Hi
Update on the Problem.
I got two replies, one yesterday stating, that the problem is about our
side, that the UPC servers rotate between 3 IP addresses and this
causes problems with greylisting.
=> Fact: Already last week I told them I see those 3 IP Addresses
from within the same /24 and
Hi all
Just received this update from UPC:
Many thanks for your e-mail. We reported this greylisting issue to our
mailserver administrators.
They will take care of it and hopefully resolve this issue within the
next week.
We added the 6 IP's of the outgoing mailservers to the DNSWL.org
Quick update on that case.
UPC Switzerland is fully aware of the problem.
The Mail-Platform in the Netherlands is operated by UPC Austria
(probably chello.at). And they still deny that there is a problem
on their side and blame the ISPs that do greylisting.
UPC Switzerland is trying to escalate
Hi Per
> Is there any point in greylisting genuine mailservers? We only
> greylist dodgy-looking setups.
True, no point in greylisting a propper SMTP engine that does queueing
and would resend the email later in case of a 4XX error.
But how do you find out which ip's to greylist and which not
Hi
> I do not greylist servers with correct spf record. With UPC i think
> the main problem is the missing NDR.
We also do not greylist if the SPF record matches.
We do not greylist IP's listed in the DNSWL.org or SWINOG
Whitelist either.
But none of this was true for the new 'NL' ranges used
Viktor Steinmann wrote:
> On 04.01.2017 08:54, Per Jessen wrote:
>>
>> Is there any point in greylisting genuine mailservers? We only
>> greylist dodgy-looking setups.
>>
>>
>> /Per
>>
> I don't see how this approach would scale.
To my knowledge, it scales quite well. We maintain a list of
On 03.01.17 16:27, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
> Same Problem here, since at least 24. December.
>
Same here since beginning of december. Whitelistied UPC 9.12. 21:37
I do not greylist servers with correct spf record. With UPC i think the
main problem is the missing NDR.
happy new year!!
Beat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
Am Mi den 4. Jan 2017 um 8:54 schrieb Per Jessen:
> Is there any point in greylisting genuine mailservers? We only greylist
> dodgy-looking setups.
I had the same in mind but didn't post as I only run a small server
pressent days.
I
On 04.01.2017 08:54, Per Jessen wrote:
Is there any point in greylisting genuine mailservers? We only greylist
dodgy-looking setups.
/Per
I don't see how this approach would scale. We greylist everything. If
some mail servers appear to have a problem with that and are legit, they
are
Mike Kellenberger wrote:
> Hi
>
> We are seeing problems with greylisting in mails coming from UPC
> mailservers. After receiving our "451 Greylisting" response, we never
> see a retry of the mail again. The sender does not receive an NDR. We
> have seen this behaviour from the servers at
Same Problem here, since at least 24. December.
Opened a case today @ UPC. I keep you updated.
--
-Benoît Panizzon-
--
I m p r o W a r e A G-Leiter Commerce Kunden
__
Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00
CH-4133
On 01/03/2017 03:09 PM, Mike Kellenberger wrote:
> We are seeing problems with greylisting in mails coming from UPC
> mailservers. After receiving our "451 Greylisting" response, we never
> see a retry of the mail again. The sender does not receive an NDR. We
> have seen this behaviour from the
> We are seeing problems with greylisting in mails coming from UPC
> mailservers. After receiving our "451 Greylisting" response, we never
> see a retry of the mail again. The sender does not receive an NDR. We
> have seen this behaviour from the servers at 84.116.36.xxx. Other
> servers for
Hi
We are seeing problems with greylisting in mails coming from UPC
mailservers. After receiving our "451 Greylisting" response, we never
see a retry of the mail again. The sender does not receive an NDR. We
have seen this behaviour from the servers at 84.116.36.xxx. Other
servers for
14 matches
Mail list logo
