Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
1175 views

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?


Labels (1)
0 Likes
11 Replies
Highlighted
Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: RFC 1891 support

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
CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Micro Focus Knowledge Partner
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: RFC 1891 support

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.


0 Likes
Highlighted
Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: RFC 1891 support

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
CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Micro Focus Knowledge Partner
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: RFC 1891 support

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 😞


0 Likes
Highlighted
Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: RFC 1891 support

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
CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Micro Focus Knowledge Partner
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: RFC 1891 support

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


0 Likes
Highlighted
Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: RFC 1891 support

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
CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Micro Focus Knowledge Partner
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: RFC 1891 support

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.


0 Likes
Highlighted
Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: RFC 1891 support

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
CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Micro Focus Knowledge Partner
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: RFC 1891 support

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.




0 Likes
Highlighted
Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: RFC 1891 support

Am 23.03.2016 um 16:58 schrieb Alex Warmerdam:

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


There's not much to ditch, it never was widely used in the first place.

But again, this problem you face has nothing to do with DSN.

DSN can only ever come into play *after* your GWIA has transferred the
message somewhere. But it never does.

CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Novell Knowledge Partner
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
CU,
--
Massimo Rosen
Micro Focus Knowledge Partner
No emails please!
http://www.cfc-it.de
0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.