Re: Is it just me that is being picked on?

From: Rich Piotrowski (abuse_at_wi.rr.com)
Date: 09/21/03


Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:41:02 -0500

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:26:17 -0700, "ynotssor" <"ynotssor"> wrote:

>"Mark" <mw@nospam.me> wrote in message
>news:MPG.19d6a2acb64beaa398970e@192.168.0.203
>
>> Reject will bounce the email back to the originating address, which
>> with this virus, the email address is more then likely from some
>> other poor schmuck.
>>
>> Iam sure that you seen and received a email rejection notice before
>> something along the terms of:
>>
>> Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
>> Subject: 641
>> Sent: 9/20/2003 6:42 PM
>> The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
>> mark@donotspam.me' on 9/20/2003 6:42 PM
>> 450 <mark@donotspam.me>: User unknown in local recipient table
>
>Reject does *not* "bounce the email back to the originating address." Reject
>does dot accept anything to bounce back; it terminates the connection with
>the above 450 error code before any bandwidth-consuming email can be sent.
>

OK. I see we have a disagreement. Your explanation is how *I*
understood it.

>The "email rejection notice" you quoted above is constructed and delivered
>by the MTA that is originating the email, NOT the MTA that is rejecting the
>email. The rejecting MTA is providing only the 450 error code line and then
>terminating the connection. It is the responsibility of the originating MTA
>to inform the sender of the reason why the email was rejected by the
>destination MTA. The originating MTA may be configured to inform the sender
>of only the returned 450 error code, or it may include any or all of the
>original email as submitted or as attachment.
>

So the email may indeed be bounced by the originating MTA. If I
understand this all correctly, Bandwidth may be wasted but it is at
the originating MTA not the destination MTA. Being a little bit
selfish, I'd prefer to waste theirs.

I wonder how many send back the whole message vs. those that simply
return an error and drop the message. Why would you do it any other
way?

>Reject is different from discard and does not function as you stated. Reject
>accepts no mail beyong sufficient identification to determine the rejection.
>Discard accepts and then redirects the entire email to the discard
>destination, usually /dev/null, and so consumes the same bandwidth as if the
>email was accepted for local delivery.

Again, That is how I understood it. I just may test it my sending a
test message or two from another account. I'll see if I can learn
anything.

>
>Don't expect spammers or virus/worm/trojan originators to examine any such
>messages however. There's no money in it.
>
>
> tony

Rich Piotrowski

To reply via E-Mail use rpiotro(at)wi(dot)rr(dot)com



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is it just me that is being picked on?
    ... The "email rejection notice" you quoted above is constructed and delivered ... by the MTA that is originating the email, NOT the MTA that is rejecting the ... It is the responsibility of the originating MTA ... Reject is different from discard and does not function as you stated. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Is it just me that is being picked on?
    ... > the above 450 error code before any bandwidth-consuming email can be sent. ... > by the MTA that is originating the email, NOT the MTA that is rejecting the ... > Reject is different from discard and does not function as you stated. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: CoCreateInstance call failing with error E_NOINTERFACE
    ... I understand that the MTA thread is originating in .NET. ... My understanding up to now has been that if an object is marked as ... being apartment threaded in the registry, then if an attempt is made to ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.atl)
  • Re: Unexplained email sent (not spoofed), apparent Netsky
    ... that you received a 'bounce' email message with a spoofed 'From' email ... Even though I have up-to-> date NAV Auto-protect on, I noticed an outgoing email that> I had not originated, and ran a virus scan plus utilities> from Symantec and McAfee, and even looked in registry and> other places for typical entries/files, all with negative> results. ... > Ironically enough, the outgoing message was _apparently_> to Network Associates, as it bounced with body "Network ... > Since the outgoing mails seem to be really originating> here, not spoofs from some other site, and are going to at> least one unknown address, I am concerned that I am> entertaining a Trojan or back-door server unawares. ...
    (microsoft.public.security.virus)
  • Re: Rejecting viruses the Right Way[tm]
    ... >> will go to that innocent third party. ... it is too late to bounce. ... Few viral SMTP servers will generate and forward a bounce. ... SMTP servers holding an open connection with the originating MUA (or the ...
    (Debian-User)