[time-nuts] Strange reports of bocked messages to timenuts
Mike S
mikes at flatsurface.com
Sat May 17 10:52:59 EDT 2008
At 06:55 AM 5/17/2008, John Ackermann N8UR wrote...
>I think this is some sort of weird backscatter problem; I've never
>seen
>this message before.
>
>But I've unsubscribed this joconnell person in the hopes that will
>stop it.
It will, but the root problem is at febo.com (failure to follow RFCs),
which is resulting in message rejection and a bounce back to the
Reply-To: addresses (including time-nuts at febo.com).
> > WHY DID THIS HAPPEN ?
> > =====================
> > 550 ######## DNS RHS BLACKLIST: http://www.rfc-ignorant.org
> ########
If you follow the link and look up febo.com, and find that
"ns1.febo.com reports that febo.com has an MX (meow.febo.com) which
ns1.febo.com says is a CNAME (to febo.com)"
RFC1912 says:
Don't use CNAMEs in combination with RRs which point to other names
like MX, CNAME, PTR and NS. (PTR is an exception if you want to
implement classless in-addr delegation.) For example, this is
strongly discouraged:
podunk.xx. IN MX mailhost
mailhost IN CNAME mary
mary IN A 1.2.3.4
[RFC1034] in section 3.6.2 says this should not be done, and
[RFC974]
explicitly states that MX records shall not point to an alias
defined by
a CNAME.
But that is exactly what febo.com is doing:
dig -t MX febo.com
...
;; ANSWER SECTION:
febo.com. 495834 IN MX 10 meow.febo.com.
dig meow.febo.com
...
;; ANSWER SECTION:
meow.febo.com. 573937 IN CNAME febo.com.
febo.com. 193364 IN A 24.123.66.139
Having said that, the system which is doing the bouncing (conwin.ie) is
brain-dead and doing something even worse - sending the bounce with no
From: header (I assume, since my email server ends up putting a local
From: on it to make the message RFC legal).
More information about the time-nuts
mailing list