So ein Tag…

[Martin Steigerwald]

… an dem ich in meine sender_checks einfach nur ein 

/.*/ REJECT Leave me alone already

eintragen möchte und mir eine Führerscheinpflicht für das Aufsetzen eines
Mail-Servers wünsche.

Oder dass Postfix sich einfach weigert zu starten, wenn es merkt, dass es
jemand nicht mal fertig bringt, die Domain für den Mailserver richtig zu
konfigurieren.



Besonders Highlight dabei:

  Received: from mail.example.com (unknown [219.142.131.153])
        by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58CCB3100CC
        for <Martin at lichtvoll.de>; Sun,  6 May 2018 17:04:58 +0200 (CEST)



 Return-Path: <>
  X-Original-To: Martin at lichtvoll.de
  Delivered-To: martin at mondschein.lichtvoll.de
  Authentication-Results: mail.lichtvoll.de
  Received: from mail.example.com (unknown [219.142.131.153])
        by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58CCB3100CC
        for <Martin at lichtvoll.de>; Sun,  6 May 2018 17:04:58 +0200 (CEST)
  Received: by mail.example.com (Postfix)
        id 0929314956E; Sun,  6 May 2018 23:04:55 +0800 (CST)
  Date: Sun,  6 May 2018 23:04:55 +0800 (CST)
  From: MAILER-DAEMON at lmail.ykye.com (Mail Delivery System)
  Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
  To: Martin at lichtvoll.de
  Auto-Submitted: auto-replied
  MIME-Version: 1.0
  Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
        boundary="669171493C9.1525619095/mail.example.com"
  Message-Id: <20180506150455.0929314956E at mail.example.com>
  X-Spam-Level: *********
  X-Rspamd-Server: mondschein
  X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 58CCB3100CC
  X-Spamd-Result: default: False [9.38 / 15.00]
         ASN(0.00)[asn:4847, ipnet:219.142.128.0/18, country:CN]
         ARC_NA(0.00)[]
         FROM_NO_DN(0.00)[]
         MIME_GOOD(-0.20)[text/plain,multipart/signed]
         R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]
         MIME_UNKNOWN(0.10)[message/rfc822]
         DMARC_NA(0.00)[ykye.com]
         BAYES_HAM(-0.84)[85.24%]
         RBL_SPAMHAUS_CSS(2.00)[153.131.142.219.zen.spamhaus.org : 127.0.0.3]
         RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]
         TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]
         GREYLIST(0.00)[pass,meta]
         RBL_SPAMHAUS_XBL(4.00)[153.131.142.219.zen.spamhaus.org : 127.0.0.4]
         RBL_SPAMHAUS_PBL(2.00)[153.131.142.219.zen.spamhaus.org : 127.0.0.11]
         FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[MAILER-DAEMON at lmail.ykye.com,]
         R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]
         TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]
         RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]
         HFILTER_HELO_IP_A(1.00)[mail.example.com]
         AUTH_NA(1.00)[]
         HFILTER_HELO_NORES_A_OR_MX(0.30)[mail.example.com]
         RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]
         IP_SCORE(0.01)[country: CN(0.07)]
  X-Spam: Yes
  
  This is a MIME-encapsulated message.
  
  --669171493C9.1525619095/mail.example.com
  Content-Description: Notification
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
  
  This is the mail system at host mail.example.com.
  
  I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
  be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
  
  For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
  
  If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
  delete your own text from the attached returned message.
  
                     The mail system
  
  <debian-user1 at lists.debian.org>: host bendel.debian.org[82.195.75.100] said:
      550 5.1.1 <debian-user1 at lists.debian.org>: Recipient address rejected: User
      unknown in virtual alias table (in reply to RCPT TO command)
  
  <debian-user2 at lists.debian.org>: host bendel.debian.org[82.195.75.100] said:
      550 5.1.1 <debian-user2 at lists.debian.org>: Recipient address rejected: User
      unknown in virtual alias table (in reply to RCPT TO command)
  
  <debian-user3 at lists.debian.org>: host bendel.debian.org[82.195.75.100] said:
      550 5.1.1 <debian-user3 at lists.debian.org>: Recipient address rejected: User
      unknown in virtual alias table (in reply to RCPT TO command)
  
  <debian-user4 at lists.debian.org>: host bendel.debian.org[82.195.75.100] said:
      550 5.1.1 <debian-user4 at lists.debian.org>: Recipient address rejected: User
      unknown in virtual alias table (in reply to RCPT TO command)
  
  <debian-user5 at lists.debian.org>: host bendel.debian.org[82.195.75.100] said:
      550 5.1.1 <debian-user5 at lists.debian.org>: Recipient address rejected: User
      unknown in virtual alias table (in reply to RCPT TO command)
  
  <debian-user6 at lists.debian.org>: host bendel.debian.org[82.195.75.100] said:
      550 5.1.1 <debian-user6 at lists.debian.org>: Recipient address rejected: User
      unknown in virtual alias table (in reply to RCPT TO command)
  
  --669171493C9.1525619095/mail.example.com
  Content-Description: Delivery report
  Content-Type: message/delivery-status
  
  Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.example.com
  X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 669171493C9
  X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; Martin at lichtvoll.de
  Arrival-Date: Fri,  4 May 2018 16:02:23 +0800 (CST)
  
  Final-Recipient: rfc822; debian-user1 at lists.debian.org
  Original-Recipient: rfc822;debian-user1 at lists.debian.org
  Action: failed
  Status: 5.1.1
  Remote-MTA: dns; bendel.debian.org
  Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 <debian-user1 at lists.debian.org>: Recipient
      address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table
  
  Final-Recipient: rfc822; debian-user2 at lists.debian.org
  Original-Recipient: rfc822;debian-user2 at lists.debian.org
  Action: failed
  Status: 5.1.1
  Remote-MTA: dns; bendel.debian.org
  Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 <debian-user2 at lists.debian.org>: Recipient
      address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table
  
  Final-Recipient: rfc822; debian-user3 at lists.debian.org
  Original-Recipient: rfc822;debian-user3 at lists.debian.org
  Action: failed
  Status: 5.1.1
  Remote-MTA: dns; bendel.debian.org
  Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 <debian-user3 at lists.debian.org>: Recipient
      address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table
  
  Final-Recipient: rfc822; debian-user4 at lists.debian.org
  Original-Recipient: rfc822;debian-user4 at lists.debian.org
  Action: failed
  Status: 5.1.1
  Remote-MTA: dns; bendel.debian.org
  Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 <debian-user4 at lists.debian.org>: Recipient
      address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table
  
  Final-Recipient: rfc822; debian-user5 at lists.debian.org
  Original-Recipient: rfc822;debian-user5 at lists.debian.org
  Action: failed
  Status: 5.1.1
  Remote-MTA: dns; bendel.debian.org
  Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 <debian-user5 at lists.debian.org>: Recipient
      address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table
  
  Final-Recipient: rfc822; debian-user6 at lists.debian.org
  Original-Recipient: rfc822;debian-user6 at lists.debian.org
  Action: failed
  Status: 5.1.1
  Remote-MTA: dns; bendel.debian.org
  Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.1 <debian-user6 at lists.debian.org>: Recipient
      address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table
  
  --669171493C9.1525619095/mail.example.com
  Content-Description: Undelivered Message
  Content-Type: message/rfc822
  
  Received: from [127.0.1.1] (unknown [5.5.5.16])
        by mail.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 669171493C9;
        Fri,  4 May 2018 16:02:23 +0800 (CST)
  From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin at lichtvoll.de>
  To: debian-kde at lists.debian.org
  Subject: Re: What needs to improve in KDE 4?
  Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 23:58:42 +0200

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Kein Witz.

  User-Agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.33.2-tp42-toi-3.1-lowmem-free-991-992-04964-gf00c7ec-dirty; KDE/4.4.3; i686; ; )

Aber cool zu sehen, was damals für ein Kernel aktuell war.

Mittlerweile erstellt KDE solche Header glaub gar nicht mehr und mein
haut die ohnehin raus.

  References: <AANLkTilqtVStnerEw1LmnlsyTO1-3zPxSyGPH-TeJGIV at mail.csmining.org> <AANLkTilPWcL43hjUdKGIzpPtZOW7fDg5vIiRJeTG5tq9 at mail.csmining.org> <20100510170348.GG24935 at n0nb.us> (sfid-20100510_204337_658379_4F4B8310)
  In-Reply-To: <20100510170348.GG24935 at n0nb.us>
  MIME-Version: 1.0
  Content-Type: multipart/signed;
    boundary="nextPart13412309.6Ix9itSKnv";
    protocol="application/pgp-signature";
    micalg=pgp-sha1
  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  Message-Id: <201005102358.43775.Martin at lichtvoll.de>
  X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
  X-Rc-Spam: 2008-11-04_01
  Resent-Message-ID: <dSKosERKl1D.A.jLG.lGI6LB at liszt>
  Resent-From: debian-kde at lists.debian.org
  X-Mailing-List: <debian-kde at lists.debian.org> archive/latest/32344
  X-Loop: debian-kde at lists.debian.org
  List-Id: <debian-kde.lists.debian.org>
  List-Post: <mailto:debian-kde at lists.debian.org>
  List-Help: <mailto:debian-kde-request at lists.debian.org?subject=help>
  List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-kde-request at lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
  List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-kde-request at lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
  Precedence: list
  Resent-Sender: debian-kde-request at lists.debian.org
  Resent-Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 21:59:01 +0000 (UTC)
 
  --nextPart13412309.6Ix9itSKnv
  Content-Type: Text/Plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
  Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
  
  Am Montag 10 Mai 2010 schrieb Nate Bargmann:
  > * On 2010 10 May 11:50 -0500, Dotan Cohen wrote:
  > > Yes, 4.2 and now 4.4 seem to behave badly without a clean ~/.kde. I
  > > find that very disturbing and unstable.
 […]
-- 
Martin