[anti-abuse-wg] Abusive behavior by Google Inc

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:24:11 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't work for gmail fyi (as a quick google search will tell you,
> or a Bing if you hate google so much) and I don't use sorbs either,
> not since the late 2000s anyway.
> 
> Without seeing a smtp txn with logging all the way up or a tcpdump I
> am not sure what is going on but a read error probably means you're
> dropping the smtp connection right after the 5xx without giving gmail
> the time to gracefully QUIT the smtp session.  Or vice versa 
> 

No. 

This is a gmail bounce to a gmail customer (for example my own gmail
account)

nothing to do with @ox.co.za - except that @ox.co.za sends:
JunkMail rejected - is in an RBL, see Client host blocked using Barracuda Reputation, 
see http://www.barracudanetworks.com/reputation/?r=1  etc etc.

so, when Gmail cannot deliver to @ox.co.za - because of dnsbl (whether it
is SORBS, SpamCop, SpamID.net or whomever, Gmail does not tell the
customer that the mail is being returned because just a minute earlier
google tried to drop 1000 phish on ox.co.za - instead tells the
customer: "read error" technical failure -- it is not a technical
failure at all! - it is simply that google is sp[amming (or being used
by their users to distribute spyware/phish or whatever) and it is NOT A
technical read error at all!



> --srs
> 
> > On 14-Apr-2016, at 8:05 PM, andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:51:27 +0530
> > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This isn't quite mailop but anyway - what specifically do you mean
> >> by replace here?
> > Yes, but is is an abuse wok group - it is important that the group
> > also discusses abuse, more so if their is abusive behavior from a
> > huge multinational.
> > 
> >> Do you strip mime parts that you consider spam or malware and
> >> replace them with a suitable message?  And is the gmail mta not
> >> reacting well to that?
> >> 
> >> Examples would be interesting - certainly much more interesting
> >> than a vague rant.
> > Not a vague rant at all - the original post already contains the
> > information. Gmail is behaving poorly/abusively.
> > 
> > maybe you require me to add additional information? - as there is
> > ZERO chance that you do not know what I am complaining about...
> > 
> > I do wonder why you are not simply replying honestly and openly?
> > 
> > ... Gmail customer sends email from Gmail to @ox.co.za
> > 
> > ox.co.za responds: Listed at SORBS Currently sending SPAM!
> > 
> > Gmail sends "improved" bounce report to Gmail customer:
> > 
> > example:
> > 
> >> Date: 14 April 2016 at 14:09:39 SAST
> >> To: customer at gmail.com
> >> 
> >> Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
> >> 
> >>    andre at ox.co.za
> >> 
> >> Technical details of permanent failure: 
> >> read error: generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error
> >> 
> >> ----- Original message -----
> > 
> > 
> >> --srs
> > 
> > andre
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>> On 14-Apr-2016, at 7:17 PM, andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Hello,
> >>> 
> >>> Incase anyone receives weird NON RFC bounces, from @gmail.com
> >>> customers saying:
> >>> 
> >>> Technical details of permanent failure: 
> >>> read error: generic::failed_precondition: read error (0): error
> >>> 
> >>> What this means is:
> >>> 
> >>> Google Inc does REPLACE the "Blocked for abuse / spam /scams /
> >>> phish / virus / spyware messages from the various filters
> >>> 
> >>> and sens a cryptic non RFC message to their users implying that
> >>> the receivers email server is broken in some way....
> >>> 
> >>> This is truly EVIL of Google to do...
> >>> 
> >>> As they, Google are the ones sending PHISH / VIRUS/ SCAMS / SPAM!
> >>> 
> >>> Example: @209.85.218.43
> >>> 
> >>> http://www.scammed.by/scam.php?id=185816
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Instead of SOLVING the abuse - Google chooses to send CRYPTIC
> >>> technical failure messages...
> >>> 
> >>> Because they are a monopoly and they are simply just too large to
> >>> care??
> >>> 
> >>> Yes, of course!
> >>> 
> >>> Andre
> >