Did you (or your customer) try contact their support team? Did you sent
up SNDS or JMRPP?
There is a link here:
https://sendersupport.olc.protection.outlook.com/SNDS/index.aspx
They usually reply within 24 hours.
~M
On 2023-11-28 1:29 p.m., Richard Rognlie via mailop wrote:
Greetings!
Greetings!
I've got a client who recently added a couple of mail servers to their server
farm
and they cutover to them about 3.5 weeks ago. One would think that in that 3
weeks
anyone with warmup issues would have given up by now, but they're still having
issues
getting mail delivered to
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:54:13PM +0200, Mary via mailop wrote:
> > X-mail_abuse_inquiries: http://www.salesforce.com/company/abuse.jsp
>
> I reported a similar phishing spam to Salesforce a few days ago. I
> can't believe in this day and age that the above URL in its first
>
Hello Andy,
Why would those not be subject to this? We can 'block' most on customer
level. And this is done like that also.
This seems to be an argument in favour of identifying the customer
id in the headers, not for requiring COI. Which is indeed rational
since it makes it more likely that
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:29:30PM +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn via mailop wrote:
> > > Most organisations will reconsider after beeing blocked a few times due to
> > > non COI
>
> > But not the likes of SendGrid, Mailgun, Mailjet, ? which also makes
> > making the argument much more
Hi!
Most organisations will reconsider after beeing blocked a few times due to
non COI
But not the likes of SendGrid, Mailgun, Mailjet, ? which also makes
making the argument much more difficult since
a) the prospective client can always go to the above and send to
their contact lists
Am 28.11.2023 um 15:15:51 Uhr schrieb Andy Smith via mailop:
> COI is right and proper, no argument from me, but the willingness of
> bad actors to ignore what is right and proper makes it very hard for
> anyone in the same industry to do what is right and proper.
Such companies will land on
In message , Byron Lunz via mailop writes
>We've required confirmed-opt-in for years. But a few months ago, I noticed
>that our servers were sending out hundreds of 'confirmation required'
>messages every day. They were going to obviously-bogus addresses, likely
>submitted to our submission
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 03:53:10PM +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn via mailop wrote:
> > Bill wrote:
> > If sending lots of mail to weakly engaged corespondents is your core
> > business, COI is not likely to be worthwhile in cold hard cash vs. what
> > I call "good faith single opt-in"
[…]
>
Hi!
Hell, even if you are dishonest and make the costs of deliverability
problems higher than they are it can still be challenging to make COI look
more profitable.
I really wish this weren?t true and I?ve been trying to make it true for
years. But, sometimes reality bites.
If sending
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:54:13PM +0200, Mary via mailop wrote:
> X-mail_abuse_inquiries: http://www.salesforce.com/company/abuse.jsp
I reported a similar phishing spam to Salesforce a few days ago. I
can't believe in this day and age that the above URL in its first
paragraph on how to
On 2023-11-28 at 08:39:13 UTC-0500 (Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:39:13 +)
Laura Atkins via mailop
is rumored to have said:
Hell, even if you are dishonest and make the costs of deliverability
problems higher than they are it can still be challenging to make COI
look more profitable.
I really
> On 27 Nov 2023, at 20:09, Greg Brooks via mailop wrote:
>
> Maybe it's just like this in my world but: Everyone understands money.
>
> Can you make a compelling case about the hard-dollar expenses and time that
> bungled IP rep and/or impacted deliverability costs? Or the math behind high
13 matches
Mail list logo
