Re: [exim] Mail refused withour reasonable reason

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Leonardo Boselli
Date:  
To: Eli Sand
CC: 'exim users'
Subject: Re: [exim] Mail refused withour reasonable reason
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Eli Sand wrote:
> > >> SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
> > >> host mail.relexa-hotel.de [87.225.129.6]: 554 Service unavailable;
> > >> host [dipolo.dicea.unifi.it] blocked by zen.spamhaus.org;
> > >> http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=79.18.133.80
> > >> reservierung.berlin@??? SMTP error from remote mail
> Just chiming in my possibly useless 2cents here, but it seems, from the log
> bit I've quoted here that it's not mail.relexa-hotel.de having any
> "problems" - rather the mail server *YOU* sent from is the problem.
>
> The listing in spamhaus states that mail should NOT be sent out from IP
> 79.18.133.80, and instead there is apparently a specific MX server you
> should use and that all(?) IPs other than that IP in their control are to be
> blocked from sending email (at least, are listed in spamhaus :P).
> The fix here, apparently, would be to use a different mail server to send
> your email.
> I could be entirely wrong though - just going based on what I saw in this
> last email I replied to.


No, things are different
79.18.133.80 is the dinamic address given to a portable computer by a
commercial ISP.
The person that was sending this mail has it set to relay all e-mail
througth the departmental server dipolo.dicea.unifi.it [150.217.9.2] (that
is also the MX for his email-address, in case the recipient wanted to make
a callback to verify the source !) that accept relaying from all
_authenticated_ users.
So, whatever net he is using, he will always have the same sending
configuration. This is the same configuration that I and all people
working here use on our portable computers since at least 7 years,
and this is the first time such error occours!

I think spam filter should only care about is is trusted the host that is
passing them the message, not about the route the message has done before!