Discussion:
Bugzilla
(too old to reply)
E. S. Fabian
2012-06-19 23:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
OW's Bugzilla is version 2.22.1; the latest listed at Bugzilla.org is 4.3.1.
We are way behind! My issue about changing email address post facto may have
been fixed already...
--
Steve
Marty Stanquist
2012-06-20 00:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks for bringing this up. I'll put Bugzilla on the upgrade list.

Marty

"E. S. Fabian" wrote in message news:jrr1or$hsd$***@www.openwatcom.org...

OW's Bugzilla is version 2.22.1; the latest listed at Bugzilla.org is 4.3.1.
We are way behind! My issue about changing email address post facto may have
been fixed already...
--
Steve
Christof Meerwald
2012-06-20 05:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by E. S. Fabian
OW's Bugzilla is version 2.22.1; the latest listed at Bugzilla.org is 4.3.1.
We are way behind! My issue about changing email address post facto may have
been fixed already...
It might not be a bug in Bugzilla, but a problem with your email
servers being too eager to reject mails from the Open Watcom server
without providing any evidence, e.g.

554-p3pismtp01-006.prod.phx3.secureserver.net
554 Your access to this mail system has been rejected due to spam or
virus content. If you believe that this failure is in error, please
submit an unblock request at http://unblock.secureserver.net


Christof
--
http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
mailto:cmeerw at cmeerw.org xmpp:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
E. S. Fabian
2012-06-20 11:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Christof Meerwald:

| 554-p3pismtp01-006.prod.phx3.secureserver.net
| 554 Your access to this mail system has been rejected due to spam or
| virus content. If you believe that this failure is in error, please
| submit an unblock request at http://unblock.secureserver.net

Thanks for responding!

Is that an example, or is it in the OW bugzilla log?

It seems there are many overeager SPAM filters. My website host is
GoDaddy.com; email server is pop.secureserver.net (in) and
smtpout.secureserver.net (out) - the notice above could be from my incoming
server. Yet the outgoing part of my server is blocked by a local college;
their spam filter charges $40/year to unblock!

I just added mail.openwatcom.org to my "allowed" list. I'll try to make the
change again to see what happens.
--
Steve
Christof Meerwald
2012-06-20 11:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by E. S. Fabian
| 554-p3pismtp01-006.prod.phx3.secureserver.net
| 554 Your access to this mail system has been rejected due to spam or
| virus content. If you believe that this failure is in error, please
| submit an unblock request at http://unblock.secureserver.net
Is that an example, or is it in the OW bugzilla log?
The log file only says that it can't deliver the e-mail, but this is
the message I get when I try to connect to your incoming SMTP server
from the Open Watcom server.

As that message and the site at http://unblock.secureserver.net/
doesn't provide any specific information, I'll probably have to leave
it there and won't spend too much time trying to guess...

[...]
Post by E. S. Fabian
I just added mail.openwatcom.org to my "allowed" list. I'll try to make the
change again to see what happens.
It's unlikely to help as the connection gets rejected straight away,
so the other side doesn't even know the domain or email address yet...


Christof
--
http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
mailto:cmeerw at cmeerw.org xmpp:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
Paul S. Person
2012-06-20 17:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:39:44 +0000 (UTC), Christof Meerwald
Post by Christof Meerwald
Post by E. S. Fabian
| 554-p3pismtp01-006.prod.phx3.secureserver.net
| 554 Your access to this mail system has been rejected due to spam or
| virus content. If you believe that this failure is in error, please
| submit an unblock request at http://unblock.secureserver.net
Is that an example, or is it in the OW bugzilla log?
The log file only says that it can't deliver the e-mail, but this is
the message I get when I try to connect to your incoming SMTP server
from the Open Watcom server.
As that message and the site at http://unblock.secureserver.net/
doesn't provide any specific information, I'll probably have to leave
it there and won't spend too much time trying to guess...
It does say something about making sure "your rDNS" (whatever /that/
may be) contains an email-related term (of which they give some
examples).

I have a vague memory of running into something like this that turned
out to be something else entirely. That "access to this mail system"
was rejected can be taken as true; that is was "due to spam or virus
content" is less certain.
Post by Christof Meerwald
[...]
Post by E. S. Fabian
I just added mail.openwatcom.org to my "allowed" list. I'll try to make the
change again to see what happens.
It's unlikely to help as the connection gets rejected straight away,
so the other side doesn't even know the domain or email address yet...
And yet the message claims that it has been determined that your test
message contains spam or a virus. As I said, some doubt may exist that
is true -- or, if the message is rejected immediately, that it is at
all true.

Or do email servers commonly scan the message for spam and viruses
before they identify the domain or email address?
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Christof Meerwald
2012-06-20 19:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:39:44 +0000 (UTC), Christof Meerwald
It does say something about making sure "your rDNS" (whatever /that/
may be) contains an email-related term (of which they give some
examples).
Yes, maybe - but changing that would likely involve Perforce and
Codero - and there is no guarantee of success...
Post by Paul S. Person
I have a vague memory of running into something like this that turned
out to be something else entirely. That "access to this mail system"
was rejected can be taken as true; that is was "due to spam or virus
content" is less certain.
Yes, exactly.
Post by Paul S. Person
And yet the message claims that it has been determined that your test
message contains spam or a virus.
No, it says that they might (or might not) have received a message
containing spam or a virus in the past from that host.
Post by Paul S. Person
Or do email servers commonly scan the message for spam and viruses
before they identify the domain or email address?
No, the SMTP protocol requires to first identify the sender and
recipient before allowing you to send the message body. But in this
case the connection gets rejected even before identifying the sender
or recipient.


Christof
--
http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
mailto:cmeerw at cmeerw.org xmpp:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
Steve Fabian
2012-06-20 21:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Christof Meerwald wrote:

| No, the SMTP protocol requires to first identify the sender and
| recipient before allowing you to send the message body. But in this
| case the connection gets rejected even before identifying the sender
| or recipient.

Isn't that a violation of the protocol?
--
Steve
Paul S. Person
2012-06-21 16:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:12:44 +0000 (UTC), Christof Meerwald
Post by Christof Meerwald
Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:39:44 +0000 (UTC), Christof Meerwald
It does say something about making sure "your rDNS" (whatever /that/
may be) contains an email-related term (of which they give some
examples).
Yes, maybe - but changing that would likely involve Perforce and
Codero - and there is no guarantee of success...
Post by Paul S. Person
I have a vague memory of running into something like this that turned
out to be something else entirely. That "access to this mail system"
was rejected can be taken as true; that is was "due to spam or virus
content" is less certain.
Yes, exactly.
Post by Paul S. Person
And yet the message claims that it has been determined that your test
message contains spam or a virus.
No, it says that they might (or might not) have received a message
containing spam or a virus in the past from that host.
Post by Paul S. Person
Or do email servers commonly scan the message for spam and viruses
before they identify the domain or email address?
No, the SMTP protocol requires to first identify the sender and
recipient before allowing you to send the message body. But in this
case the connection gets rejected even before identifying the sender
or recipient.
No, it says that they might (or might not) have received a message
containing spam or a virus in the past from that host.
and
Post by Christof Meerwald
No, the SMTP protocol requires to first identify the sender and
recipient before allowing you to send the message body. But in this
case the connection gets rejected even before identifying the sender
or recipient.
How can it know that the sender might be a source of spam or viruses
unless they know who the sender is?

Either they are rejecting the message for some other reason, or they
are not rejecting it as quickly as you indicate.

Or am I confusing "host" with "sender"? Is this a routing problem?
That is, is the host they are getting the message from directly (not
ours) the problem?
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Christof Meerwald
2012-06-22 18:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul S. Person
Post by Christof Meerwald
No, it says that they might (or might not) have received a message
containing spam or a virus in the past from that host.
host: Open Watcom server (identified by its IP address)
Post by Paul S. Person
and
Post by Christof Meerwald
No, the SMTP protocol requires to first identify the sender and
recipient before allowing you to send the message body. But in this
case the connection gets rejected even before identifying the sender
or recipient.
sender and recipient email addresses
Post by Paul S. Person
How can it know that the sender might be a source of spam or viruses
unless they know who the sender is?
Either they are rejecting the message for some other reason, or they
are not rejecting it as quickly as you indicate.
It's based on the IP address of the host (Open Watcom server), not the
sender's email address.
Post by Paul S. Person
Or am I confusing "host" with "sender"? Is this a routing problem?
That is, is the host they are getting the message from directly (not
ours) the problem?
There is no further routing involved.


Christof
--
http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
mailto:cmeerw at cmeerw.org xmpp:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
Paul S. Person
2012-06-23 17:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:42:12 +0000 (UTC), Christof Meerwald
<snippo>
Post by Christof Meerwald
It's based on the IP address of the host (Open Watcom server), not the
sender's email address.
Post by Paul S. Person
Or am I confusing "host" with "sender"? Is this a routing problem?
That is, is the host they are getting the message from directly (not
ours) the problem?
There is no further routing involved.
And yet, when I have my D-Link router, which is physically attached to
my XP computer, send its log as email and download it to my XP
computer, it shows this routing:

Received: from mx-laughing.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.179])
by mdl-afraid.atl.sa.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server)
with SMTP id 1sIb1hPE3Nl36X0; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:03:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.69])
by mx-laughing.atl.sa.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server)
with ESMTP id 1sIb1g5Mq3Nl36H0
for <***@earthlink.net>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:03:54 -0400
(EDT)
Received: from [65.102.152.199] (helo=localhost)
by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67)
(envelope-from <***@earthlink.net>)
id 1SiB1E-0007Lx-Gp
for ***@earthlink.net; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:03:54 -0400

Looks like at least three servers are involved. Allowing one for
receiving the message from the router and one for conveying the
message to my XP computer, that still leaves one intermediate server.

Are you sure there are no intermediate servers involved in your tests?
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Loading...