Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.mail.misc > #361

Re (2): MailServer econ101

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In article <vuf3a8da3ilked9hp27bf9h9mlds3ttfr0@4ax.com>, Steve Baker <bakesph@comcast.net> wrote: 

>   I say that you're the same fuckwit who didn't know how to do Telnet
> with an SMTP server, ...

Thank you for your attention to this problem.
It's important to me to know what my mistakes are in
telnet-testing my smtp-server/s.

====> Here's the extract from my original post:-------------
Here's a telnet trace to ISP1, via the fixedRadioModen of ISP2:----
spawn telnet smtp.absamail.co.za 25
Trying 196.41.6.142...
Connected to smtp.absamail.co.za.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 smtp.absamail.co.za ESMTP
ehlo
501 #5.0.0 EHLO requires domain address
AUTH LOGIN
334 ********
*******************
334 ***********************
*****
235 #2.0.0 OK Authenticated  <-----*!
DATA
503 #5.5.1 MAIL first
MAIL FROM:<crgl***@absamail.co.za>
250 sender <crgl***@absamail.co.za> ok
RCPT TO:<eas***@absamail.co.za>
250 recipient <eas***@absamail.co.za> ok
DATA
354 go ahead
Date: Sept 3012
Subject: tst2 expect Ac2Ae2

Line after space-line separator
line-2
line-3
line-4
.
250 ok:  Message 910133084 accepted    <---- *!
quit
221 smtp.absamail.co.za
Connection closed by foreign host.

---------------- end of telnet session trace:-----------
====> Here's your reply:-------------
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 14:53:55 +0000 (UTC), no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
....
>DATA
>354 go ahead
>Date: Sept 3012
>Subject: tst2 expect Ac2Ae2
>
>Line after space-line separator
>line-2
>line-3
>line-4
>.

  They might want to see a few more header lines, like maybe a From:
and a To:. Also, that Date: line is malformed.
--- end of your comment on THAT particular telnet session----

Please correct any of the following:-
* According to the relevant RFC the client needs to pass a
number of steps as per the server's RFC requirements.
* At each step, the feedback from the server confirms or NOT
 that the client has passed the most recent step.
* If the client fails step N it is irrelevant and inappropriate to
   consider the steps after N.
As my logs indicate, the preplanned steps may be auto-executed 
eg. by `expect; so that continuation of the 'dialog' after the server has 
indicated a failure, does NOT mean that the HUMAN does not understand
the failure. It means the full sequence of steps were PREplanned,
and that the point-of-failure can be determined from the log
AFTER the session.
* The <DATA> stage comes after the <TxAuthorisation> stage,
  so that testing the <TxAuthorisation> stage, will not be
  affected by elements of the <DATA> stage like the <Date field>?
  
Is the <date field> specified in the RFC?
Since you KNOW the RFC, [I've already got 4 texts open for this
post, and I don't want to just guess] please remind me why I
needed to have a repeat of the "From: and a To:", when this info
is already contained in the COMPULSORY inputs:
MAIL FROM:<crgl***@absamail.co.za>
RCPT TO:<eas***@absamail.co.za>

Does the smtp-server check the date format AFTER it has already given
feedback:
"250 ok:  Message 910133084 accepted". ??
Ie. what RFC specifies that <wrong format Date-field emails>
are not to be forwarded.
Of course the software can be programmed to REJECT on any detectable
attribute.
-----------------------------------------
Here's some related info, for readers who don't know how the 3rd-world
operates, and explains why sometimes there's no TECHNICAL solution to
socio-economic problems, and why the witch-doctor is needed when the
engineer fails.  ----------------

To: TALK2us@neotel.co.za
Subject: Servers BECAME defective after clients received spam warnings?

From the initial 'welcome SMS' dated 2010-08-11, I see that
I have been a Neotel client for 27 months now.

Fortunately, I chose not to sign a contract, and fortunately
I have an alternative email facility, and I am moving my traffic
increasingly to your competitors.

When your email service failed several months ago, I accepted it as just
part of the general South African chaos, where it is well documented that
they can't even get municipal accounts correct, although that was
no problem 50 years ago.

We know that accidents happen, and one doesn't want to put unnecessary
pressure on the 'fire fighters' and hamper the general recovery. But
yesterday I decided that since the email service had been out of order 
for months, you would have had sufficient time to fix it. So I again
phoned the <help line>.

The difficult to understand 'assistant' confirmed that there was a
problem on YOUR system, leading to the <wrong password error>,
and absurdly suggested that I FURTHER hang-on-the-line, while he
consult with his superior. 

Suggesting that I rather phone back in an hour and ask for <his name>:
I later got a different "assistant". Who again just repeatedly
ask me to wait.  

There is no justification to be asked to wait.
The client does not NEED any answer, and Neotel does not need further info.
The client's error description can be logged in 30 seconds;
 after that, technically competent persons can diagnose and fix the error/s.

What kind of a circus are you operating at SA: Neotel ?!
----

After further though on this matter, and particularly why the 
"assistants" want to establish a personal relationship with the
client/victim, I realised how ignorant we Westerners are,
without training in how-to-use-bribery-opportunities.

Of course the Neotel-computerised-telephone advanced-payment
works perfectly, and as automatic as an ATM, without any person to
ask your name, and create irrelevant patter, to give them an
opportunity to mention you name six times, to create a
"personal relationship", and let you wait for 30 minutes
of background music, to realise that you should put-your
hand-in-your-pocket-to-solve-the problem.

Someone asked me: "but HOW would he receive his bribe?"
Lacking experience in these subtlety's, I just remember that
once I needed info from the 1000 miles distant Cape Town magistrate
Court. Instead of faxing me the 2 pages, the "assistant" wanted to
fax all 50 [using the government costs] and have me pay into his
bank account for the service.

Back to comp.mail.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

MailServer econ101 Avoid9Pdf@gmail.com - 2012-11-11 06:05 +0000
  Re: MailServer econ101 Steve Baker <bakesph@comcast.net> - 2012-11-11 03:41 -0500
    Re (2): MailServer econ101 Avoid9Pdf@gmail.com - 2012-11-11 10:26 +0000
      Re: Re (2): MailServer econ101 "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2012-11-11 16:55 +0100
      Re: Re (2): MailServer econ101 Joe Zeff <the.guy.with.the.sideburns@lasfs.info> - 2012-11-11 16:28 +0000
      Re: Re (2): MailServer econ101 Steve Baker <bakesph@comcast.net> - 2012-11-12 22:49 -0500
        Re (2): MailServer econ101 Avoid9Pdf@gmail.com - 2012-11-15 19:34 +0000
  Re: MailServer econ101 bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) - 2012-11-12 16:57 -0600

csiph-web