Re: [nznog] RFC822 (Identification of sender in email)
Hey, if you're going to quote me, at least quote me correctly. I didn't say it was unmonitored, we do monitor all bounces we get in order to process the NDR's (thousands each day) Like I said on the phone, our emails have completely valid envelope fields, and we update our database to "clean" out the bad email addresses that people often like to sign up with. This doesn't break any RFC that I know of. We'd just prefer that you don't reply to our CRM messages via SMTP, that's all - hence the "please do not reply to this" at the bottom of all our outbound emails, and the auto-responder if you do happen to send mail to these addresses. If this breaks an RFC, point me at the appropriate place, and I'll change things to fit them. As for being cocky, I can handle that, I've been called worse. Cheers, Stoo Misc small online company. -----Original Message----- From: John @ netTRUST [mailto:john(a)nettrust.net.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2007 2:39 p.m. To: Craig Whitmore; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] RFC822 (Identification of sender in email) I've just had a call from a rather cocky person at the company. They claim it is allright and common. I disagree, with the exception that it is common among spammers*. Hence why I'm asking other NZNOG members. Reply emails go to an auto responder which the company person says is unmonitored. This issue was bought to my attention when I wrote an email to this company, though as we handle (I estimate) several thousand emails per day from this company, I ahve decided to investigate the matter further. *I am in no way suggesting said company is a spammer, but we're under constant pressure from customers to increase the level of 'protection' and looking at their emails, they could quite possibly score a few bayes points.
In investigating an issue involving a large online NZ company's outbound email - I read RFC822 which I have quoted below.
I note that this company is currently making use of apparently unmonitored return addresses which generate an auto reply.
Are you saying they are sending (MFROM) Addresses which don't exist (ie cannot be bounced back to etc). Or MFROM a valid email address which no one reads (ie noreply(a)XXXXX)
Thanks Craig
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
**You** were not quoted. Nowhere was yours or your company's name mentioned.
Hey, if you're going to quote me, at least quote me correctly. I didn't say it was unmonitored, we do monitor all bounces we get in order to process the NDR's (thousands each day) Like I said on the phone, our emails have completely valid envelope fields, and we update our database to "clean" out the bad email addresses that people often like to sign up with. This doesn't break any RFC that I know of.
That is why this is being discussed on NZNOG - because based on MY reading, it does. But I feel it is important so I have decided to seek the opinion of industry peers. Again, neither you nor your company was named, so it is strictly a technical / operational discussion and one with wider relevance.
We'd just prefer that you don't reply to our CRM messages via SMTP, that's all - hence the "please do not reply to this" at the bottom of all our outbound emails, and the auto-responder if you do happen to send mail to these addresses. If this breaks an RFC, point me at the appropriate place, and I'll change things to fit them.
participants (2)
-
John ＠ netTRUST -
Stoo Brighting