Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:37:59PM +0300, Atro Tossavainen via mailop wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 08:22:40PM +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > > It would need to be a standard... a SINGLE standard. > > > > Like the FTC "Do Not Call" list. > > What Michael said... And it would be a

Re: [mailop] Outlook autodiscover IMAP server settings

* Silver Asu via mailop: > Is there any chance to get IMAP/SMTP/POP3 server settings autodiscover > to work with modern desktop and mobile Outlook clients? Have you considered automx2 ? See https://gitlab.com/automx/automx2 . -Ralph ___ mailop

Re: [mailop] Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

On 2020-06-02 at 22:58 +0100, Tim Bray via mailop wrote: > > I don't really believe I've been sat in people's dormant lists (at an > email service provider) for years and years. I think it is fresh > lists extracted from CRMs and webstores, but maybe several years of > old data. And maybe

Re: [mailop] Verizon Media Recurring Issue

I have some more information as we now see that the whole /24 may be blocked. Could someone from the Verizon Team please contact me so I can explain the issue in detail? Thanks, Michael Michael E. Weisel CTO / Deliverability Lead Gold Lasso (301) 990-9857 Corporate (240) 813-0174

Re: [mailop] Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

On 02/06/2020 21:52, Oreva Akpolo via mailop wrote: Hey Tom, I'm Oreva, a Deliverability Engineer at Mailchimp. There currently isn't a system to force double opt-in on recipients per email address. What we can recommend is to set up filters or folders, so that you're only seeing mail from

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Force confirmed opt in for marketing list companies per email address

IHNJ, just correcting the subject line... On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 10:58:18PM +0100, Tim Bray via mailop wrote: > On 02/06/2020 21:22, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > > > > It would need to be a standard... a SINGLE standard. > > > > Like the FTC "Do Not Call" list. > > > > I wasn't thinking

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

On 02/06/2020 21:22, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: It would need to be a standard... a SINGLE standard. Like the FTC "Do Not Call" list. I wasn't thinking about something central at all.  I was just thinking about it as something top 1 or 2 market leaders could do to be helpful. (like

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

On 2 Jun 2020, at 14:25, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: Yeah, and IMHO (don't hit me) that VERP should go the way of the Dodo.. This assertion doesn't follow the rest of your message. Even if useless for the use case being discussed – for which it was never meant as a solution – 

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

Yeah, and IMHO (don't hit me) that VERP should go the way of the Dodo.. If a domain owner wants to have MailChimp send bulk email for them, they should add MailChimp to their SPF record.. and have their domain in the MAIL FROM.. it helps improve delivery dates.. eg the ISP can safely

Re: [mailop] Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

HOLD THE PHONE!! Do we hear a ESP actually recommending that all their email gets sent to a junk folder .. hehehe.. But again, the best way for an email to support what you are suggesting, is if you are transparent in the MAIL FROM, so that 'Allow Sender I am subscribed to' would actually

Re: [mailop] Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

On 2 Jun 2020, at 21:52, Oreva Akpolo via mailop wrote: > > I'm Oreva, a Deliverability Engineer at Mailchimp. There currently isn't a > system to force double opt-in on recipients per email address. What we can > recommend is to set up filters or folders, so that you're only seeing mail >

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

> In the end, if mailchimp actually DID use the sender's email in the > MAIL FROM, it might make it easier.. If they did had a way to see > that this was an invite.. Practically all ESPs use VERP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_envelope_return_path It makes sense for them in so many

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

Yeah, over the last 10 years we banged our head on how a universal method would work, and yes.. all vulnerable to abuse.. In the end, if mailchimp actually DID use the sender's email in the MAIL FROM, it might make it easier.. If they did had a way to see that this was an invite.. You

[mailop] Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

Hey Tom, I'm Oreva, a Deliverability Engineer at Mailchimp. There currently isn't a system to force double opt-in on recipients per email address. What we can recommend is to set up filters or folders, so that you're only seeing mail from users you've actively subscribed to in your inbox. I hope

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 08:22:40PM +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > It would need to be a standard... a SINGLE standard. > > Like the FTC "Do Not Call" list. What Michael said... And it would be a colossally bad idea. Anybody think it wouldn't leak and be used specifically to spam some

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

It would need to be a standard... a SINGLE standard. Like the FTC "Do Not Call" list. Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." Open a ticket for Hotmail ? -Original

Re: [mailop] Outlook autodiscover IMAP server settings

On 02/06/2020 19:41, Robert L Mathews via mailop wrote: On 6/2/20 5:16 AM, Andrew via mailop wrote: tl;dr - start with ensuring you've got RFC 6186 records setup Out of interest, do you know what clients now support RFC 6186? I tested a variety of them a couple of years back and couldn't find

Re: [mailop] Is Gmails DMARC check broken?

Leaving aside the discussion about Gmail specifics (which has been adequately answered by others)... On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:08 AM Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: > > So at the moment I'm only using DMARC with SPF. According to my > reading on how DMARC works, if no DKIM record is published,

Re: [mailop] Outlook autodiscover IMAP server settings

On 6/2/20 5:16 AM, Andrew via mailop wrote: > tl;dr - start with ensuring you've got RFC 6186 records setup Out of interest, do you know what clients now support RFC 6186? I tested a variety of them a couple of years back and couldn't find any major ones that supported it, so I didn't bother

Re: [mailop] Is Gmails DMARC check broken?

In article <947f2235-ae10-47b5-90cd-f096d5648...@wordtothewise.com> you write: Why is Google applying a strict reject when the policy is p=none? It is my understanding that Google requires all IPv6 mail to be SPF or DKIM authenticated with or without DMARC. The "aspf=s" is probably the

Re: [mailop] Is Gmails DMARC check broken?

Gmail does not require DKIM for DMARC. Using only SPF works according to the spec. If people really want to shoot themselves in the foot by only using SPF with DMARC, we let them. If you don't have the dmarc reject, you can see the messages that are delivered and see the AuthRes headers to see

Re: [mailop] Is Gmails DMARC check broken?

Why is Google applying a strict reject when the policy is p=none? laura > On 2 Jun 2020, at 16:42, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-06-02 at 17:04 +0200, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: >> _DMARC.imp.ch descriptive text "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto: >>

Re: [mailop] Is Gmails DMARC check broken?

On 02/06/2020 16:42, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote: Without seeing the actual message my guess is that the *aspf=s* is the problem. This is telling receivers that you want to enforce strict SPF alignment, which means the FQDNs used the SPF tests must match. So, if your 5321.From is using a

Re: [mailop] Is Gmails DMARC check broken?

I had similar trouble sending to Gmail over IPv6 long ago and I just turned off the IPv6 interface on my server to fix it, because I'm a typical dumb American. I was never quite sure, do I just not understand how to specify SPF properly for IPv6 or does Gmail have a bug in how they process SPF for

Re: [mailop] Is Gmails DMARC check broken?

On Tue, 2020-06-02 at 17:04 +0200, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: > _DMARC.imp.ch descriptive text "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto: > dmarc-rep...@imp.ch; ruf=mailto: dmarc-rep...@imp.ch ; > aspf=s"(reverted to p=none) > That email was sent from: 2001:4060:1:1002::139:139 which passes SPF. > Any

Re: [mailop] Google: 'Low reputation of the sending domain'

On 02/06/2020 09:37, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: Still 'Spamrate' and 'IP Reputation' and 'Domain Reputation' (all other items too) still show 'there is no data available yet'. At work (provu.co.uk) we send hundreds of emails a day, but always no data in postmaster tools.  I just

[mailop] Is Gmails DMARC check broken?

Hi Gang I'm on the way of more widely deploying DMARC and also testing DKIM once again. Also on our ISP email service domains. So at the moment I'm only using DMARC with SPF. According to my reading on how DMARC works, if no DKIM record is published, a passing SPF record is sufficient for

Re: [mailop] Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

On 2020/06/02 14:35, Tim Bray via mailop wrote: > My question to mailchimp et al: > > Is there way I could force my email address to be double opt in? Like > register with you, confirm my address, and then any of your customers who > try to add me, I get a `please confirm` email. This, but

[mailop] Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

Hi, So seems to be spam/ham day today.  I've just done 6 unsubscribes.  Orgs I have never heard of, or maybe an organization I once bought something from 10 years ago (or their sister company) I think people are trying to kick start their businesses in the UK by digging out all their old

Re: [mailop] Google: 'Low reputation of the sending domain'

Mail coming from IPv6 has higher requirements for delivery than mail from IPv4. The theory is that with IPv4 you may be in a situation where there’s legacy code or infrastructure that can’t be upgraded for operational reasons. For reasons of interoperability that is acceptable. Anyone sending

Re: [mailop] Google: 'Low reputation of the sending domain'

On 2020/06/02 10:37, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: > <<< 550-5.7.1 [2001:4060:dead:beef::1 19] Our system has detected that > this > <<< 550-5.7.1 message is likely suspicious due to the very low reputation of > the > <<< 550-5.7.1 sending domain. "due to the very low reputation of the

Re: [mailop] Outlook autodiscover IMAP server settings

On 02/06/2020 12:12, Silver Asu via mailop wrote: Is there any chance to get IMAP/SMTP/POP3 server settings autodiscover to work with modern desktop and mobile Outlook clients? _autodiscover._tcp SRV record with autodiscover/autodiscover.xml seems not to work anymore. I wrote up an answer

[mailop] Verizon Media Recurring Issue

We have a client who we have worked with very closely to develop a solid engaged sender plan that has been working very well since they started sending through us a few years back. Recently they have been having a recurring issue with just one of the Verizon Media domains that pops up every

[mailop] Outlook autodiscover IMAP server settings

Hello! Is there any chance to get IMAP/SMTP/POP3 server settings autodiscover to work with modern desktop and mobile Outlook clients? _autodiscover._tcp SRV record with autodiscover/autodiscover.xml seems not to work anymore. Thanks. Silver Asu

Re: [mailop] Google: 'Low reputation of the sending domain'

On Tue, 2020-06-02 at 10:37 +0200, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: > DKIM is not a solution. I faced too many problems with mailinglists > and similar which did alter the header and broke DKIM signatures. > > Has anyone a hint what could be the cause for this problem? > > And yes, disabling

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Outlook "Modern Authentication"?

On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 13:35 -0600, Daniele Nicolodi via mailop wrote: > Does anyone know if there is any alternative to Outlook to access > > Exchange Online mailboxes that require modern authentication? Take a look at Davmail, it's basically a proxy that sits in-between your existing "legacy"

Re: [mailop] Google: 'Low reputation of the sending domain'

There are two issues here: 1. We have been brought to a situation where it has become an insurmountable necessity to send and receive mail from and to Google, Microsoft and the likes of Amazon, if your mail has to reach from one end to another. 2. The filters in the middle (and in this at the

Re: [mailop] Google: 'Low reputation of the sending domain'

Hey Benoit, i'm facing the same issue since weeks with my private mailserver. A few mails getting through and some not. I've already tried to contact the sender support trough their form. Maybe this helps, lets see. BTW: I'v enabled SPF, DKIM, DMARC (p=none) since a long time, this either

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Outlook "Modern Authentication"?

On Thu, 28 May 2020, Daniele Nicolodi asked: The IT department of the organization that is pushing thins says that modern authentication and disabling IMAP (over SSL) enhance security. I don't see how this is the case. Does anyone have an opinion? Phil Pennock replied: PP> As to IMAP/TLS -- I

[mailop] Google: 'Low reputation of the sending domain'

Hi Gang My personal mailserver is not able to send any emails to gmail accounts since several months. I was hoping this would solve itself eventually. It did not. There are no breaches or spam or anything sent from that server. I would know as I am part of the AS6772 Abuse Desk. :-) Just the

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Outlook "Modern Authentication"?

> On 2020-05-28 at 13:35 -0600, Daniele Nicolodi via mailop wrote: >> Does anyone know if there is any alternative to Outlook to access >> Exchange Online mailboxes that require modern authentication? >> >> The IT department of the organization that is pushing thins says that >> modern

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Outlook "Modern Authentication"?

On 2020-05-28 at 13:35 -0600, Daniele Nicolodi via mailop wrote: > Does anyone know if there is any alternative to Outlook to access > Exchange Online mailboxes that require modern authentication? > > The IT department of the organization that is pushing thins says that > modern authentication