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

You are seeing a failure case of some sort rather than an actual bounce and that needs trouble shooting

I hate to break it to you but this isn't a plot against your weird and wonderful notions of smtp and filtering - it is just those notions running up against a busy mailserver cluster

--srs

> On 14-Apr-2016, at 9:08 PM, andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> 
> 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
>