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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:52:30 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> Post hoc ergo propter hoc
> 
maybe... 

maybe if nobody cares what others are doing, then it all makes no
difference.

but yet, when what others are doing affects your own wallet, then you
may actually care?

When email is transported over the Internet servers understand how to
communicate with each other as their are defined protocols.

These are not immutable laws, but they are and serve, as a method that
makes things work, and up to now, I believed in the fairness of it all.

Basically, if I receive a bounce from gmail saying that they think my
email is spam, i sent the same bounce to my client - so that they can
fix / adjust their behavior...

Looks like their is some seriosu new implications for email abuse, as
we are all now starting to re-write headers and Google is teaching us
this unethical and abusive behavior - by making it a defacto standard?

So, I can now also start re-writing bounces saying : Gmail.com
Technical failure, gmail.com is completely unreachable o9n the
Internet, etc etc and if anyone and everyone is now going to start
sending lies and fake bounces then life is about to get interesting...

When a company, which is very close to a monopoly already, grows their
userbase by lying to their customers, this is simply abuse in itself.
If I am wrong and it is not abuse, is it ethical? 

This is most assuredly a topic for this ripe wg

as this type of abuse, if Google now starts making this a new standard,
has the effect of disrupting communications and other far reaching
implications commercially = or help me and explain to me why this is
okay and I am wrong, please?

andre




> --srs
> 
> > On 14-Apr-2016, at 8:38 PM, andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> > 
> > 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
> >