Archive-Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 07:16:41 -0800 Message-ID: <13bb01c162e8$199b7e00$76041c7e@si.com> From: "Brian Tillman" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: References: <003c01c1626b$0d888cc0$de2c67cb@helpdesk> Subject: Re: Anti-relay problem Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:15:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >This is the part of their operation I find hardest to take. The majority of >spam is US in origin. Actually, China may have the trophy by now. Brian Tillman Internet: tillman_brian at si.com Smiths Aerospace tillman at swdev.si.com 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS Addresses modified to prevent Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991 SPAM. Replace "at" with "@" This opinion doesn't represent that of my company ********************************************************************** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be legally privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This e-mail and its files are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and their content is the property of Smiths Aerospace. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the e-mail administrator at postmaster@si.com and then delete this e-mail, its files and any copies. This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for the presence of known computer viruses. *********************************************************************** ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 07:18:05 -0800 Message-ID: <0D3123022EB2D411BCBC00508BB028FA9EDE81@poster.callan.com> From: "Kattalia, Mark" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: "'MX-List@MadGoat.com'" Subject: RE: Anti-relay problem Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 07:12:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C162E7.8FD8EBD0" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C162E7.8FD8EBD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" You know, I've seen a lot of these messages arguing about whether ORBS is "right" or not. None of that matters. If you want to get rid of spam, the answer is very easy. Don't buy anything that comes to you via anonymous unsolicited email. That's the simplest answer. The only reason these people continue is that some fools respond. Alan Brown and the ORBS folks aren't wrong. They're just doing what they feel is right. If some people use their blocking system, that's fine. But don't argue that it's a "civil rights" issue. When you use someone's network and their bandwidth, it isn't a civil rights issue. When you can't get your email, it's not a civil rights issue. No one has given you the "right" to communicate via email. This is a cooperative community and to stay that way, it must encompass some of the outrageous. That includes spammers and folks like ORBS. If you don't respond to spammer emails, they will eventually cease. If you don't like ORBS, don't use it. But don't harass anyone! You probably haven't heard about web proxies and pl scripts that can be compromised by spammers. ORBS is attempting to find these and other relays. They are just doing what spammers do 24/7. I'd rather Alan find my relay and tell me about it, than have a spammer find it and send a million emails out. It's not just closed because you say it is. Mark Kattalia CALLAN ASSOCIATES Inc. kattalia@callan.com (415) 978-3099 -----Original Message----- From: Virginia Metze [mailto:metze@ginny.mrl.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 7:50 AM To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: RE: Anti-relay problem It appears that these vigilantes are now hammering closed relays (to the outside) from INSIDE a network. We expect our servers to be able to forward mail from machines behind it. We define a closed relay as a machine that cannot be reached from outside our network. orbs.org lost a lawsuit and was put out of business in either Australia or New Zealand, don't remember which. They are setting up camp again and behaving even more obnoxiously. They are also targetting, as they always do, those they don't like. Let's be clear about this: they are going way beyond anything required by smtp "standards" if that is what you want to call an rfc. Also, one of the reasons they lost the lawsuit, as I understand it, is because they put anyone in they please, whether an open relay or not. The real thing to do is to keep people from violating the civil liberties of people whose machines were used as a relay and go instead after the REAL spammers, is to get people to stop using the data base. These vigilantes go after the victims, not after the spammers. It would be unfortunate if we have to get them taken out of business on every country on earth, but if they are just going to move around, then that may be what it takes. But complaining to those who use their database for banning email is one way to do it. Now I suppose they will attempt to send hundreds of emails through our network again. -----Original Message----- From: eppinette [mailto:eppinette@ulm.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:18 AM To: mx-list@madgoat.com Subject: Anti-relay problem Hello, I've started having a problem recently with anti-relaying settings. Within the last week my MX system has been placed into the ORDB.ORG database and I can't determine why their system is classing my box as an open-relay. Hopefully someone thru this list can help shed some light on the problem. I was running MX 5.1-X, but I upgraded it last night to 5.2 in an attempt to solve the problem - no luck. I am running OpenVMS V7.2-1 over MultiNet V4.1 Rev A-X with MX V5.2-X I've set the norelay option for MX (which had been set for some time) The smtp logs where showing that the system was working well because there where numerous rejected messages due to disabled relay. I still occasionally get these rejection statements, but not as often. I've had a couple of "inside network" entries on my system for sometime as well that designate my local network. And I've got several entries in "local domains" to indicate my domain styles. Like I said all had been working fine until about a week ago. This log entry was one of the test that ORDB attempted: 30-OCT-2001 23:14:28.26: MX SMTP server: rejected message from < spamtest@alpha.ulm.edu > to < marvin@ordb.org > sent by [62.242.0.190] due to disabled relay This is the header of what supposedly failed from the test returned by ORDB: Return-Path: Delivered-To: marvin@groundzero.ordb.org Received: from alpha.ulm.edu (alpha.ulm.edu [192.135.131.100]) by groundzero.ordb.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE595B104 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:14:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from groundzero.ordb.org (62.242.0.190) by alpha.ulm.edu (MX V5.2-X An7g) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:16:00 -0500 X-ORDB-Envelope-MAIL-FROM: X-ORDB-Envelope-RCPT-TO: From: spamtest@alpha.ulm.edu To: marvin%ordb.org@[192.135.131.100] Subject: ORDB.org check (dc84c0ec532b1095b72e20e8adce9) (9) Message-Id: <20011031051412.2AE595B104@groundzero.ordb.org> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:14:12 +0100 (CET) Thanks for the assistance. Chance Eppinette eppinette@ulm.edu Technology Support Manager ULM Computing Center 318-342-5021 fax: 318-342-5018 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C162E7.8FD8EBD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
You know, I've seen a lot of these messages arguing about whether ORBS is "right" or not.
 
None of that matters. If you want to get rid of spam, the answer is very easy. Don't buy anything that comes to you via anonymous unsolicited email.
 
That's the simplest answer. The only reason these people continue is that some fools respond. Alan Brown and the ORBS folks aren't wrong. They're just doing what they feel is right. If some people use their blocking system, that's fine. But don't argue that it's a "civil rights" issue. When you use someone's network and their bandwidth, it isn't a civil rights issue. When you can't get your email, it's not a civil rights issue. No one has given you the "right" to communicate via email.
 
This is a cooperative community and to stay that way, it must encompass some of the outrageous. That includes spammers and folks like ORBS. If you don't respond to spammer emails, they will eventually cease. If you don't like ORBS, don't use it. But don't harass anyone!
 
You probably haven't heard about web proxies and pl scripts that can be compromised by spammers. ORBS is attempting to find these and other relays. They are just doing what spammers do 24/7. I'd rather Alan find my relay and tell me about it, than have a spammer find it and send a million emails out.
 
It's not just closed because you say it is.
 

Mark Kattalia
CALLAN ASSOCIATES Inc.
kattalia@callan.com
(415) 978-3099

-----Original Message-----
From: Virginia Metze [mailto:metze@ginny.mrl.uiuc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 7:50 AM
To: MX-List@MadGoat.com
Subject: RE: Anti-relay problem

It appears that these vigilantes are now hammering closed relays (to the outside)
from INSIDE a network.  We expect our servers to be able to forward mail from
machines behind it.  We define a closed relay as a machine that cannot be
reached from outside our network.
 
orbs.org lost a lawsuit and was put out of business in either Australia or New Zealand,
don't remember which.
 
They are setting up camp again and behaving even more obnoxiously.  They are also
targetting, as they always do, those they don't like. 
 
Let's be clear about this:  they are going way beyond anything required by smtp "standards"
if that is what you want to call an rfc.
 
Also, one of the reasons they lost the lawsuit, as I understand it, is because they put
anyone in they please, whether an open relay or not.
 
The real thing to do is to keep people from violating the civil liberties of people whose machines
were used as a relay and go instead after the REAL spammers, is to get people to stop using
the data base.
 
These vigilantes go after the victims, not after the spammers.
 
It would be unfortunate if we have to get them taken out of business on every country on earth,
but if they are just going to move around, then that may be what it takes.  But complaining to
those who use their database for banning email is one way to do it.
 
Now I suppose they will attempt to send hundreds of emails through our network again.
-----Original Message-----
From: eppinette [mailto:eppinette@ulm.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:18 AM
To: mx-list@madgoat.com
Subject: Anti-relay problem

Hello,
I've started having a problem recently with anti-relaying settings.
Within the last week my MX system has been placed into the ORDB.ORG database and I can't determine
why their system is classing my box as an open-relay.
Hopefully someone thru this list can help shed some light on the problem.
 
I was running MX 5.1-X, but I upgraded it last night to 5.2 in an attempt to solve the problem - no luck.
I am running OpenVMS V7.2-1 over MultiNet V4.1 Rev A-X with MX V5.2-X
I've set the norelay option for MX (which had been set for some time)
The smtp logs where showing that the system was working well because there where numerous rejected messages due to disabled relay.  I still occasionally get these rejection statements, but not as often.
I've had a couple of "inside network" entries on my system for sometime as well that designate my local network.
And I've got several entries in "local domains" to indicate my domain styles.
 
Like I said all had been working fine until about a week ago.
 
This log entry was one of the test that ORDB attempted:
30-OCT-2001 23:14:28.26:  MX SMTP server: rejected message from <spamtest@alpha.ulm.edu> to <marvin@ordb.org> sent by [62.242.0.190] due to disabled relay
 
This is the header of what supposedly failed from the test returned by ORDB:
Return-Path: <spamtest@alpha.ulm.edu>
Delivered-To: marvin@groundzero.ordb.org
Received: from alpha.ulm.edu (alpha.ulm.edu [192.135.131.100])
	by groundzero.ordb.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE595B104
	for <marvin@ordb.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:14:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from groundzero.ordb.org (62.242.0.190) by alpha.ulm.edu (MX V5.2-X
          An7g) with ESMTP for <marvin%ordb.org@[192.135.131.100]>;
          Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:16:00 -0500
X-ORDB-Envelope-MAIL-FROM: <spamtest@alpha.ulm.edu>
X-ORDB-Envelope-RCPT-TO: <marvin%ordb.org@[192.135.131.100]>
From: spamtest@alpha.ulm.edu
To: marvin%ordb.org@[192.135.131.100]
Subject: ORDB.org check (dc84c0ec532b1095b72e20e8adce9) (9)
Message-Id: <20011031051412.2AE595B104@groundzero.ordb.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:14:12 +0100 (CET)
Thanks for the assistance.
 
Chance Eppinette
eppinette@ulm.edu
Technology Support Manager
ULM Computing Center
318-342-5021
fax: 318-342-5018
------_=_NextPart_001_01C162E7.8FD8EBD0-- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:44:59 -0800 Message-ID: <010a01c1632f$353ff040$de2c67cb@helpdesk> From: "Geoff Roberts" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: References: <003c01c1626b$0d888cc0$de2c67cb@helpdesk> <13bb01c162e8$199b7e00$76041c7e@si.com> Subject: Re: Anti-relay problem Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:14:53 +1030 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Tillman" To: Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 1:45 AM Subject: Re: Anti-relay problem > >This is the part of their operation I find hardest to take. The majority > of > >spam is US in origin. > > Actually, China may have the trophy by now. Not from here. :^( Cheers ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 17:14:57 -0800 Message-ID: <013b01c1633b$bb754690$de2c67cb@helpdesk> From: "Geoff Roberts" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: References: <0D3123022EB2D411BCBC00508BB028FA9EDE81@poster.callan.com> Subject: Re: Anti-relay problem Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:44:32 +1030 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: Kattalia, Mark To: 'MX-List@MadGoat.com' Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 1:42 AM Subject: RE: Anti-relay problem > You know, I've seen a lot of these messages arguing about whether ORBS is "right" or not. The concept is not wrong, but I do feel he gets carried away at times. > None of that matters. If you want to get rid of spam, the answer is very easy. Don't buy anything that comes to you via > anonymous unsolicited email. I never have. Not only because I won't, but most of it is US origin/US specific. Not that it stops it being sent. With all due respect, I don't think that's going to make a real difference. Spammers do it because it's virtually free, even if they get next to no responses. Particularly the scam/ripoff types. The debt consolidation etc etc etc junk we get bombarded with. > That's the simplest answer. The only reason these people continue is that some fools respond. Maybe some do. But I still say even if response is close to zero the spammers will keep trying because it's free or nearly so. > Alan Brown and the ORBS folks aren't wrong. They're just doing what they feel is right. If some people use their blocking > system, that's fine. But don't argue that it's a "civil rights" issue. When you use someone's network and their bandwidth, it > isn't a civil rights issue. When you can't get your email, it's not a civil rights issue. No one has given you the "right" to > communicate via email. I don't know where civil rights comes into it. Spam come and goes from places where there are none. > This is a cooperative community and to stay that way, it must encompass some of the outrageous. No. It USED to be a cooperative community. Now it's the profiteering ripoff merchants and the rest of us. > That includes spammers and folks like ORBS. I don't necessarily agree with all of ORBS methods, but I wouldn't lump him in with the spammers. > If you don't respond to spammer emails, they will eventually cease. I don't think this is likely. It will require legislation making it unlawful for any US entity to send uce to anyone who has not been verified as having 'opted in' to a list. I have some doubts this will ever happen, the Yanks are way to worried about the free speech amendment in their constitution. (First? whatever it is) Unfortunately this seems to suggest that free speech equates to "you HAVE TO listen to me" whether you want to or not. > If you don't like ORBS, don't use it. But don't harass anyone! I may if I think it's not too aggressive. To modify open relay behaviour requires everyone to be reading from the same sheet of music, so that the open relay's mail won't get to ANYONE before it will have any effect. (Un)fortunately, not everyone uses ORBS so this effect is also unlikely to happen. The RBL is now a subscription service. It's in another country so it's too hard for us to use now. > You probably haven't heard about web proxies and pl scripts that can be compromised by spammers. Had an issue recently when I noticed a spammer in Thailand was using a proxy port (3128) to CONNECT to port 6667 on an IRC server. There was a small error in the mapping rule that was supposed to prevent external access to this, combined with a bug in the mapping rule syntax checker that should have picked it up. He was continually logging in to IRC, flooding channels with sex site spamvertising, getting kicked for flooding, then immediately logging back in and doing it again. Was very pissed off as the port was supposedly closed to external access. It's fixed now, (and so is the bug in the syntax checker :^) > ORBS is attempting to find these and other relays. They are just doing what spammers do 24/7. > I'd rather Alan find my relay and tell me about it, than have a spammer find it and send a million > emails out. It's not just closed because you say it is. There is evidence he does target people he doesn't like. This is what happened to him in NZ. He is in a world of hurt there. Oh yes it is :^) In fact, I let ORBS check our MX 5.2 box yesterday, and it passed. (SMTP authentication is the best method to make sure it passes incidentally. Now if every mail exchanger in the world defaulted to that, it would be no problem. Spammers wouldn't have any open relays to use. Cheers Geoff ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 06:30:18 -0800 Message-ID: <196901c163aa$d2437170$76041c7e@si.com> From: "Brian Tillman" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: References: <0D3123022EB2D411BCBC00508BB028FA9EDE81@poster.callan.com> <013b01c1633b$bb754690$de2c67cb@helpdesk> Subject: Re: Anti-relay problem Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:29:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > If you don't respond to spammer emails, they will eventually cease. Patently and demonstrably false. We get all sorts of SPAM to addresses in our domain that do not exist and have never existed. We block hundreds of messages each and every day to completely nonsense addresses and these addresses keep cropping up in other SPAMmers' address lists. Once they get on some address CD somewhere, the SPAMmers share it among themselves and frequencies increase, not decrease. Brian Tillman Internet: tillman_brian at si.com Smiths Aerospace tillman at swdev.si.com 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS Addresses modified to prevent Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991 SPAM. Replace "at" with "@" This opinion doesn't represent that of my company ********************************************************************** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be legally privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This e-mail and its files are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and their content is the property of Smiths Aerospace. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the e-mail administrator at postmaster@si.com and then delete this e-mail, its files and any copies. This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for the presence of known computer viruses. *********************************************************************** ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 07:34:22 -0800 Message-ID: <010701c163b3$670ebf00$c68387c0@ulm.edu> From: "eppinette" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: Subject: Re: Anti-relay problem Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:31:11 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0104_01C16381.1C499580" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0104_01C16381.1C499580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >I've started having a problem recently with anti-relaying settings. >Within the last week my MX system has been placed into the ORDB.ORG = database and I can't determine >why their system is classing my box as an open-relay. >Hopefully someone thru this list can help shed some light on the = problem. Many thanks to everyone that replied about this open-relay problem. The trick was indeed the percent-hack feature. I did use ORDB to test my site once I deactivated percent-hack and it came back as closed. Thanks, Chance Eppinette eppinette@ulm.edu Technology Support Manager ULM Computing Center 318-342-5021 fax: 318-342-5018 ------=_NextPart_000_0104_01C16381.1C499580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>I've started having a problem = recently with=20 anti-relaying settings.
>Within the last week my MX system = has been=20 placed into the ORDB.ORG database and I can't determine
>why their system is classing my box = as an=20 open-relay.
>Hopefully someone thru this list = can help shed=20 some light on the problem.
 
Many thanks to everyone that replied = about this=20 open-relay problem.
The trick was indeed the percent-hack=20 feature.  I did use ORDB to test
my site once I deactivated percent-hack = and it came=20 back as closed.
 
Thanks,
Chance Eppinette
eppinette@ulm.edu
Technology = Support=20 Manager
ULM Computing Center
318-342-5021
fax:=20 318-342-5018
------=_NextPart_000_0104_01C16381.1C499580-- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 07:37:28 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:35:40 -0600 From: system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <00A0470A.33205DA3.48@niuhep.physics.niu.edu> Subject: Re: Anti-relay problem Mass snail mailings consider something like 4% to be a success, and I suspect they are paying far more per "address" than the spammers. Trying to kill it via non-response is /very/ unlikely to work. Robert ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 14:21:45 -0800 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011104001946.02250928@juhani.decus.fi> Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 00:22:46 +0200 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com From: Esa Laitinen Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: RE: Anti-relay problem In-Reply-To: References: <047f01c16216$dfb0e800$c68387c0@ulm.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 17:49 31.10.2001, you wrote: >It appears that these vigilantes are now hammering closed relays (to the >outside) >from INSIDE a network. Huh? How are these vigilantes able to get into your INSIDE network? Do you have a security problem? If these vigilantes are able to relay thru your machine so are the spammers. There are secure ways to do all relaying that is needed. esa ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:07:31 -0800 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:05:01 +0300 From: rakesh@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-SUPPORT@MADGOAT.COM CC: MX-LIST@MADGOAT.COM, rakesh@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw Message-ID: <00A04F56.EB96058C.128@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw> Subject: unable to reject some incoming mails .... We are facing a problem & am unable to set up REJMAN to reject mails from a particular IP address (seems fake IP address if this is possible). So, despite my best effort to set up REJMAN to reject such mails the mails are still being entered in to the queue & getting processed & over loading our Mail System running under VMS 7.1-1H2, UCX-4.0 & MX 5.1. Following are the details & need help for proper REJMAN set up. QUEUE ENTRY IS AS UNDER FOR SUCH MAIL: ************************************* Entry: 1269, Origin: [SMTP] <> Status: IN-PROGRESS, size: 251032 bytes Created: 12-NOV-2001 11:53:30.89, expires 12-DEC-2001 22:24:51.96 Last modified 12-NOV-2001 22:24:51.96 SMTP entry #1289, status: READY, size: 251032 bytes, waiting for retry until 12-NOV-2001 22:54:52.12 Created: 12-NOV-2001 11:53:39.15, expires 12-DEC-2001 22:24:52.12 Last modified 12-NOV-2001 22:24:52.12 Recipient #1: , Route=france-mail.com Error count=22 Last error: %MX-W-HOSTLOCK, target host is temporarily locked against connection attempts THE RELEVANT PORTION OF OUTPUT BY STRINGS 1269.HDR_INFO IN QUEUE.9 DIRECTORY IS: ******************************************************************************* from ChemDpt94.kuniv.edu.kw (139.141.138.94) by kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw (MX V5.1-A An4t) with SMTP for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:53:30 +0300 zgaowao@france-mail.com name Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:00:26 +0300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400" multipart/mixed; boundary="----7980164C_Outlook_Express_message_boundary" Content-Disposition: Multipart message BASED ON THIS INFO I ENTERED THE COMMANDS FOR REJMAN & RELEVANT ENTRIES IN REJMAN DATABASE ARE AS UNDER: **************************** --- Sender: *@* Address: 139.141.138.94 Added: 12-NOV-2001 11:15:39.33, never referenced --- Sender: *@* Recipient: zgaowao@* Added: 12-NOV-2001 22:07:06.55, never referenced --- For REJMAN I used the following commands. $ REJMAN == "$MX_EXE:REJMAN" $ REJMAN REJMAN> ADD REJECT "*@*"/ADDRESS=139.141.138.94 REJMAN> ADD REJECT "*@*" "zgaowao@*" REJMAN> EXIT $ MCP == "$MX_EXE:MCP" $ MCP RESET SMTP_SERVER Kindly suggest what mistake I am making? As one can see above from the relevant portion of REJMAN SHOW REJECT command both of these rejection rules indicate "never referenced" even though I can find new entries getting entered into mail queues for receipient "zgaowao". I have some other REJECTION rules in REJMAN database which show increase in counters. Kindly help. Best regards, RAKESH ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:10:22 -0800 Message-ID: <002201c1712e$9d172aa0$130610ac@sysmanhome> From: "Ruslan R. Laishev" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: Subject: SMTP Crash Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:15:52 +0300 Hello Matt! What we can do with this ? $ save_verify = f$verify("verify_procedure") 19-NOV-2001 12:43:44.29: MX SMTP Server (pid 210A764F) starting 19-NOV-2001 12:48:17.74: MX SMTP server: rejected message from to sent by [207.14.77.2] 19-NOV-2001 12:52:35.89: MX SMTP server: rejected message from <> sent by [64.221.69.37] due to RFC822 header rule [*Undeliverable: of modern America?*] %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=04, virtual address=0000000000000004, PC=000000000038F7B4, PS=0000001B %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows image module routine line rel PC abs PC NETLIB_TCPWARE_SHR MEM netlib___alloc_dnsreq 28403 0000000000000654 000000000038F7B4 NETLIB_TCPWARE_SHR DNS_QUERY netlib_dns_query 28146 0000000000000184 000000000038D154 NETLIB_SHRXFR 0 0000000000022F38 0000000000094F38 SMTP_SERVER SMTP_SERVER DO_NEXT_RBL_CHECK 1276 0000000000001B4C 0000000000031B4C SMTP_SERVER SMTP_SERVER DO_RBL_CHECK 1218 00000000000019E8 00000000000319E8 SMTP_SERVER SMTP_SERVER DO_ACCEPT_CHECK 1070 0000000000001770 0000000000031770 SMTP_SERVER SMTP_SERVER SMTP_SERVER 855 00000000000013EC 00000000000313EC 0 FFFFFFFF87E273F4 FFFFFFFF87E273F4 19-NOV-2001 12:55:00.04: MX SMTP Server (pid 210A764F) exiting, status = 1000000C 19-NOV-2001 12:55:23.48: MX SMTP Server (pid 210A764F) starting 19-NOV-2001 13:01:24.14: MX SMTP server: rejected message from <> sent by [64.221.69.37] due to RFC822 header rule [*Undeliverable: of modern America?*] 19-NOV-2001 13:01:46.18: MX SMTP server: rejected message from <> sent by [64.221.69.37] due to RFC822 header rule [*Undeliverable: of modern America?*] 19-NOV-2001 13:01:53.74: MX SMTP server: rejected message from <> sent by [64.221.69.37] due to RFC822 header rule [*Undeliverable: of modern America?*] 19-NOV-2001 13:01:55.83: MX SMTP server: rejected message from <> sent by [64.221.69.37] due to RFC822 header rule [*Undeliverable: of modern America?*] 19-NOV-2001 13:06:09.23: MX SMTP server: rejected message from <> sent by [64.221.69.37] due to RFC822 header rule [*Undeliverable: of modern America?*] $ Regards. Mobile:+7 (901) 9713222, AIM nickname:"VMS hardworker" http://www.DLS.net - Non-stop VMS-powered ISP in ChicagoLand! http://www.RadiusVMS.com - RADIUS server for OpenVMS project