inline...
>>
>> Mark Sapiro wrote:
>>> John wrote:
>>>
>>>> What hasn't worked:
>>>> * My service provider claimed the info in disable messages was insufficient for
>>>> debug!?
>>>
>>> And can you post one?
>> This was around the time my provider changed the smart host pool... The
>> 64.202.189.86  IP address was in the pool & on at least 2 RBLs. The
>> 208.109.80.54 IP is in the new pool and apparently still on 1 RBL list :-(. They
>> claim they did not bounce back to my server...
> 
> 
> They aren't bouncing to your server. They are refusing to accept the
> message from your server. The fact that those IPs may be in RBLs is
> not relevant, because that would only affect delivery from them to the
> destination, and they aren't accepting the mail from you in the first
> place.
> 
> 
>> I haven't seen this since 11/10,
>> but the rx7 list email is not being delivered.  I don't understand why my other
>> lists seem to be unaffected...
> 
> 
> If it's only one list, it might have something to do with the smarthost
> not liking the particular rx7-bounces at ... envelope sender. That's
> about the only thing that's list specific except maybe list size.
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------
>>    List:       rx7
>>    Member:     username at aol.com
>>    Action:     Subscription disabled.
>>    Reason:     Excessive or fatal bounces.
>>
>>
>> The triggering bounce notice is attached below.
>>
>> Questions? Contact the Mailman site administrator at
>> mailman at rx7-world.net.
> 
> 
> You have not included the headers of this notification message part ,
> but presumably it came from your own MTA.
> 
> 
>> <username at sc.rr.com>:
>> 64.202.189.86 failed after I sent the message.
>> Remote host said: 554 Message refused.
>>
>> 	long list of similar msgs removed...
>>
>> <username at aol.com>:
>> 208.109.80.54 failed after I sent the message.
>> Remote host said: 554 Message refused.
>> ----------------------------------------

I found a detailed bounce in my collection from before I entered a support
ticket about RBLs at the beginning of Oct.
=========================================
k2smtpout05-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net.
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.

<user at takas.lt>:
212.59.31.115 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host [64.202.189.56]
blocked using dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net; IP 64.202.189.56 is UCEPROTECT-Level 1
listed. See http://www.uceprotect.net/rblcheck.php?ipr=64.202.189.56
Giving up on 212.59.31.115.
=========================================
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I smell a cover-up... Soon after the support
ticket, I started receiving the summarized failures and bounces from the smart
host...  :-/    It's a lot easier to deny an email delivery problem if you
return a vague bounce message instead of the real thing...

> And as you know, those IPs are servers in the secureserver.net domain
> which presumably are the smarthost through which you're relaying and
> it is these servers that are refusing to accept the message from you.
> 
> How do you authenticate to these servers? Why should they accept and
> relay your mail?

hmmm ... 'cause they accept and relay everything else from the server? :-P  (ya
gotta have some fun when things go wrong or else you'll go nuts. ;-) )

>>
>>> Does the smtp log say it delivered the post to the appropriate number
>>> of recipients?
>> it's hard to say... there is no single entry for the problem list that has the
>> correct number (446 less a few nomail).
> 
> 
> What are the recipient numbers in the entry(s) for the message-id of a
> post?

If VERP is on won't there only be 1 recipient/message-id, but multiple
message-ids/post to Non-digest members? I also can't find a match to the
received message IDs.  It looks like digest is different, 2 entries totaling 262
"recips"...

For now, I'm going to assume (ouch) that it's my provider's problem.  Thanks for
all for the patience and answers. If nothing else, I learned more about the
workings of Mailman & qmail.  :-D    I may try shutting off the RFC headers on
the lists and see if that changes anything...

John