[Sysadmin] Fwd: (evolt related) Fwd: [WD]: Use of "no-reply" email address

[Dean Mah]

Hello,

evolt.org is not configured to relay e-mail.  If you can provide more
information (e.g., full headers) on this incident or any future
incidents, please let us know and we will look into the matter
further.

Dean
- on behalf of evolt.org


> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >> From: "[wd] List Mom"
> >> Date: 30 November 2007 23:02:15 GMT
> >> To: list at webdesign-l.com
> >> Subject: Re: [WD]: Use of "no-reply" email address
> >>
> >> on Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 04:43:47PM -0500, Ian Smith-Dahl wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 30, 2007, at 4:04 PM, Scott Reynen wrote:
> >>> Google is often the thought-leader in our industry, but in this case
> >>> I think that their tremendous size forces them into bad practices.
> >>
> >> I dunno about size, but they definitely do some insanely stupid
> >> things
> >> with email. Like excluding the point of origin IP address from the
> >> Received headers in webmail (for privacy!) but not from mail injected
> >> via SMTP (because, um, privacy doesn't matter there?) so it's
> >> impossible
> >> to reject Nigerian 419 scams based on origin alone, which practice
> >> lets
> >> us reject almost all of the 419 scams we see here. And, of course,
> >> those
> >> injected into Google via SMTP:
> >>
> >> Received, arg1= from bruno ( [87.9.226.163])\n\tby mx.google.com with
> >> ESMTPS id 12sm8201813fgg.2007.11.30.10.48.02\n\t(version=SSLv3
> >> cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:48:04 -0800 (PST),
> >> relay=tempest.evolt.org [67.19.100.194], reject=554 5.1.8 RCD419G
> >> Contact postmaster at hesketh.net if this is in error, but your
> >> message was
> >> rejected as a likely variant of a Nigerian 419 scam.
> >>
> >> In that case, it was Italian IP via /evolt/, for crying out loud.
> >> If there's anyone here from evolt, go kick your postmaster - you're
> >> relaying for criminals.
> >>
> >> Apple and Amazon used to send their newsletters and junk from
> >> MAILER-DAEMON, for Pete's sake - not even the true null sender <>,
> >> but
> >> the arbitrary string some MTAs replace <> with upon acceptance. Maybe
> >> that was just a flaw in their internal relay system, I dunno. But
> >> still
> >> stupid.
> >>
> >> In any case, this is drifting off topic and just getting me riled up
> >> thinking about, so ... :)