RFC 1891 support

Hi,

I'm trying this as part of RFC1891 as outlined in
http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/dsn.html

Against the gwia, the gwia accepts the messages but does not responed
as expected.


R: 220 Pure-Heart.ORG SMTP server here
S: EHLO Pure-Heart.ORG
R: 250-Pure-Heart.ORG
R: 250-DSN
R: 250 SIZE
S: MAIL FROM:<Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG> RET=HDRS ENVID=QQ314159
R: 250 <Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG> sender ok
S: RCPT TO:<Bob@Big-Bucks.COM> NOTIFY=SUCCESS,DELAY
ORCPT=rfc822;Bobsneph@Big-Bucks.COM
R: 250 <Bob@Big-Bucks.COM> recipient ok

Any knows if the gwia does support rfc 1891?


Tags:

  • Am 22.03.2016 um 13:54 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:

    > Any knows if the gwia does support rfc 1891?
    >
    >

    Does this help?

    https://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7015499

    CU,
    --
    Massimo Rosen
    Novell Knowledge Partner
    No emails please!
    http://www.cfc-it.de
  • On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:35:11 GMT, Massimo Rosen
    <mrosenNO@SPAMcfc-it.de> wrote:

    > Am 22.03.2016 um 13:54 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    >
    > > Any knows if the gwia does support rfc 1891?
    > >
    > >

    > Does this help?
    >
    > https://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7015499
    >


    Yes and no, it add's to the confusion.

    If the recepient does not accept the mail due to poor reputation by
    Cisco, it fails. And no notification is given.

    If delivery fails due to bad email address, it does report.


  • Am 22.03.2016 um 16:55 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:35:11 GMT, Massimo Rosen
    > <mrosenNO@SPAMcfc-it.de> wrote:
    >
    >> Am 22.03.2016 um 13:54 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    >>
    >>> Any knows if the gwia does support rfc 1891?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Does this help?
    >>
    >> https://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7015499
    >>

    >
    > Yes and no, it add's to the confusion.
    >
    > If the recepient does not accept the mail due to poor reputation by
    > Cisco, it fails. And no notification is given.


    That has nothing to do with DSN, and not its job even. If the receipient
    at any point after it initially accepted the mail does opt not to
    deliver it, it's *HIS* duty, and his duty only, to alert the sender.

    CU,
    --
    Massimo Rosen
    Novell Knowledge Partner
    No emails please!
    http://www.cfc-it.de
  • On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:26:05 GMT, Massimo Rosen
    <mrosenNO@SPAMcfc-it.de> wrote:

    > Am 22.03.2016 um 16:55 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:35:11 GMT, Massimo Rosen
    > > <mrosenNO@SPAMcfc-it.de> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Am 22.03.2016 um 13:54 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    > >>
    > >>> Any knows if the gwia does support rfc 1891?
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >> Does this help?
    > >>
    > >> https://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7015499
    > >>

    > >
    > > Yes and no, it add's to the confusion.
    > >
    > > If the recepient does not accept the mail due to poor reputation by
    > > Cisco, it fails. And no notification is given.

    >
    > That has nothing to do with DSN, and not its job even. If the receipient
    > at any point after it initially accepted the mail does opt not to
    > deliver it, it's *HIS* duty, and his duty only, to alert the sender.
    >

    The gwia logs do show the rejection, but no alert mail is send to the
    user.

    And just tested it with the old 8 gwia, then the user does get
    notified.

    On to the support desk :(


  • Hi.

    Am 22.03.2016 um 21:51 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    > The gwia logs do show the rejection, but no alert mail is send to the
    > user.


    Can you share such a log entry? If GWIA is unable to deliver the mail at
    all, then GWIA is by all means supposed to create a new mail back to the
    sender, *unless* it's been told not to do that. By default it does.

    CI,
    --
    Massimo Rosen
    Novell Knowledge Partner
    No emails please!
    http://www.cfc-it.de
  • On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:33:18 GMT, Massimo Rosen
    <mrosenNO@SPAMcfc-it.de> wrote:

    > Hi.
    >
    > Am 22.03.2016 um 21:51 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    > > The gwia logs do show the rejection, but no alert mail is send to the
    > > user.

    >
    > Can you share such a log entry? If GWIA is unable to deliver the mail at
    > all, then GWIA is by all means supposed to create a new mail back to the
    > sender, *unless* it's been told not to do that. By default it does.
    >


    21:11:54 8A4D MSG 1545386 Sender: a*@*.*m.com
    21:11:54 8A4D MSG 1545386 Building message: s6e9cc1a.001
    21:11:54 8A4D MSG 1545386 Recipient: ping@tools.mxtoolbox.com
    21:11:54 8A65 DMN: MSG 1545386 Send Failure: 554 Your access to this
    mail system has been rejected due to the sending MTA's poor
    reputation. If you believe that this failure is in error, please
    21:11:54 8A65 DMN: MSG 1545386 SMTP session ended:
    [inbound-c2.mxswitch.com] ()
    21:12:04 984F MSG 1545386 Analyzing result file:
    /media/nss/GW/Dom_VDME/wpgate/gwia/result/r6e9cc1a.001
    21:12:04 984F MSG 1545386 Detected error on SMTP command
    21:12:04 984F MSG 1545386 Command: tools.mxtoolbox.com
    21:12:04 984F MSG 1545386 Response: 554 Your access to this mail
    system has been rejected due to the sending MTA's poor reputation. If
    you believe that this failur


  • Hi.

    Am 23.03.2016 um 08:06 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:33:18 GMT, Massimo Rosen
    > <mrosenNO@SPAMcfc-it.de> wrote:
    >
    >> Hi.
    >>
    >> Am 22.03.2016 um 21:51 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    >>> The gwia logs do show the rejection, but no alert mail is send to the
    >>> user.

    >>
    >> Can you share such a log entry? If GWIA is unable to deliver the mail at
    >> all, then GWIA is by all means supposed to create a new mail back to the
    >> sender, *unless* it's been told not to do that. By default it does.
    >>

    >
    > 21:11:54 8A4D MSG 1545386 Sender: a*@*.*m.com
    > 21:11:54 8A4D MSG 1545386 Building message: s6e9cc1a.001
    > 21:11:54 8A4D MSG 1545386 Recipient: ping@tools.mxtoolbox.com
    > 21:11:54 8A65 DMN: MSG 1545386 Send Failure: 554 Your access to this
    > mail system has been rejected due to the sending MTA's poor
    > reputation. If you believe that this failure is in error, please
    > 21:11:54 8A65 DMN: MSG 1545386 SMTP session ended:
    > [inbound-c2.mxswitch.com] ()
    > 21:12:04 984F MSG 1545386 Analyzing result file:
    > /media/nss/GW/Dom_VDME/wpgate/gwia/result/r6e9cc1a.001
    > 21:12:04 984F MSG 1545386 Detected error on SMTP command
    > 21:12:04 984F MSG 1545386 Command: tools.mxtoolbox.com
    > 21:12:04 984F MSG 1545386 Response: 554 Your access to this mail
    > system has been rejected due to the sending MTA's poor reputation. If
    > you believe that this failur


    And shortly after that, do you see any hint that it's generating an
    error message back to the sender?

    CU,
    --
    Massimo Rosen
    Novell Knowledge Partner
    No emails please!
    http://www.cfc-it.de
  • On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 07:15:25 GMT, Massimo Rosen
    <mrosenNO@SPAMcfc-it.de> wrote:

    > Hi.
    >
    > Am 23.03.2016 um 08:06 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:33:18 GMT, Massimo Rosen
    > > <mrosenNO@SPAMcfc-it.de> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Hi.
    > >>
    > >> Am 22.03.2016 um 21:51 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    > >>> The gwia logs do show the rejection, but no alert mail is send to the
    > >>> user.
    > >>
    > >> Can you share such a log entry? If GWIA is unable to deliver the mail at
    > >> all, then GWIA is by all means supposed to create a new mail back to the
    > >> sender, *unless* it's been told not to do that. By default it does.
    > >>

    > >
    > > 21:11:54 8A4D MSG 1545386 Sender: a*@*.*m.com
    > > 21:11:54 8A4D MSG 1545386 Building message: s6e9cc1a.001
    > > 21:11:54 8A4D MSG 1545386 Recipient: ping@tools.mxtoolbox.com
    > > 21:11:54 8A65 DMN: MSG 1545386 Send Failure: 554 Your access to this
    > > mail system has been rejected due to the sending MTA's poor
    > > reputation. If you believe that this failure is in error, please
    > > 21:11:54 8A65 DMN: MSG 1545386 SMTP session ended:
    > > [inbound-c2.mxswitch.com] ()
    > > 21:12:04 984F MSG 1545386 Analyzing result file:
    > > /media/nss/GW/Dom_VDME/wpgate/gwia/result/r6e9cc1a.001
    > > 21:12:04 984F MSG 1545386 Detected error on SMTP command
    > > 21:12:04 984F MSG 1545386 Command: tools.mxtoolbox.com
    > > 21:12:04 984F MSG 1545386 Response: 554 Your access to this mail
    > > system has been rejected due to the sending MTA's poor reputation. If
    > > you believe that this failur

    >
    > And shortly after that, do you see any hint that it's generating an
    > error message back to the sender?
    >

    Nop.


  • Alex,

    Am 23.03.2016 um 10:27 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    > On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 07:15:25 GMT, Massimo Rosen
    > <mrosenNO@SPAMcfc-it.de> wrote:
    >> And shortly after that, do you see any hint that it's generating an
    >> error message back to the sender?
    >>

    > Nop.


    Well, if you can 100% confirm that mails to unknown receipients or other
    errors during transfer in fact do generate an error mail back to the
    sender, then it's SR time I'm afraid. Something about this specific
    error response must confuse GWIA.

    At any rate, nothing here has any connection to DSN aka RFC 1891. This
    is regular error handling.

    CU,
    --
    Massimo Rosen
    Novell Knowledge Partner
    No emails please!
    http://www.cfc-it.de
  • On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:39:07 GMT, Massimo Rosen
    <mrosenNO@SPAMcfc-it.de> wrote:

    Massimo,


    > Alex,
    >
    > Am 23.03.2016 um 10:27 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:
    > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 07:15:25 GMT, Massimo Rosen
    > > <mrosenNO@SPAMcfc-it.de> wrote:
    > >> And shortly after that, do you see any hint that it's generating an
    > >> error message back to the sender?
    > >>

    > > Nop.

    >
    > Well, if you can 100% confirm that mails to unknown receipients or other
    > errors during transfer in fact do generate an error mail back to the
    > sender, then it's SR time I'm afraid. Something about this specific
    > error response must confuse GWIA.
    >
    > At any rate, nothing here has any connection to DSN aka RFC 1891. This
    > is regular error handling.


    Consulting some guys. The world is ditching DSN due to privacy
    concerns.

    The automated procedure we have is based on these options.

    It made it possible to send an email out as user A while group B does
    get the response if it fails for some reason.