On 11/04/2014 06:01 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 11/4/14 1:43 AM, Matija Grabnar wrote:
OK, now I see that we come from fundamentally opposite viewpoints.
I'm arguing about what measures it makes sense to use to get good
protection while still enabling people to use their residential internet
for
OK, now I see that we come from fundamentally opposite viewpoints.
I'm arguing about what measures it makes sense to use to get good
protection while still enabling people to use their residential internet
for more than just consumption, while you are determined to block all
email originating
On 11/03/2014 01:52 AM, Lyle Giese wrote:
If the provider won't or is unable to provide reverse for the IPv6
static address you have, it will be sub-optimal for you to continue to
advertise and/or use the IPv6 address for SMTP.
It's all part of the 'prove it's not a dynamic ip address' and
On 11/3/2014 3:51 AM, Matija Grabnar wrote:
On 11/03/2014 01:52 AM, Lyle Giese wrote:
If the provider won't or is unable to provide reverse for the IPv6
static address you have, it will be sub-optimal for you to continue
to advertise and/or use the IPv6 address for SMTP.
It's all part of the
On 03/11/2014 22:38, Bjørn Mork wrote:
...
It just seems so pointless. The dummy names will be longer than the
address and will contain the exact same information.
Quite. It's idiotic. And if I was a paranoid mail operator, I would
put in some heuristic code to identify such dummy names and
On 11/3/2014 11:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 03/11/2014 22:38, Bjørn Mork wrote:
It just seems so pointless. The dummy names will be longer than the
address and will contain the exact same information.
Quite. It's idiotic. And if I was a paranoid mail operator, I would
put in some
On 8/22/2014 7:32 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Note that from the text it sounds like SPF / DKIM is not strictly
required, but it looks like a PTR record is a hard requirement.
PTRs are a hard requirement, yes. That's not a problem. All places
where you can run a legitimate MX will have
On 2014-11-02 09:53, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
On 8/22/2014 7:32 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Note that from the text it sounds like SPF / DKIM is not strictly
required, but it looks like a PTR record is a hard requirement.
PTRs are a hard requirement, yes. That's not a problem. All places
where
On Nov 02, Darren Pilgrim dar...@bluerosetech.com wrote:
The problem is Google ignores the fact you must not hard fail on DNS. Even
if the response is NXDOMAIN, the most you can do is soft bounce because you
can not know why you didn't get an RR. Gmail hard bounces on such errors
No, not
On 11/02/2014 06:55 PM, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
On 8/22/2014 2:46 AM, Matija Grabnar wrote:
So, much as I would LIKE to have reverse IPv6 DNS on my mail servers, in
some cases it is just not possible.
Can you describe those cases? I can't think of any scenarios where
you'd run a
If the provider won't or is unable to provide reverse for the IPv6
static address you have, it will be sub-optimal for you to continue to
advertise and/or use the IPv6 address for SMTP.
It's all part of the 'prove it's not a dynamic ip address' and part of
the 'proper reverse DNS provides
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 06:31:33PM +, Matthew Huff wrote:
Sorry, but it hasn't happened yet. It isn't computationally infeasible, it's
that the implementations on the RBLS haven't caught up. Currently the backend
for the RBLS in many cases are based on DNS resolvers such as bind, etc,
FWIW - There was a thread on this Gmail IPv6 spam filtering problem on another
list I'm on where it *is* affecting large'ish enterprise folks using business
gmail and there are a more of whom will be putting in enterprise tickets to get
visibility - as some tickets have yet to get appropriate
Do you think it would be worth to ask Gmail business-customers to please
file more tickets for the service they pay for? If so, is there a
ticket-number they can refer to maybe?
Kind regards,
Stefan
On 08/24/2014 07:29 PM, Merike Kaeo wrote:
It's a closed list and I just looked at the rules
@lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Nick
Hilliard
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 10:25 AM
To: Lorenzo Colitti; Laurent GUERBY
Cc: IPv6 Ops list
Subject: Re: SMTP over IPv6 : gmail classifying nearly all IPv6 mail as
spam since 20140818
On 22/08/2014 15:16, Lorenzo Colitti wrote
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:51:26PM -0700, Michael Chang wrote:
If a spammer gets a hold of a /64, then the spammer can send 18 billion
billion (~2^64) different email addresses, each coming from a different IP
address. Never-mind that a spammer can go to a half-dozen tunnel brokers
and
On 22 Aug 2014, at 17:56, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
I'm not on the gmail team and don't have those numbers. Nick asked me for an
answer, and I gave him what information I have. My assumption was that since
they do receive a lot of email, they have statistics on this, but of
23, 2014 11:37 AM
To: Lorenzo Colitti
Cc: IPv6 Ops list; Marco d'Itri; Jared Mauch
Subject: Re: SMTP over IPv6 : gmail classifying nearly all IPv6 mail as spam
since 20140818
On 22 Aug 2014, at 20:26, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
What specifically would you like me to pass on? Dear
On Aug 23, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I think you should quibble. The issue isn't bad software
used by intermediaries, it's that by design DMARC p=reject breaks a
very common model used by intermediaries. Whether that is a bug or a
feature in DMARC is out of
On 24/08/2014 09:20, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 23, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I think you should quibble. The issue isn't bad software
used by intermediaries, it's that by design DMARC p=reject breaks a
very common model used by intermediaries. Whether
On 08/22/2014 09:56 AM, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
We've been running SMTP over IPv6 with postfix successfully for over a
year and since 20140818 gmail.com IPv6 MX started to classify most IPv6
sourced emails sent from our machine to @gmail.com as spam. The exact
same message sent using IPv4
On 8/22/14 9:56 AM, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
since 20140818 gmail.com IPv6 MX started to classify most IPv6
sourced emails sent from our machine to @gmail.com as spam.
hi,
tried several times, all messages delivered successfully.
my senders have spf and dkim in place
kind regards
--
antonio
On Aug 22, Laurent GUERBY laur...@guerby.net wrote:
As there's no way to reach google mailops we had to remove IPv6 from our
mail machines and go back to IPv4 only for mail, which is sad.
I just filter the gmail networks on my mail servers, you can find the
list in the gmail.com SPF record.
On 22 Aug 2014, at 09:09, Daniel Austin dan...@kewlio.net wrote:
gmail are still accepting IPv6 mail from my server - most recent message was
2 hours ago.
(they do seem to put most IPv6 transacted mail into spam folders on the
receiving side however!)
Yes, I’ve had reports of this
On 22/08/2014 15:16, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Are you following the Additional guidelines for IPv6 section of
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126 ?
Lorenzo,
it looks like Google is trying to enforce SPF / DKIM on ipv6 connections
where there is no similar requirement for ipv4. Is
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 22/08/2014 15:16, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Are you following the Additional guidelines for IPv6 section of
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126 ?
it looks like Google is trying to enforce SPF / DKIM on ipv6
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:32:41AM -0700, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
From what I've heard it's somewhat of a consensus position among large
email operators on what to do for IPv6 SMTP inbound.
Well... some think it's a good idea, and there is an IETF draft, which
largely failed to get support.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 06:44:50PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:12:57PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:32:41AM -0700, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
From what I've heard it's somewhat of a consensus position among large
email operators on
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:26:25PM -0700, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
I'm not on the gmail team and don't have those numbers. Nick asked me for
an answer, and I gave him what information I have. My assumption was that
: Friday, August 22, 2014 10:25 AM
To: Lorenzo Colitti; Laurent GUERBY
Cc: IPv6 Ops list
Subject: Re: SMTP over IPv6 : gmail classifying nearly all IPv6 mail as spam
since 20140818
On 22/08/2014 15:16, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Are you following the Additional guidelines for IPv6 section of
https
30 matches
Mail list logo
