Re: [mailop] Reputable place to host my SMTP?

On 16-06-07 01:09 PM, Robert Guthrie wrote: Can someone recommend a VPS host that would have IP addresses that have a good reputation with Google systems? Many good ones, and many bad ones... Main thing is to work with a provider that has a tight sign-up policy, some of the ones that allow

Re: [mailop] Reputable place to host my SMTP?

Also, there are problems with SPF record: Results - PermError SPF Permanent Error: Too many DNS lookups See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7208#section-4.6.4 Renaud Allard via mailop пишет: > > > On 07/06/16 22:09, Robert Guthrie wrote: >> We've been having issues for months now, with google

[mailop] Reputable place to host my SMTP?

We've been having issues for months now, with google delaying our emails. The spikes in delivery times are causing serious problems for our users. Every aspect of the SMTP (smtp.loomio.org) is setup correctly, I thought after a while the IP would "warm up" but we still get delivery time spikes

Re: [mailop] Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

Followed up OffList. Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." | Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ? From: Dickie LaFlamme [mailto:rlafla...@dyn.com] Sent: Tuesday,

[mailop] New comment - [#503261] Re: Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

There is a new comment in the ticket submitted by Anthony Chiulli to / APSIS Comment added by : Michael Wise Comment Content:   Followed up OffList.   Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." | Got the

Re: [mailop] DKIM CNAME temperror from Microsoft - 1024 bit vs. 2048 bit

May be they should test their DNS servers using: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/replysizetest or setup edns udp size to 1400 instead of the default 4096 is they don't want to allow fragmented packets in: http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch7/hkpng.html#edns-udp-size This is also likely to

Re: [mailop] New comment - [#503261] Re: Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

Some off-list shots have been fired. ;-) Cheers, -Brian > On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Apsis Deliverability Team said: >> There is a new comment in the ticket submitted by Anthony Chiulli to / APSIS >> Comment

[mailop] New comment - [#503261] Re: Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

There is a new comment in the ticket submitted by Anthony Chiulli to / APSIS Comment added by : Dickie LaFlamme Comment Content: Understandable. We wouldn't be asking for some other avenue here if we didn't fully beleive in there being something funky going on here. If you'd like feel free

Re: [mailop] Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

Understandable. We wouldn't be asking for some other avenue here if we didn't fully beleive in there being something funky going on here. If you'd like feel free to message me privately. The ticket number is SRX1342320250ID. ​ Thanks for reaching out, we appreciate it.​ Thanks, Dickie LaFlamme

Re: [mailop] New comment - [#503261] Re: Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

Once upon a time, Apsis Deliverability Team said: > There is a new comment in the ticket submitted by Anthony Chiulli to / APSIS > Comment added by : Dickie LaFlamme Comment Content: Has some effort been made to find who is sending list messages to Salesforce and shoot

Re: [mailop] Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

Sorry, I’m missing the SRX…ID ticket number so I can figure out the most recent issues here. We have a solid rule not to discuss the reasons for blocking, as we’re forbidden to do, “Troubleshooting” for senders. I am interested in finding out what the refusal code was and getting that

[mailop] New comment - [#503261] Re: Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

There is a new comment in the ticket submitted by Anthony Chiulli to / APSIS Comment added by : Michael Wise Comment Content:   Sorry, I’m missing the SRX…ID ticket number so I can figure out the most recent issues here. We have a solid rule not to discuss the reasons for blocking, as

Re: [mailop] Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

Michael, Per my message I posted: "We asked for a reasoning why, and after some stock responses, we received a note back that they could not discuss the matter of the block." Maybe I was unclear. This was the ticket you're mentioning. I have an email chain with your support that's pretty

[mailop] New comment - [#503261] Re: Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

There is a new comment in the ticket submitted by Anthony Chiulli to / APSIS Comment added by : Dickie LaFlamme Comment Content: Michael,  Per my message I posted: "We asked for a reasoning why, and after some stock responses, we received a note back that they could not discuss the

Re: [mailop] Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

Well we first saw the blockage via SNDS's "IP status page" - Blocked due to user complaints or other evidence of spamming. Here's one of many diagnostic code we received Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 (undefined status) Remote-MTA: dns;mx3.hotmail.com (65.55.92.168) Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550

[mailop] New comment - [#503261] Re: Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

There is a new comment in the ticket submitted by Anthony Chiulli to / APSIS Comment added by : Dickie LaFlamme Comment Content: Well we first saw the blockage via SNDS's "IP status page" - Blocked due to user complaints or other evidence of spamming. Here's one of many diagnostic code

Re: [mailop] DKIM CNAME temperror from Microsoft - 1024 bit vs. 2048 bit

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Simon wrote: > > Am 07.06.2016 um 18:27 schrieb Steve Atkins: >> The 2048 bit key plus the CNAME gives a reply packet big enough that >> the UDP reply to a non-edns query is truncated. Retrying over TCP >> works, but a DNS resolver

[mailop] Microsoft holding IPs hostage?

We recently experienced a customer ranges of IPs being blocked at Microsoft, and haven't a clue as to why. Details are below, but I'm wondering if others are running into the same issue: - Customers IPs are 208.76.62.[83-88]. Understandably, SenderScore isn't the end all be all, but all scores

Re: [mailop] DKIM CNAME temperror from Microsoft - 1024 bit vs. 2048 bit

Am 07.06.2016 um 18:27 schrieb Steve Atkins: > The 2048 bit key plus the CNAME gives a reply packet big enough that > the UDP reply to a non-edns query is truncated. Retrying over TCP > works, but a DNS resolver that doesn't do TCP would just error out. > That's probably why the DKIM temperror. If

[mailop] DKIM CNAME temperror from Microsoft - 1024 bit vs. 2048 bit

Hello List, For quite some time I am noticing DKIM temperrors in DMARC reports (exclusively) from Microsoft. Until today I wasn't able to track down whatever is causing this: If a DKIM selector is a CNAME pointing to a 1024 bit key it returns a DKIM "pass". But if the selector points to a 2048

Re: [mailop] btinternet.com deliverability issues

I have always received prompt responses to requests sent to postmas...@btinternet.com. May be the team is just too busy right now. Thanks Sanket On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Syed Alam wrote: > Hi everyone, > > One of our customer is having issues with btinternet.com.

[mailop] btinternet.com deliverability issues

Hi everyone, One of our customer is having issues with btinternet.com. The error says '422 Too many messages from X.X.X.X - try again later' Does anyone have support contact for btinternet.com or if someone from BTInternet.com could response privately for more details. We have tried to contact