[Mailman-Users] Re: AT&T RBL again

2021-04-03 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
Carl Zwanzig writes:
 > On 3/30/2021 9:28 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
 > > I had two servers blocked by ATT, fortunately not this one. They were
 > > both DigitalOcean droplets,[...]
 > 
 > FWIW, a couple of my regular correspondents have said that DO generally does 
 > not have a great email reputation, and that they're moving lists to other 
 > platforms.

DO hosts a large domain (appears to be a hosting reseller; don't
recall offhand, if you want to know reply to me off list and I'll
summarize to the list) that regularly tries to exploit my nonexistent
O365 server and my also nonexistent DoH server, among others whose
exact targets I don't remember offhand.

I wrote the domain once, got nothing, nothing changed.  I've blocked a
couple of /20s and even a /16 and I haven't seen DO for a few weeks.  I
also wrote DO once, got a thank you note, nothing visibly changed.[1]
:-/

Steve

Footnotes: 
[1]  To be honest, I'd already blocked the source address, but the
only repeater I ever saw was my own employer's vuln scanner. :-รพ What
a PITA, 9000+ accesses as quickly as they could connect.  During work
hours (gggh!) to boot.


--
Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/


[Mailman-Users] Re: AT&T RBL again

2021-04-03 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
Morris Jones writes:

 > [AT&T are opaque about their standards and process, and don't
 > provide any means to respond or unsubscribe their customers who
 > don't want your mail.

This is the basic issue.  Email users generally put more pressure on
providers about "spam" (including stuff they've signed up for but have
lost interest) than they do for lost mail (which they often don't know
about, to be sure).  Furthermore, with lost mail providers can easily
point the finger elsewhere, which users tend to accept because moving
providers is a massive PITA (unless the original one provides
forwarding).  Not much Mailman or site admins can do about this,
unfortunately.

Note that in those cases where the provider sends examples of
"problematic" mail from your server but redacts customer
identification, there are ways to "fingerprint" the message which the
providers usually don't touch.  Basically, add a header field with a
hashed email address.  Of course this requires message-per-subscriber
which may be costly, and won't do much good unless you see enough of
these to make it worth doing this as a policy matter.

Since this involves patching Mailman anyway, you can add code so this
only happens for specific problematic domains.  It's reported to be
effective with AOL and (IIRC) Yahoo!

Steve



--
Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/


[Mailman-Users] Re: AT&T RBL again

2021-04-03 Thread Jon Baron
Dear Stephen and Morris,

Regarding your first post, I do not see the kind of Digital Ocean problems
that you have. In the past, I have had other problems, mostly a botnet that
was trying to guess passwords for WordPress (nonexistent), for many
months.

Concerning your second email, below, this has become a real sore point for
me. However, I have no difficulty in identifying the recipients who are
blocked. (I use Fedora linux with sendmail. That may or may not matter.)
When a message from Mailman is blocked, I, as list owner, get a message
that begins this way:

# From: Mail Delivery Subsystem 
# To: jdm-society-boun...@sjdm.org
# Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details

I think this happens because I checked "yes" for all the boxes in the
Mailman configuration for "notifications" under "Bounce processing". (I
also checked "yes" for all notifications under "General options", but I
don't think that is relevant here.)

The "transcript" says where the block came from, sometimes why the message
was blocked (sometimes even with an address to complain to), and sometimes
who the intended recipient was. (The bad news is that many of the addresses
are not on my mailing list. They result from forwarding a listed address
somewhere else, and the "transcript" doesn't give me the listed address. In
a couple of particularly annoying cases I managed to track down the list
member through detective work.) But it always gives the customer's address
that is blocking the mail. Usually gmail will succeed in reaching that
address if I want to tell the list member what is going on.

Some of the "Returned mail" is the result of "host not found" or "account
does not exist", when, in fact, the host can be found or the recipient is
easily reached by gmail. This problem seems specific to my mail
system. Fortunately it is rare.

The other way I identify which users are blocked is that many of these are
go into the "mail queue" (/var/spool/mqueue). As root, I am able to see all
this with the "mailq" command, and each entry identifies the
recipient. These are supposed to be temporary. The mailing system
(sendmail) keeps trying to send these for 5 days. Most of them clear, but
some never seem to clear.

I think what I have just said speaks to your question. If not, then I don't
understand your question.

Now for a rant on the subject of spam blocking.

Many providers (including att.net) block what they guess is spam without
letting the recipient know what is happening. This includes posts to a
4000-member Mailman list concerning the academic field of judgments and
decisions. Sometimes the post itself has a "high probability of
spam". Sometimes our server is blocked because it sends too much "spam", or
because someone within one of our "ranges" of ipv6 addresses is sending
what they call spam, or even because our provider, Linode, has been known
to harbor spammers.  Block lists vary a lot in how responsive they are to
complaints. Most of them allow you to request removal, but that is not
permanent. The worst two are Spamhaus CSS and UCEPROTECT3. Fortunately,
nobody pays much attention to the latter. The documents for Spamhaus seem
to say that they are doing this to force customers, like me, to put
pressure on my provider, Linode, to prevent anyone from sending spam from
their domain. They say that this is possible because Microsoft does
it. (They seem to ignore the cost issue.)

Our server sees all the spam. (We use spamassassin to put it in a separate
file.) 99% of it is simply electronic junk mail. If you had to sort it by
hand, it would take a couple hundred msec to identify it and delete it,
just like postal junk mail. By contrast, robo calls on a land line or cell
phone are REALLY annoying. Thus, I do see why recipients cannot see the
spam and create their own white list. Email spam is trivial by comparison.
Gmail comes close to letting you decide what to call spam.

In sum, totally blocking "spam" from the recipient, on the basis of some
fallible algorithm that guesses what is spam, is outrageous.

Jon

On 04/03/21 17:59, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Morris Jones writes:
> 
>  > [AT&T are opaque about their standards and process, and don't
>  > provide any means to respond or unsubscribe their customers who
>  > don't want your mail.
> 
> This is the basic issue.  Email users generally put more pressure on
> providers about "spam" (including stuff they've signed up for but have
> lost interest) than they do for lost mail (which they often don't know
> about, to be sure).  Furthermore, with lost mail providers can easily
> point the finger elsewhere, which users tend to accept because moving
> providers is a massive PITA (unless the original one provides
> forwarding).  Not much Mailman or site admins can do about this,
> unfortunately.
> 
> Note that in those cases where the provider sends examples of
> "problematic" mail from your server but redacts customer
> identification, there are ways to "fingerprint" the message wh

[Mailman-Users] Re: AT&T RBL again

2021-04-03 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
Jon Baron writes:

 > I think what I have just said speaks to your question. If not, then I don't
 > understand your question.

It wasn't a question.  It was a statement that a technical solution
exists that might be useful to some site administrators in relatively
unusual circumstances.

 > Now for a rant on the subject of spam blocking.

[ agreed! ]

 > In sum, totally blocking "spam" from the recipient, on the basis of
 > some fallible algorithm that guesses what is spam, is outrageous.

And semi-popular with users while being cheap for providers, which was
my other point.  So, good luck doing anything about it. :-(

Let's put it this way: one of the few things my (ultimate) employer
has done right in terms of Internet security was banning in April 2014
the use of Yahoo! addresses for communication within all educational
institutions in Japan.  And I haven't seen any (internally) since. :-)
But it takes that level of power to do anything about sucky providers.

And ... uh, well ... they actually got it *wrong*: Yahoo! Japan
franchised the name and some of the software, but otherwise is
independent of international Yahoo!, and to this day

% host -t TXT _dmarc.yahoo.co.jp
_dmarc.yahoo.co.jp descriptive text "v=DMARC1; p=none; \  <= !
rua=mailto:ymail_dmarc_rep...@yahoo.co.jp";

This is the cockeyed Internet we have.  It's wishful thinking to think
otherwise.  Im theory, it *could* be *much* better, but it's not going
to "just happen".  We have to build it ourselves.  That's why we
(Mailman) are here.  Not that we're terribly important, or even all
that good at it, but https://gitlab.com/mailman is open for merge
requests if you can do a better job. :-)

By the way, that's a happy smiley, not a snarky smiley trying to imply
"quitcherbitchin and code" or anything like that.

Steve

--
Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/


[Mailman-Users] Re: AT&T RBL again

2021-04-03 Thread Mark Sapiro
On 4/3/21 1:59 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> 
> Note that in those cases where the provider sends examples of
> "problematic" mail from your server but redacts customer
> identification, there are ways to "fingerprint" the message which the
> providers usually don't touch.  Basically, add a header field with a
> hashed email address.  Of course this requires message-per-subscriber
> which may be costly, and won't do much good unless you see enough of
> these to make it worth doing this as a policy matter.
> 
> Since this involves patching Mailman anyway, you can add code so this
> only happens for specific problematic domains.  It's reported to be
> effective with AOL and (IIRC) Yahoo!

This is a feature in MM 2.1. From Defaults.py

> # If the following is set to a non-empty string, that string is the name of a
> # header that will be added to personalized and VERPed deliveries with value
> # equal to the base64 encoding of the recipient's email address.  This is
> # intended to enable identification of the recipient otherwise redacted from
> # "spam report" feedback loop messages.  For example, if
> # RCPT_BASE64_HEADER_NAME = 'X-Mailman-R-Data'
> # a header like
> # X-Mailman-R-Data: dXNlckBleGFtcGxlLmNvbQo=
> # will be added to messages sent to user@@example.com.
> RCPT_BASE64_HEADER_NAME = ''

This feature doesn't yet exist in Mailman 3.

FWIW, Yahoo/AOL are not currently redacting the recipient address, but
it may not be the address the message was sent to if intermediate
forwarding is involved. Also, Hotmail is not currently redacting the
recipient address. Personalizing deliveries and putting the recipient
address in the msg_footer seems to work well for non-digest messages.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
--
Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/