Aw: So ein Tag…
Infoomatic
infoomatic at gmx.at
Mo Mai 7 19:23:22 CEST 2018
Erinnert mich an letzte Woche. Bin vom Urlaub zurückgekommen, mail reputation im Eimer, unsere Mails wurden bei sämtlichen Kommunikationspartnern als Spam markiert.
Grund: in meiner Abwesenheit wurde eine "Spezialfirma für Mailmarketing" beauftragt Newsletter in unserem Namen zu verschicken. Über Mailchimp. Ohne unsere SPF etc. zu checken.
Also kamen die Mails nach einer Weile als Spam an. Die haben sich gedacht "Mist, na dann verwenden wir einfach eine andere Plattform und machens nochmal". Das ganze dann eine Woche später nochmal, also von 3 Plattformen. Kopf->Tisch sag ich da nur. Da muss man durch ;-)
LG,
Robert
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 06. Mai 2018 um 23:13 Uhr
> Von: "Martin Steigerwald" <martin at lichtvoll.de>
> An: "Diskussionen und Support rund um Postfix" <postfixbuch-users at listen.jpberlin.de>
> Betreff: So ein Tag…
>
> … 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
>
>
>
Mehr Informationen über die Mailingliste Postfixbuch-users