On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Always Learning <exim@???> wrote: >> > M$ do not recognise 550; never read log messages; keep retrying twice
>> > every 10 minutes night and day until you either block their IP range or
>> That's harsh. Can you provide some logs that illustrate this? I
Your response didn't include any logs, can you include some?
> Twice from the same IP address every 10 minutes non-stop, then again
> from another IP address in the range 213.199.154.xxx
>
> 2014-05-02 00:12:07 H=mail-db3lp0077.outbound.protection.outlook.com
> (emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) [213.199.154.77]:43163
> I=[95.172.15.115]:25 rejected EHLO or HELO
> emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com: [2B02] Rejected. Not
> identical. IP host = mail-db3lp0077.outbound.protection.outlook.com;
> HELO = emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
If you're going to require that rdns and forward dns are identical,
you're going to have lots of issues with receiving mail from large
systems.
> mail-db3lp0077.outbound.protection.outlook.com = 213.199.154.77
>
> : host emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
> emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com has address 157.55.234.24
> emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com has address 157.55.234.25
> emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com has address 157.55.234.26
> emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com has address 157.55.234.27
> emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com has address 157.55.234.28
> emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com has address 157.55.234.29
> emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com has address 157.55.234.30
> emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com has address 157.55.234.31
> emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com has address 157.55.234.32
> emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com has address 157.55.234.23
You're thinking small scale. You can't think that each one of those
IP addresses is one machine. It's much more likely that each one of
those IP addresses is tens or hundreds or maybe even thousands of
machines. When you receive the real hostname instead of the pool
name, there is an auditable trail and you can tell exactly which
machine in an outgoing pool sourced an email. I see that as
transparency, which is not a bad thing.
Postel's law is the guiding principle for me when I'm dealing with a
situation that might require a bit of work to get around: be liberal
in what you accept, conservative in what you send. However,
ultimately we are all the admins of our own systems and can make them
accept/reject whatever we want.
...Todd
--
The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0.
If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want,
send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine
