On 1/6/2017 8:49 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Reject HELO/EHLO 1.41%
Reject unknown user 8.45%
Reject sender address11.27%
Reject unknown client host 48.03%
Reject RBL8.31%
Reject
On 07/01/2017 00:00, Vick Khera wrote:
> So if you're goal is to solve problems, then what's the point of having a
> minimum 48 hour block when the problem is solved at the origin within
> minutes? That's just punitive and not constructive.
Because in 99.9r% of the time, the problem is NOT
On 07/01/2017 02:09, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> It's always good to keep in mind that having your mail accepted somewhere
> is a privilege, not a right, and that recipient systems are free to
> cease extending that privilege in whole or in part at any time with or
> without notice and with or without
On 06/01/2017 14:14, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 1/5/2017 8:21 PM, John Leslie wrote:
>
>> because the IP
>> blocklist model is hopelessly doomed _when_ IPv6 email becomes common
>
> If every IPv4 blacklist provider (including spamhaus) closed down tomorrow,
> and every internally-run IPv4
Responded off list.
--Jaren
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Andrew Beverley
wrote:
> Is there anyone here from icloud.com that can help with some rather
> sporadic delivery to user's mailboxes?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy
>
> ___
>
Is there anyone here from icloud.com that can help with some rather
sporadic delivery to user's mailboxes?
Thanks,
Andy
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
> This seems like an odd place to raise this, but ok.
Thanks for replying, Brandon.
Does it make it a better place if I explain that I was writing as a
mail service operator? When we migrated our in-house mail service to
Google our customer service people were keen that we should continue
to
On 17-01-05 05:21 PM, John Leslie wrote:
How to get that information back to the responsible party, as of
today, remains unsolved. But to the casual observer, blocklist
operators don't seem to be trying at all. They don't notify the
blocklisted server at all, in most cases, and if there _is_
> On Jan 6, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Kelly Molloy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Vick Khera wrote:
>>
>>
>> So if you're goal is to solve problems, then what's the point of having a
>> minimum 48 hour block when the problem is solved at the
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 08:49:47AM -0500, Vick Khera wrote:
> SORBS does not seem interested in
> solving problems, but in punishing people.
It is impossible for SORBS (or any other DNSBL/RHSBL) to punish anyone.
Even if they wanted to -- and I see no evidence that they do -- they can't.
The same
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Vick Khera wrote:
>
>
> So if you're goal is to solve problems, then what's the point of having a
> minimum 48 hour block when the problem is solved at the origin within
> minutes? That's just punitive and not constructive.
Because the proof of
> So if you're goal is to solve problems, then what's the point of having a
> minimum 48 hour block when the problem is solved at the origin within
> minutes? That's just punitive and not constructive.
a) When you run an RBL, the bulk of so called abuse departments
reply that the problem is
Vick Khera wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Michelle Sullivan > wrote:
So taking your blatant attack literally which I was under the
impression was against list policy, lets instead attempt to be
constructive and have a clam
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Michelle Sullivan
wrote:
> So taking your blatant attack literally which I was under the impression
> was against list policy, lets instead attempt to be constructive and have a
> clam discussion... "SORBS does not seem interested in solving
14 matches
Mail list logo