Re: [mailop] [E] abuse@ equivalent for yahoo dot com?

[Atro Tossavainen via mailop]

> You can use https://senders.yahooinc.com/contact

Email responses to email abuse. thank you, very much

Best regards, RFC 2142

-- 
Atro Tossavainen, Founder, Partner
Koli-Lõks OÜ (reg. no. 12815457, VAT ID EE101811635)
Tallinn, Estonia
tel. +372-5883-4269, http://www.koliloks.eu/
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] abuse@ equivalent for yahoo dot com?

[Marcel Becker via mailop]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 10:43 AM Peter Nicolai Mathias Hansteen via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:

My attempt at reaching the conventional abuse contact for yahoo dot com
> bounced as undeliverable, apparently what they rewrote to on incoming does
> not in fact exist:
>

You can use https://senders.yahooinc.com/contact

- Marcel
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] abuse@ equivalent for yahoo dot com?

[Peter Nicolai Mathias Hansteen via mailop]

Hi,

My attempt at reaching the conventional abuse contact for yahoo dot com bounced 
as undeliverable, apparently what they rewrote to on incoming does not in fact 
exist:

Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address.

:
550: 5.1.1 User Unknown

Fwiw, the report I sent was

Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 18:50:46 +0200
From: Peter Nicolai Mathias Hansteen 
To: ab...@yahoo.com
Subject: New samples of spam sent by your customers
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
New messages have been added to the archive at  
https://www.bsdly.net/~peter/yahoo-abuse/

The messages are saved in that directory as 
MMDD_user@origin.tld_u...@target.tld.txt, please check the collection for 
further data.

Please check this URL regularly; it is likely that further updates will occur 
in-between these alert messages.

Yours,
Peter N. M. Hansteen


—
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/ 

"Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.

—
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/
"Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] Looking for contact person at xtra.co.nz

[Victor Roemgens via mailop]

Good morning,

I'm looking for a contact person at "*xtra.co.nz *"
or "*spark.co.nz
*" to discuss some SMTP messages. Is that person here?
;-) Looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Victor Roemgens
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] gmail: Benefit of a generic SPF-record?

[Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop]

Dnia 30.09.2022 o godz. 08:55:11 Andrew C Aitchison via mailop pisze:
> If your are being defaulted to spam and no recipient flags a message as "not
> spam" your score is
>   spam/not-spam 0/0 -> use default = spam.
> 
> If you send 100 messages and one is marked "not spam", your score becomes
>   spam/not-spam 0/1 -> not-spam.
> 
> Plausible ?

In reality it doesn't work this way.

Multiple recipients marked my messages as non-spam and this doesn't impact
delivery to other recipients (who didn't mark my messages as non-spam) -
they are defaulted to spam anyway.

As I wrote, even my replies to messages I received from Gmail users (who
didn't mark me previously as non-spam) are marked as spam. Which contradicts
the very definition of spam as "unsolicited bulk email", because a personal
reply to a message I received is neither unsolicited nor bulk. Yet it is
still marked as spam.

I see no way to get out of this situation.
-- 
Regards,
   Jaroslaw Rafa
   r...@rafa.eu.org
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] gmail: Benefit of a generic SPF-record?

[Andrew C Aitchison via mailop]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:


Dnia 29.09.2022 o godz. 15:39:49 Brandon Long via mailop pisze:

But exactly because TLS is a TLD, which means both bad and good actors can
register under it, you should not treat a whole TLD (any TLD) as a spam
source.
You should conside every domain under the TLD individually.



This feels like a retread, in the absence of enough information to judge a
specific, one
falls back to the general.

A couple messages a day does not a reputation make.


With this approach, a sender that accidentally happens to be under the
"wrong" TLD, cannot build reputation at all. If I'm marked as spam when
sending a couple of messages a day, if I send more messages, things will
only get worse for me, because there will be more messages from me marked as
spam, so I will be confirmed as an actual spammer (despite the fact I'm
not). That will only build negative reputation for me, but I see no way to
build positive one. So something's definitely wrong with this approach.


Not sure I agree.
If your are being defaulted to spam and no recipient flags a message as 
"not spam" your score is

spam/not-spam 0/0 -> use default = spam.

If you send 100 messages and one is marked "not spam", your score becomes
spam/not-spam 0/1 -> not-spam.

Plausible ?

--
Andrew C. Aitchison  Kendal, UK
   and...@aitchison.me.uk
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop