Re: Microsoft's SMTP service broken/stupid

From: David Lemson (Exchange) (dlemsonat_private)
Date: Wed Mar 17 1999 - 14:58:43 PST

  • Next message: Alan Brown: "Re: Microsoft's SMTP service broken/stupid"

    We have confirmed this as a problem with the Microsoft SMTP Service, as
    shipped in Windows NT 4 Service Pack 4.  We are working on a fix and will
    have it tested shortly.  We will have a Knowledge Base article created as
    soon as the fix is ready so that people can find the fix when they run into
    the problem.  Any Microsoft customer who is hitting this problem (such as
    the people whose servers are connecting to you over and over) may e-mail me
    directly to get set up with the right people to get the fix.  The service is
    erroneously not treating the 4xx error as a reason to defer the delivery
    until the next queue run.  Instead, it treats it as a very transient error
    and retries immediately.
    
    In your case, there is another (easier) solution for the servers that are
    connecting to you over and over: it sounds like if they were to fix their
    inverse DNS entries, so you didn't give them a temporary error code, the
    mail would succeed.  This is not to say that what the SMTP Service is doing
    is right, but there may be another way to solve this particular problem.
    
    Another solution, which you allude to, is for your server to issue a
    permanent (5xx) code to a problem that will not get corrected on its own
    (such as an invalid inverse DNS record).
    
    David Lemson
    Microsoft SMTP Service Program Manager
    dlemsonat_private
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Chris Adams [mailto:cadamsat_private]
    Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 9:07 PM
    To: David Lemson (Exchange)
    Subject: Microsoft's SMTP service broken/stupid
    
    
    Our mail servers came to a screeching halt today thanks to Microsoft.
    Our servers are still running sendmail 8.8 (we've got custom stuff and
    are working on upgrading to 8.9, but it has been slow), so any kind of
    DNS error (like invalid reverse DNS) returns a 4xx error - temporary
    problem.  When we get a message like this, the sending site will requeue
    the message and try again in 30 minutes to an hour.  After a bit, they
    stop trying.  It is not a perfect solution, but it is all that is
    available under sendmail 8.8 (sendmail 8.9 differentiates between
    temporary and permanent DNS errors).
    
    Well, that has been fine, but now Microsoft's SMTP service comes along.
    When it gets that temporary error (for invalid reverse DNS), it tries
    again.  Fast.  Like, right away, with no delay.  This bogs down our
    servers a bit, especially the extra logging load, but eventually they go
    away.
    
    Yesterday, we got hit by four different servers running Microsoft's
    software.  One attempted delivery nearly 200,000 times, and the other
    three attempted to 30,000-40,000 times each.  This on a server that
    usually sees ~40,000 messages a day.  This filled up our logs, bogged
    everything down, and basically killed us.
    
    This is not a configuration issue AFAIK.  In the past, I've worked
    through it with one person, and he said he bumped up his retry time to 3
    hours and his server was still attempting multiple deliveries per
    second.
    
    This basically amounts to a denial of service attack by Microsoft's SMTP
    service.  Here is the connect string from several of the servers that
    hit us (I've changed the hostname):
    
    220-example.com Microsoft SMTP MAIL ready at Sun, 14 Mar 1999 21:44:02 -0500
    Version: 5.5.1877.977.9
    
    I was able to connect to several of the SMTP servers that hit us and
    they are all running this version.  Several of them don't accept
    incoming connections (gee thanks - send me junk and don't accept any
    back).
    
    I haven't been able to find anything at Microsoft about this.  I would
    think that attempting several outgoing connections per second would tend
    to bog down the NT server as well, so I figured they might have
    mentioned it.  Has anybody else seen this?
    --
    Chris Adams - cadamsat_private
    System Administrator - Renaissance Internet Services
    I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:39:12 PDT