Possible to remove peter at gizmoman.net from users list Was: The "peter at gizmoman.net" dilemma

[David Hart]

On Thu 2007-01-04 22:29:26 -0500, Jeffrey F. Bloss wrote:
> David Hart wrote:
> 
> > On Thu 2007-01-04 10:42:47 -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> > > David Hart wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Take a look at the (forged) headers of the messages and you'll
> > > > see that they don't go through Ubunutu servers so there's nothing
> > > > (directly) that the list admins can do about it.
> > > 
> > > of course there is - just remove him from the list.  I don't think
> > > the headers are forged, it's just a very bad autoresponder.
> > 
> > Well of course they're autoresponder messages.  Bounce messages _are_
> > autoreponder messages but, judging from the messages that I received,
> > they are _forged_ bounce messages.
> 
> There's nothing here that indicates any forging IMHO, in fact the
> preceding headers (you should see something similar) and a lack of any
> MX record for gizmoman.net suggest they're simply outsourcing mail...

What are you talking about?  Here's the mx for gizmoman.net:

# david at mutt:~$ dig +short gizmoman.net mx
# 10 mx1.conxion.com.au.

> > # Received: from beachbum-server.beach-bum-solutions.com (unknown
> > [202.87.14.34]) #         by mutt.jynn.tonix.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
> > id DBD906E89 #         for <ubuntu at tonix.org>; Thu,  4 Jan 2007
> > 07:29:08 +0000 (GMT)

You snipped out the bit where I explained that the above header was
generated by _my_ MTA. It's under _my_ control, humming away under _my_
desk here where I type. I _know_ that header isn't forged.

The mx for gizmoman.net isn't beachbum-server.beach-bum-solutions.com,
it's mx1.conxion.com.au. The IP address of
beachbum-server.beach-bum-solutions.com isn't 202.87.14.34 it's
64.15.205.242.  gizmoman.net points to 202.87.14.34 (and probably a lot
of other domains do too).

> Received: from mail pickup service by
> beachbum-server.beach-bum-solutions.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; [...]

What's the above got to do with the price of fish?
 
> > I _know_ that the IP address that the message came from is correct
> > because it was recorded by _my_ server.
> 
> IP addresses don't really mean a thing these days. ;)

They _do_ when your _own_ machine is reporting an IP based on a TCP
connection.
 

-- 
David Hart <ubuntu at tonix.org>