On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:55 PM Brandon Long wrote:
> At this point, it looks like the message-id header is a red-herring (or an
> indication of a different path on their side), the problem is a bug in the
> proxying mail server (haraka) issuing multiple EHLO commands after
> STARTTLS, but only
At this point, it looks like the message-id header is a red-herring (or an
indication of a different path on their side), the problem is a bug in the
proxying mail server (haraka) issuing multiple EHLO commands after
STARTTLS, but only expecting a single reply... so when it issues the rest
of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 22:06 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> In article <1570757713.1030.53.ca...@16bits.net> you write:
> >Count me too as someone with a tiny server that Gmail automatically
> >files in spam with apparently no reason.
>
I don't think we explicitly age out these things, but we may have a limit
on the number of entries on a user's
automatic whitelist that's discards based on age.
Also, as the automatic whitelist is generated from user
content/interactions but isn't visible, it likely needs to
be tied to the
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:09 AM Chris Woods via mailop
wrote:
> After recently receiving yet more spam from standards-compliant spam
> servers (valid SPF, DMARC and domains on mainstream TLDs and delivery
> tolerating greylisting), this discussion got me thinking again. Some open
> questions:
>
notification.skype.com does not resolve. When I saw it some days ago I
thought it was an oversight that Microsoft's gonna fix instantly, but
I was mistaken:
Oct 12 01:14:09 iac postfix/smtpd[13338]: connect from
db3gmehub01.msn.com[94.245.112.10]
Oct 12 01:14:09 iac postfix/smtpd[13338]:
On 11 Oct 2019, at 9:06, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote:
It doesn't seem to be in a particularly bad neighborhood, either.
if i'm guessing your IP right, my local test sees 7 "bad actors" in
your /24 (2.73%) and 50 in your /16 (~0%)
whilst that's not nearly as bad as many sources, it's
> It doesn't seem to be in a particularly bad neighborhood, either.
if i'm guessing your IP right, my local test sees 7 "bad actors" in
your /24 (2.73%) and 50 in your /16 (~0%)
whilst that's not nearly as bad as many sources, it's worse than most
that send legitimate email
Am 11.10.19 um 15:27 schrieb Andreas Schulze via mailop:
> SPF pass for spogermanyeop.onmicrosoft.de
> DKIM pass for microsoft.com
DKIM pass for spogermanyeop.onmicrosoft.de of course...
--
A. Schulze
DATEV eG
___
mailop mailing list
Are they still fundamentally constrained by their choice of network
provider, despite complying with every possible security and delivery
behaviour to warrant and verify the content and sender of every email?
Yes. Remember, nobody else cares as much about the mail you send as you do.
Has the
Hello,
we receive multiple complains from out customers not getting notification
messages from Microsoft.
Our DMARC filter reject them.
investigation show:
Source-IP: 51.4.72.88 (mail-fr1ger01on0088.outbound.protection.outlook.de)
RFC5321.MailFrom:
> On Oct 11, 2019, at 10:06 AM, Chris Woods via mailop
> wrote:
>
> After recently receiving yet more spam from standards-compliant spam servers
> (valid SPF, DMARC and domains on mainstream TLDs and delivery tolerating
> greylisting), this discussion got me thinking again. Some open
After recently receiving yet more spam from standards-compliant spam
servers (valid SPF, DMARC and domains on mainstream TLDs and delivery
tolerating greylisting), this discussion got me thinking again. Some open
questions:
Imagine an operator wishes to spin up a new email server, for themself or
13 matches
Mail list logo
