Send a mail without going to spam

I've made a script that sends mails, and it sends mails correctly for
gMail, but not for Hotmail. What happens is that on Hotmail the mails
are not even received! Nor on spam box, nor on inbox.

$headers = "From: $from\r\n";
$headers .= "Content-type: text/html\r\n";

mail($to, $subject, $message, $headers);

This is the important info on the mail. The subject is a string, the
$to and the $from are emails and the $message is HTML.
?>

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

RageARC wrote:
> I've made a script that sends mails, and it sends mails correctly for
> gMail, but not for Hotmail. What happens is that on Hotmail the mails
> are not even received! Nor on spam box, nor on inbox.
>
> $headers = "From: $from\r\n";
> $headers .= "Content-type: text/html\r\n";
>
> mail($to, $subject, $message, $headers);
>
> This is the important info on the mail. The subject is a string, the
> $to and the $from are emails and the $message is HTML.
> ?>
>

To start with, get a copy of an email which was received Ok by HotMail,
and one of yours which was rejected.

Start by comparing the headers. Most of the time that will show a problem.

Other possibilities include your server being on a spam blacklist, etc.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

RageARC wrote:
> I've made a script that sends mails, and it sends mails correctly for
> gMail, but not for Hotmail. What happens is that on Hotmail the mails
> are not even received! Nor on spam box, nor on inbox.
>
> $headers = "From: $from\r\n";
> $headers .= "Content-type: text/html\r\n";
>
> mail($to, $subject, $message, $headers);
>
> This is the important info on the mail. The subject is a string, the
> $to and the $from are emails and the $message is HTML.
> ?>

What you send through the mail relays isn't always what's received by
the final recipient. A lot of headers get mucked with in transit.

So, to get a solid answer - you need one of those bounced messages.

Still, the most likely problem is that Hotmail actually black-listed
your domain, or more likely your domain's mail relay. So for example,
even though your domain is "honest.com", you may find that you're
sending your mail through "spammer.de".

It may cost a nickel or two, but sending your mail out through a third
party SMTP server that uses SSL, instead of your hosting providers
default mail relay may allow the mail to go through.

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> RageARC wrote:
>> I've made a script that sends mails, and it sends mails correctly for
>> gMail, but not for Hotmail. What happens is that on Hotmail the mails
>> are not even received! Nor on spam box, nor on inbox.
>>
>> $headers = "From: $from\r\n";
>> $headers .= "Content-type: text/html\r\n";
>>
>> mail($to, $subject, $message, $headers);
>>
>> This is the important info on the mail. The subject is a string, the
>> $to and the $from are emails and the $message is HTML.
>> ?>
>
> What you send through the mail relays isn't always what's received by
> the final recipient. A lot of headers get mucked with in transit.
>
> So, to get a solid answer - you need one of those bounced messages.
>
> Still, the most likely problem is that Hotmail actually black-listed
> your domain, or more likely your domain's mail relay. So for example,
> even though your domain is "honest.com", you may find that you're
> sending your mail through "spammer.de".
>
> It may cost a nickel or two, but sending your mail out through a third
> party SMTP server that uses SSL, instead of your hosting providers
> default mail relay may allow the mail to go through.

Mails should not be relayed. They should go directly from your MTA to
the recipients MTA.

Relays are an indication of an insecure system - typically used by
spammers. But genuine MTA's don't use (or need) them.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Mails should not be relayed. They should go directly from your MTA to
> the recipients MTA.
>
> Relays are an indication of an insecure system - typically used by
> spammers. But genuine MTA's don't use (or need) them.

Actually - thoroughly secured email systems make use of more than just
those two.

In large, well-secured, corporate email systems, mail often goes through
several relays that perform various security actions.

At Nortel, they relay through several Exchange servers on the way out
of, and into, the network. At GTE, they relay(ed) through a wildly
complex Banyan Vines system.

It's sometimes quite interesting to check out the headers on various
corporate emails because they go through SO MUCH e-bureaucracy.

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Mails should not be relayed. They should go directly from your MTA to
>> the recipients MTA.
>>
>> Relays are an indication of an insecure system - typically used by
>> spammers. But genuine MTA's don't use (or need) them.
>
> Actually - thoroughly secured email systems make use of more than just
> those two.
>
> In large, well-secured, corporate email systems, mail often goes through
> several relays that perform various security actions.
>
> At Nortel, they relay through several Exchange servers on the way out
> of, and into, the network. At GTE, they relay(ed) through a wildly
> complex Banyan Vines system.
>
> It's sometimes quite interesting to check out the headers on various
> corporate emails because they go through SO MUCH e-bureaucracy.
>

You're right - internally they may be relayed. But once they're out of
the intranet and into the internet, there should be no relays.

I was referring to the publicly visible site - and I should have made
myself more clear about it.

Thanks for the correction.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>> It's sometimes quite interesting to check out the headers on various
>> corporate emails because they go through SO MUCH e-bureaucracy.
>
> You're right - internally they may be relayed. But once they're out of
> the intranet and into the internet, there should be no relays.

Nicht vahr - there are perfectly good reasons to relay there, as well.

For example I have my domain (kaufman.net) which hosts several client
domains. They want me to provide some value-added services to their
email without them having to get involved.

So what I do is relay their mail through kaufman.net. That way, when
they check their POP or send via SMTP, they don't have to concern
themselves with incoming spam filtering and outgoing content management.
(In truth, I don't do very much - but it makes them *feel* better.)


> I was referring to the publicly visible site - and I should have made
> myself more clear about it.

What do you mean by "publicly visible"?
NorTel.com is a publicly visible site.
As was GTE.
As are my clients.

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Hello,

on 09/16/2007 12:27 PM RageARC said the following:
> I've made a script that sends mails, and it sends mails correctly for
> gMail, but not for Hotmail. What happens is that on Hotmail the mails
> are not even received! Nor on spam box, nor on inbox.
>
> $headers = "From: $from\r\n";
> $headers .= "Content-type: text/html\r\n";
>
> mail($to, $subject, $message, $headers);
>
> This is the important info on the mail. The subject is a string, the
> $to and the $from are emails and the $message is HTML.
> ?>

You should never send HTML only messages. You can send HTML messages if
they have an alternative text part, like any regular mail program. Since
you do not do that, Hotmail correctly assumes you are not using a
regular mail program, and considers your message as junk.

To send HTML messages with an alternative text part, you need to compose
a multipart/alternative message and include both the text part and the
HTML part. This is a bit tricky to do manually. I use this MIME message
composing and sending class. Take a look at the example script
test_simple_html_mail_message.php .

http://www.phpclasses.org/mimemessage


--

Regards,
Manuel Lemos

Metastorage - Data object relational mapping layer generator
http://www.metastorage.net/

PHP Classes - Free ready to use OOP components written in PHP
http://www.phpclasses.org/

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

On Sep 16, 8:27 pm, RageARC wrote:
> I've made a script that sends mails, and it sends mails correctly for
> gMail, but not for Hotmail. What happens is that on Hotmail the mails
> are not even received! Nor on spam box, nor on inbox.
>
> $headers = "From: $from\r\n";
> $headers .= "Content-type: text/html\r\n";
>
> mail($to, $subject, $message, $headers);
>
> This is the important info on the mail. The subject is a string, the
> $to and the $from are emails and the $message is HTML.
> ?>

U will face other problems as well like attachment etc. I also tried
very hard whenever I got job for mail and got success after hard work
if i got struck anywhere. That is useless if you have good free
package for this.
so check this: http://satya61229.blogspot.com/2007/03/php-mail-scripts_17.h tml

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>
>>> It's sometimes quite interesting to check out the headers on various
>>> corporate emails because they go through SO MUCH e-bureaucracy.
>>
>> You're right - internally they may be relayed. But once they're out
>> of the intranet and into the internet, there should be no relays.
>
> Nicht vahr - there are perfectly good reasons to relay there, as well.
>
> For example I have my domain (kaufman.net) which hosts several client
> domains. They want me to provide some value-added services to their
> email without them having to get involved.
>
> So what I do is relay their mail through kaufman.net. That way, when
> they check their POP or send via SMTP, they don't have to concern
> themselves with incoming spam filtering and outgoing content management.
> (In truth, I don't do very much - but it makes them *feel* better.)
>
>
>> I was referring to the publicly visible site - and I should have made
>> myself more clear about it.
>
> What do you mean by "publicly visible"?
> NorTel.com is a publicly visible site.
> As was GTE.
> As are my clients.

You are not relaying them, then. You are acting as their mail MTA.

And NorTel's intranet servers are not publicly available. Nor are
GTE's. I don't know about your clients.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Sanders Kaufman:
> It may cost a nickel or two, but sending your mail out through a third
> party SMTP server that uses SSL, instead of your hosting providers
> default mail relay may allow the mail to go through.

Can you tell me where I can get access to one?

Satya:
Does it send without going to spam box? This is for a job as well ;).

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Satya wrote:

> U will face other problems as well like attachment etc. I also tried
> very hard whenever I got job for mail and got success after hard work
> if i got struck anywhere. That is useless if you have good free
> package for this.
> so check this: http://satya61229.blogspot.com/2007/03/php-mail-scripts_17.h tml

Wow Satya - you're in serious spam-mode today.

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> You are not relaying them, then. You are acting as their mail MTA.

That's what MTA's do - they relay mail.
You can't be an MTA without relaying mail.
If you do - you're a POP.

> And NorTel's intranet servers are not publicly available. Nor are
> GTE's. I don't know about your clients.

That depends on your defintion of "publicly available".

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

RageARC wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman:
>> It may cost a nickel or two, but sending your mail out through a third
>> party SMTP server that uses SSL, instead of your hosting providers
>> default mail relay may allow the mail to go through.
>
> Can you tell me where I can get access to one?

I can offer the service via Kaufman.net, hosted on APlus.net.
Let's say - $25/mo for the server service.
Then the SSL service will cost $100/yr.
Total $400/yr.

If you're comfortable with that kind of twidgetry, you can set it up
yourself for about the same. If I do it, I can bundle it in with other
services I already use and it costs me about half that.

Ask around - I'm trustworthy, but you have to pay up front.


> Satya:
> Does it send without going to spam box? This is for a job as well ;).

That depends on your definition of "spam box".

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

LOL $25 + $100 is $400 xD?
I really only need the mail service, no other extra mumbo jumbo.

With spam box I mean that when people receive the mail on their
hotmail, gmail, yahoo, aol, etc. my mails WILL appear on the inbox,
and not on the junk.

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Have you tried sending it with no additional headers, have you tried
sending it without a carriage return in the headers (\r)?

On Sep 17, 3:38 pm, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> RageARC wrote:
> > Sanders Kaufman:
> >> It may cost a nickel or two, but sending your mail out through a third
> >> party SMTP server that uses SSL, instead of your hosting providers
> >> default mail relay may allow the mail to go through.
>
> > Can you tell me where I can get access to one?
>
> I can offer the service via Kaufman.net, hosted on APlus.net.
> Let's say - $25/mo for the server service.
> Then the SSL service will cost $100/yr.
> Total $400/yr.
>
> If you're comfortable with that kind of twidgetry, you can set it up
> yourself for about the same. If I do it, I can bundle it in with other
> services I already use and it costs me about half that.
>
> Ask around - I'm trustworthy, but you have to pay up front.
>
> > Satya:
> > Does it send without going to spam box? This is for a job as well ;).
>
> That depends on your definition of "spam box".

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

RageARC wrote:

> With spam box I mean that when people receive the mail on their
> hotmail, gmail, yahoo, aol, etc. my mails WILL appear on the inbox,
> and not on the junk.

Well, in that case - you should follow the advice that other fellow gave
you.

The most likely reason you're getting bounced is because the message
format is invalid.

You commented that the message isn't even getting as far as their junk
mail box, right? Not that it was getting tagged as spam, but that
Hotmail just black-holed it, right?

That's because just sending an HTML without a text alternative is not
just a spammy thing to do - it's technically busted at the protocol
level. So if one filter doesn't gitcha, the other one will.

Fix that and you'll save yourself a whole lotta hassle.

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:05:50 +0200, RageARC wrote:

> LOL $25 + $100 is $400 xD?

(12 * 25) + 100 is.

You're almost better of with your own VPS though.
--
Rik Wasmus

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

On 16 Sep, 21:55, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> RageARC wrote:
> > I've made a script that sends mails, and it sends mails correctly for
> > gMail, but not for Hotmail. What happens is that on Hotmail the mails
> > are not even received! Nor on spam box, nor on inbox.

>
> It may cost a nickel or two, but sending your mail out through a third
> party SMTP server that uses SSL, instead of your hosting providers
> default mail relay may allow the mail to go through.

?

Certainly you will have problems sending mail from a known DHCP
address (on Unix/Linux try a null mailer going through a registered
MX) if you have an MX address on the origin already, make sure you've
got a sensible SPF enabled in your DNS.

At the end of the day, though, the Hotmail service is worth exactly
what most users pay for it. And don't expect any help from them as to
why mail gets detected as SPAM.

C.

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Thank you all I'm gonna try PHPMailer and then tell you something, ok?

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> You are not relaying them, then. You are acting as their mail MTA.
>
> That's what MTA's do - they relay mail.
> You can't be an MTA without relaying mail.
> If you do - you're a POP.
>
>> And NorTel's intranet servers are not publicly available. Nor are
>> GTE's. I don't know about your clients.
>
> That depends on your defintion of "publicly available".

MTA's are capable of relaying. But if they are configured correctly
they do not, except to intranets. Spammers love those which are
configured as open relays. They have lists of them all over the world.

And POP refers to Post Office Protocol - a protocol for RETRIEVING
messages. POP servers by themselves are not capable of receiving email
using the SMTP protocol (the one used for sending mail on the internet).
You need an MTA to receive the email and deliver it to the POP server.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

RageARC wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman:
>> It may cost a nickel or two, but sending your mail out through a third
>> party SMTP server that uses SSL, instead of your hosting providers
>> default mail relay may allow the mail to go through.
>
> Can you tell me where I can get access to one?
>
> Satya:
> Does it send without going to spam box? This is for a job as well ;).
>

Probably not. The most common reason for email going into spam
mailboxes is incorrect headers in the email - especially FROM: headers.
This can be caused by incorrect PHP code (or PHP configuration), an
incorrect MTA configuration, or a conflict between the MTA's headers and
the PHP headers (i.e. sending mail from www.example.com and saying it's
from satya@example.org).

Other spam filters look at the sending MTA, and if it's from a dynamic
address (most often home users), flag it as spam. (see below)

Less often, particularly if you have a good hosting company, email from
a server can be flagged as spam because someone else on your server has
sent spam and caused the server to be blacklisted. A good hosting
company will cancel the account immediately, stopping the spam, and the
server will be taken off the blacklists within 24-48 hours.

BTW - When you set up to send email from your home machine (i.e. MS
Outlook, Thunderbird, etc.) you need to specify a server - typically
your ISP or hosting company. Even though your home computer would be on
a dynamic IP address, the ISP or hosting company's server is not - and
that is the one the email is coming from.

So the first place to start is to examine the headers and compare a
working one with one flagged as spam (preferably from the same server).
Investigate any differences.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

> MTA's are capable of relaying. But if they are configured correctly
> they do not, except to intranets. Spammers love those which are
> configured as open relays. They have lists of them all over the world.

I like the way you wobble back and forth on that.
It's not a realy - except when it is.

And then that slick way you seguay from relays, to open relays - as if
all relays were open.

That last, of course, is why I suggested that the OP use an SSL secured
mail relay.

> And POP refers to Post Office Protocol - a protocol for RETRIEVING

Actually, that's just one definition in just one context. In fact, POP
is an engineering term, not limited to the email, that means
"Point-of-Presence".

Thus, like I said a Message Transfer Agent that doesn't transfer (relay)
the messages is just a POP.




> messages. POP servers by themselves are not capable of receiving email
> using the SMTP protocol (the one used for sending mail on the internet).
> You need an MTA to receive the email and deliver it to the POP server.

Hmmm - if only there were an engineering term to describe that "receive
and deliver" process; a word that engineers have been using since the
first bucket brigade. Something like "replay" but without the sports
metaphor?

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Rik Wasmus wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:05:50 +0200, RageARC wrote:
>
>> LOL $25 + $100 is $400 xD?
>
> (12 * 25) + 100 is.
>
> You're almost better of with your own VPS though.

Yeah - if you want to secure your email, outsourcing it is not the best
strategy for success.

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

C. wrote:
> On 16 Sep, 21:55, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>> RageARC wrote:
>>> I've made a script that sends mails, and it sends mails correctly for
>>> gMail, but not for Hotmail. What happens is that on Hotmail the mails
>>> are not even received! Nor on spam box, nor on inbox.
>
>> It may cost a nickel or two, but sending your mail out through a third
>> party SMTP server that uses SSL, instead of your hosting providers
>> default mail relay may allow the mail to go through.
>
> ?

If you're on a black-hole list, it's easier to find a new relay than to
try to fight the most powerful force in the universe. :)

If you use SSL to connect to the SMTP relay, your login credentials
can't easily be "sniffed".


> Certainly you will have problems sending mail from a known DHCP
> address (on Unix/Linux try a null mailer going through a registered
> MX) if you have an MX address on the origin already, make sure you've
> got a sensible SPF enabled in your DNS.

SPF?


> At the end of the day, though, the Hotmail service is worth exactly
> what most users pay for it. And don't expect any help from them as to
> why mail gets detected as SPAM.

When I first started participating in Usenet Political discussions, I
used my hotmail address - then one day I tried to login and got a "go to
hell, you spammer" denial message. Same thing with Yahoo.

Screw 'em, both.

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>
>> MTA's are capable of relaying. But if they are configured correctly
>> they do not, except to intranets. Spammers love those which are
>> configured as open relays. They have lists of them all over the world.
>
> I like the way you wobble back and forth on that.
> It's not a realy - except when it is.
>

Nope, I stand that most public MTA's are not relays.

> And then that slick way you seguay from relays, to open relays - as if
> all relays were open.
>

I never said all relays were open relays. Just that spammers like the
ones out there.

> That last, of course, is why I suggested that the OP use an SSL secured
> mail relay.
>

Which has absolutely no effect on whether the relay is secure or not.
All SSL does is encrypt the data.

>> And POP refers to Post Office Protocol - a protocol for RETRIEVING
>
> Actually, that's just one definition in just one context. In fact, POP
> is an engineering term, not limited to the email, that means
> "Point-of-Presence".
>

When dealing with email POP is not a "Point-of-Presence". Check your
terminology to understand what it means - if you are capable, of course.

> Thus, like I said a Message Transfer Agent that doesn't transfer (relay)
> the messages is just a POP.
>
>

No. Two entirely different things. None of the MTA's are capable of
providing POP services, and none of the POP servers are capable of
handling SMTP traffic.

>
>
>> messages. POP servers by themselves are not capable of receiving
>> email using the SMTP protocol (the one used for sending mail on the
>> internet). You need an MTA to receive the email and deliver it to the
>> POP server.
>
> Hmmm - if only there were an engineering term to describe that "receive
> and deliver" process; a word that engineers have been using since the
> first bucket brigade. Something like "replay" but without the sports
> metaphor?

When an MTA receives a message and places it in a POP (or IMAP) mailbox,
it is called "Delivery", not relay. Relay is used to indicate passing
on to another MTA.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>> I like the way you wobble back and forth on that.
>> It's not a realy - except when it is.
>
> Nope, I stand that most public MTA's are not relays.

OK, Jerry - but that requires a very wrong interpretation of the word
"Transfer".

Seriously - on this I consider myself an honest expert. Back in 95, I
built the first Fax-Over-IP protocol, as you've heard me say once or
twice before.

In that effort, I spent a year *constantly* consulting with Marshall
Rose and he gave me an excellent education on this. If you don't know
who he is, check the SMTP specification; his name is on it.

I can't claim his expertise as my own - but when you consider that MTA
stands for Message Transfer Agent, the truth that it is a relay becomes
quite self-evident.


>> That last, of course, is why I suggested that the OP use an SSL
>> secured mail relay.
>
> Which has absolutely no effect on whether the relay is secure or not.
> All SSL does is encrypt the data.

Wow - could you BE more self-contradictory?


> When an MTA receives a message and places it in a POP (or IMAP) mailbox,
> it is called "Delivery", not relay. Relay is used to indicate passing
> on to another MTA.

And how does it get from the outgoing MTA, to the incoming MTA? Relay.
Thus - an MTA that does not relay, is merely a POP.

btw - it would be more accurate for you to say POP3 Server, because POP
has a very specific tele-communications networking meaning beyond
internet email.

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>
>>> I like the way you wobble back and forth on that.
>>> It's not a realy - except when it is.
>>
>> Nope, I stand that most public MTA's are not relays.
>
> OK, Jerry - but that requires a very wrong interpretation of the word
> "Transfer".
>

No, it doesn't. Transfer can take many forms. Relay is only one of them.

> Seriously - on this I consider myself an honest expert. Back in 95, I
> built the first Fax-Over-IP protocol, as you've heard me say once or
> twice before.
>

Hmmm, you've already shown you don't understand the difference between
"relay" and "delivery", don't know a POP server cannot receive SMTP
email, or an MTA cannot handle POP3 protocol.

> In that effort, I spent a year *constantly* consulting with Marshall
> Rose and he gave me an excellent education on this. If you don't know
> who he is, check the SMTP specification; his name is on it.
>

I think you need to go back to school. I've been setting up MTA's, POP3
servers, etc. for quite a number of years. How many have you set up
from scratch?

> I can't claim his expertise as my own - but when you consider that MTA
> stands for Message Transfer Agent, the truth that it is a relay becomes
> quite self-evident.
>

Obviously. And you obviously can look up MTA in Wikipedia. But you
need to understand what it means.

>
>>> That last, of course, is why I suggested that the OP use an SSL
>>> secured mail relay.
>>
>> Which has absolutely no effect on whether the relay is secure or not.
>> All SSL does is encrypt the data.
>
> Wow - could you BE more self-contradictory?
>

Not at all contradictory. SSL just ensures the data sent between MTA's
is secure, not an MTA itself. The MTA can still be compromised, and if
it is the destination MTA, the data will be available unencrypted.

>
>> When an MTA receives a message and places it in a POP (or IMAP)
>> mailbox, it is called "Delivery", not relay. Relay is used to
>> indicate passing on to another MTA.
>
> And how does it get from the outgoing MTA, to the incoming MTA? Relay.
> Thus - an MTA that does not relay, is merely a POP.
>

Nope. Straight SMTP protocol. There is no no relay involved because
the two communicate directly. Relaying is done through a third party.

> btw - it would be more accurate for you to say POP3 Server, because POP
> has a very specific tele-communications networking meaning beyond
> internet email.

Yes, I know. Lots of terms and acronyms have different meanings when
used in different contexts. This is not a telecommunications newsgroup.

And, POP is also correct. It describes a generic type of protocol. POP3
specifies a specific implementation of that protocol.

And you have a LOT to learn about this subject, Sanders.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> C. wrote:
>> On 16 Sep, 21:55, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>> RageARC wrote:
>>>> I've made a script that sends mails, and it sends mails correctly for
>>>> gMail, but not for Hotmail. What happens is that on Hotmail the mails
>>>> are not even received! Nor on spam box, nor on inbox.
>>
>>> It may cost a nickel or two, but sending your mail out through a third
>>> party SMTP server that uses SSL, instead of your hosting providers
>>> default mail relay may allow the mail to go through.
>>
>> ?
>
> If you're on a black-hole list, it's easier to find a new relay than to
> try to fight the most powerful force in the universe. :)
>

Actually, most blacklists (at least the commonly used ones) will remove
the host within 24 hours of the spam stopping. They understand
sometimes a hosting company gets blind-sided by a spammer, and as long
as the problem is fixed quickly, the server will be removed from the
blacklist quickly.

> If you use SSL to connect to the SMTP relay, your login credentials
> can't easily be "sniffed".
>

But that's not the most common reason for a server getting blacklisted.
And it's also only valid if you have your own MTA (not shared by
anyone else) on your own IP and have it configured correctly.

>
>> Certainly you will have problems sending mail from a known DHCP
>> address (on Unix/Linux try a null mailer going through a registered
>> MX) if you have an MX address on the origin already, make sure you've
>> got a sensible SPF enabled in your DNS.
>
> SPF?
>

I thought you were an expert on this.

Something that's a good concept, but full of holes. It's not widely
used, and probably never will be.

>
>> At the end of the day, though, the Hotmail service is worth exactly
>> what most users pay for it. And don't expect any help from them as to
>> why mail gets detected as SPAM.
>
> When I first started participating in Usenet Political discussions, I
> used my hotmail address - then one day I tried to login and got a "go to
> hell, you spammer" denial message. Same thing with Yahoo.
>
> Screw 'em, both.
>

And it can happen on any email you post on usenet.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

>>> I like the way you wobble back and forth on that.
>>> It's not a realy - except when it is.
>>
>> Nope, I stand that most public MTA's are not relays.
>
>OK, Jerry - but that requires a very wrong interpretation of the word
>"Transfer".

A typical public MTA that is NOT considered an open relay will
permit mail traffic that is:

(a) destined for mailboxes that it handles (incoming mail from
anywhere is allowed, subject to SPAM filtering). Note that
the mailboxes are NOT necessarily on the same machine. In
large setups the public MTA may be a border MX machine with
few (e.g. "root" only) or no mailboxes and they pass the mail
to the servers with the mailboxes.
or (b) sent in by trusted customers or from trusted locations to the
world (outgoing mail from my customers is allowed). This may
be checked by a number of methods:
(1) Authenticated SMTP, with or without SSL
(2) POP-before-send: you must check your mailbox from the
IP address you are using within X minutes before sending
mail out.
(3) SSL with user certificates
(4) Using extensions to POP3 or IMAP to send mail during
a mail-fetching session.
(5) Allowing any mail from IP blocks owned by the ISP
(6) Combinations of these, such as (5) from DSL or dialup
lines and (1) or (2) from "roaming" customers
(7) There's all sorts of other methods also.

This does not address the subject of SPAM filtering or virus scanning.

Incidentally, there's a subtle difference between "relay" and
"forward". This terminology might not be universal but its in
use at some ISP abuse departments.

Let's suppose that there is a mail service that will accept mail
to me at me@service.com and forward it to any mailbox I designate.
I designate my mailbox at my local ISP, me@isp.com . When someone
does a spam run against the @service.com addresses, service.com may
get accused of being an open relay when it doesn't really deserve
it.

A spammer connects to the service.com mail server and drops off a
penis enlargement ad for me@service.com. Their server transfers it
to the mail server at isp.com, which delivers into the me@isp.com
mailbox. This is a *forward*. The *customer* requested the routing
from service.com to isp.com.

A spammer connects to the service.com mail server and drops off a
penis enlargement ad for you@aol.com. Their server transfers it to
the mail server at aol.com. Unless the spammer had authentication
or permission to use the service.com mail server, this makes it an
open relay. The *spammer*, not the AOL customer, requested the
routing from service.com to aol.com.


>Seriously - on this I consider myself an honest expert. Back in 95, I
>built the first Fax-Over-IP protocol, as you've heard me say once or
>twice before.
>
>In that effort, I spent a year *constantly* consulting with Marshall
>Rose and he gave me an excellent education on this. If you don't know
>who he is, check the SMTP specification; his name is on it.
>
>I can't claim his expertise as my own - but when you consider that MTA
>stands for Message Transfer Agent, the truth that it is a relay becomes
>quite self-evident.
>
>
>>> That last, of course, is why I suggested that the OP use an SSL
>>> secured mail relay.
>>
>> Which has absolutely no effect on whether the relay is secure or not.
>> All SSL does is encrypt the data.
>
>Wow - could you BE more self-contradictory?

SSL encrypts the data so the thief of a customer (using a phony
credit card number) can rip off the thief running the web site
before any other thief (such as the FBI or dishonest ISP employee)
can get to the card number. SSL does not identify the customer to
the web site, unless it insists on user certificates.

It works the same way with email. A spammer can securely shower
the whole internet with penis enlargement ads while making it
difficult for someone tapping the net to see what's in the email
until their copy lands in their mailbox.


>> When an MTA receives a message and places it in a POP (or IMAP) mailbox,
>> it is called "Delivery", not relay. Relay is used to indicate passing
>> on to another MTA.

Many corporate and ISP setups have "border MX machines" running a
MTA which receives the email and passes it on to one of a bunch of
another machines which actually hold the mailboxes. The "border
MX machines" have few or no mailboxes themselves.

>And how does it get from the outgoing MTA, to the incoming MTA? Relay.
>Thus - an MTA that does not relay, is merely a POP.

I suggest not using the abbreviation "POP" to refer to "Point of
Presence" when discussing mail protocols. There's another meaning
for that TLA (And I don't mean Tokyo Law Association). Similarly,
don't use "IP" to mean "Intellectual Property" when discussing TCP
port numbers.

>btw - it would be more accurate for you to say POP3 Server, because POP
>has a very specific tele-communications networking meaning beyond
>internet email.

Re: Send a mail without going to spam

Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>> I like the way you wobble back and forth on that.
>>>> It's not a realy - except when it is.
>>> Nope, I stand that most public MTA's are not relays.
>> OK, Jerry - but that requires a very wrong interpretation of the word
>> "Transfer".
>
> A typical public MTA that is NOT considered an open relay will
> permit mail traffic that is:
>
> (a) destined for mailboxes that it handles (incoming mail from
> anywhere is allowed, subject to SPAM filtering). Note that
> the mailboxes are NOT necessarily on the same machine. In
> large setups the public MTA may be a border MX machine with
> few (e.g. "root" only) or no mailboxes and they pass the mail
> to the servers with the mailboxes.

This is not a relay.

> or (b) sent in by trusted customers or from trusted locations to the
> world (outgoing mail from my customers is allowed). This may
> be checked by a number of methods:
> (1) Authenticated SMTP, with or without SSL
> (2) POP-before-send: you must check your mailbox from the
> IP address you are using within X minutes before sending
> mail out.
> (3) SSL with user certificates
> (4) Using extensions to POP3 or IMAP to send mail during
> a mail-fetching session.
> (5) Allowing any mail from IP blocks owned by the ISP
> (6) Combinations of these, such as (5) from DSL or dialup
> lines and (1) or (2) from "roaming" customers
> (7) There's all sorts of other methods also.
>

True, but the majority of the MTA's on the internet are not configured
these ways. Those that are are generally ISP's or shared hosting
companies. And a few are owned by spam filtering companies.

There are many more MTA's out there owned by individuals, companies,
etc. which only match (a).

> This does not address the subject of SPAM filtering or virus scanning.
>
> Incidentally, there's a subtle difference between "relay" and
> "forward". This terminology might not be universal but its in
> use at some ISP abuse departments.
>
> Let's suppose that there is a mail service that will accept mail
> to me at me@service.com and forward it to any mailbox I designate.
> I designate my mailbox at my local ISP, me@isp.com . When someone
> does a spam run against the @service.com addresses, service.com may
> get accused of being an open relay when it doesn't really deserve
> it.
>
> A spammer connects to the service.com mail server and drops off a
> penis enlargement ad for me@service.com. Their server transfers it
> to the mail server at isp.com, which delivers into the me@isp.com
> mailbox. This is a *forward*. The *customer* requested the routing
> from service.com to isp.com.
>
> A spammer connects to the service.com mail server and drops off a
> penis enlargement ad for you@aol.com. Their server transfers it to
> the mail server at aol.com. Unless the spammer had authentication
> or permission to use the service.com mail server, this makes it an
> open relay. The *spammer*, not the AOL customer, requested the
> routing from service.com to aol.com.
>

Yes, I am quite aware of the difference between relaying and forwarding.

>
>> Seriously - on this I consider myself an honest expert. Back in 95, I
>> built the first Fax-Over-IP protocol, as you've heard me say once or
>> twice before.
>>
>> In that effort, I spent a year *constantly* consulting with Marshall
>> Rose and he gave me an excellent education on this. If you don't know
>> who he is, check the SMTP specification; his name is on it.
>>
>> I can't claim his expertise as my own - but when you consider that MTA
>> stands for Message Transfer Agent, the truth that it is a relay becomes
>> quite self-evident.
>>
>>
>>>> That last, of course, is why I suggested that the OP use an SSL
>>>> secured mail relay.
>>> Which has absolutely no effect on whether the relay is secure or not.
>>> All SSL does is encrypt the data.
>> Wow - could you BE more self-contradictory?
>
> SSL encrypts the data so the thief of a customer (using a phony
> credit card number) can rip off the thief running the web site
> before any other thief (such as the FBI or dishonest ISP employee)
> can get to the card number. SSL does not identify the customer to
> the web site, unless it insists on user certificates.
>
> It works the same way with email. A spammer can securely shower
> the whole internet with penis enlargement ads while making it
> difficult for someone tapping the net to see what's in the email
> until their copy lands in their mailbox.
>

I never claimed otherwise. All I said was that SSL encrypts the data
while it was being sent. It can be found in decrypted form on both ends
of the link.

>
>>> When an MTA receives a message and places it in a POP (or IMAP) mailbox,
>>> it is called "Delivery", not relay. Relay is used to indicate passing
>>> on to another MTA.
>
> Many corporate and ISP setups have "border MX machines" running a
> MTA which receives the email and passes it on to one of a bunch of
> another machines which actually hold the mailboxes. The "border
> MX machines" have few or no mailboxes themselves.
>

True, but this is going to an intranet, as I mentioned earlier. I'm
talking about internet relays.

>> And how does it get from the outgoing MTA, to the incoming MTA? Relay.
>> Thus - an MTA that does not relay, is merely a POP.
>
> I suggest not using the abbreviation "POP" to refer to "Point of
> Presence" when discussing mail protocols. There's another meaning
> for that TLA (And I don't mean Tokyo Law Association). Similarly,
> don't use "IP" to mean "Intellectual Property" when discussing TCP
> port numbers.
>
>> btw - it would be more accurate for you to say POP3 Server, because POP
>> has a very specific tele-communications networking meaning beyond
>> internet email.
>
>

I never referred to POP meaning "Point of Presence". Every time I used
it was 'Post Office Protocol". And when I referred to IP, I was talking
about Internet Protocol. Nothing different.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================