On 2022-09-05 at 18:16:06 UTC-0400 (Tue, 6 Sep 2022 00:16:06 +0200)
Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
is rumored to have said:
Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 17:56:13 Bill Cole via mailop pisze:
Yes, of course, but he said he is using "reject_unverified_recipient"
which
is RECIPIENT address verification, a
On 2022-09-05 at 18:07:37 UTC-0400 (Tue, 6 Sep 2022 01:07:37 +0300)
Atro Tossavainen via mailop
is rumored to have said:
Fine. You're responsible for delivering mail submitted to you, and
it is entirely reasonable to confirm that the entity you are
accepting it from has provided a usable addres
On 9/5/22 15:13, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 14:45:40 Michael Peddemors via mailop pisze:
This is the only argument that holds any kind of merit, but if you want to
REALLY see if the person intended to register, send them a real email, as in
confirmed double opt-in,
Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 17:56:13 Bill Cole via mailop pisze:
>
> Yes, of course, but he said he is using "reject_unverified_recipient" which
> is RECIPIENT address verification, a tool which is used to prevent
> backscatter on machines that do legitimate relaying of mail.
Sorry, I used the wrong
Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 14:45:40 Michael Peddemors via mailop pisze:
>
> This is the only argument that holds any kind of merit, but if you want to
> REALLY see if the person intended to register, send them a real email, as in
> confirmed double opt-in, that they have to click on. Otherwise, I can
> Fine. You're responsible for delivering mail submitted to you, and
> it is entirely reasonable to confirm that the entity you are
> accepting it from has provided a usable address. What Postfix then
> does to verify it is exactly what would be done if a message was
> simply accepted without verif
On 9/5/22 13:51, Atro Tossavainen via mailop wrote:
Yes, Sender Address Verification is abusive as well because it causes
the systems doing it to woodpecker on anybody whose addresses are forged
as senders in spam.
And so is Challenge/Response based spam filtering.
Agreed, but so is recipient
On 2022-09-05 at 16:51:34 UTC-0400 (Mon, 5 Sep 2022 23:51:34 +0300)
Atro Tossavainen via mailop
is rumored to have said:
Regarding the above, I have the following question:
What do you (and maybe other people on the list) think about such
email
verification method ("abusing RCPT TO") used as
send the applicant a copy of their completed form
And that right there is where a lot of my customers get in trouble. It's
a shame but these days, you can't even send a "Hello {name}" to anyone
from a form or you just end up sending "Hey
get_cheap_viagra_at_this_website.tld" though it is mild
On 2022-09-05 at 16:27:13 UTC-0400 (Mon, 5 Sep 2022 22:27:13 +0200)
Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
is rumored to have said:
Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 22:39:01 Atro Tossavainen via mailop pisze:
So do all the ESPs. But their customers send mail, and the recipients
are able to act upon it, informing th
> Atro appears to object to this use. I disagree.
It's abusable. Your users might not be who you think they will be.
> Arguably this is less expensive than "double opt in", which is doing
> a similar thing.
Yes. It also returns a different category of result.
> One way around that might be for
On 2022-09-05 13:27, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
What do you (and maybe other people on the list) think about such email
verification method ("abusing RCPT TO") used as part of:
a) mail receiving process - I'm thinking here for example about the Postfix
feature "reject_unverified_recipient"
On Mon, 5 Sep 2022, Atro Tossavainen via mailop wrote:
Regarding the above, I have the following question:
What do you (and maybe other people on the list) think about such email
verification method ("abusing RCPT TO") used as part of:
a) mail receiving process - I'm thinking here for example
> Regarding the above, I have the following question:
>
> What do you (and maybe other people on the list) think about such email
> verification method ("abusing RCPT TO") used as part of:
>
> a) mail receiving process - I'm thinking here for example about the Postfix
> feature "reject_unverified
Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 22:39:01 Atro Tossavainen via mailop pisze:
>
> So do all the ESPs. But their customers send mail, and the recipients
> are able to act upon it, informing the ESP of problem clients and
> sometimes even getting traction.
>
> In the case of email verifiers, there is no mess
On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:27:05 -0700, Jay Hennigan via mailop
wrote:
>I assume that:
>- When I walk up to a bank teller wearing a mask
One of the irritating aspects of the unnecessary pandemic was that my very
favorite Jack Vance quote became awkwardly inoperative.
mdr
--
"Honest folk do not wear
Czesc, Radek,
> We assume that:
> - our customer (data controller) who requested us to verify the email address
> got it in a legal way
> - our customer is obeying anti-spam policies.
So do all the ESPs. But their customers send mail, and the recipients
are able to act upon it, informing the ESP
On 9/5/22 12:12, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
On 2022-09-05 at 14:42:38 UTC-0400 (Mon, 5 Sep 2022 11:42:38 -0700)
Jay Hennigan via mailop
is rumored to have said:
On 9/5/22 07:48, Radek Kaczynski via mailop wrote:
We assume that:
- our customer (data controller) who requested us to verify the
On 2022-09-05 at 14:42:38 UTC-0400 (Mon, 5 Sep 2022 11:42:38 -0700)
Jay Hennigan via mailop
is rumored to have said:
On 9/5/22 07:48, Radek Kaczynski via mailop wrote:
We assume that:
- our customer (data controller) who requested us to verify the email
address got it in a legal way
- our c
On 9/5/22 07:48, Radek Kaczynski via mailop wrote:
We assume that:
- our customer (data controller) who requested us to verify the email
address got it in a legal way
- our customer is obeying anti-spam policies.
What logical basis or evidence do you have to support this assumption?
--
Jay
Thank you! Just sent you an email.
Much appreciated.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 3:54 AM James Hoddinott wrote:
> Feel free to ping me with any issues
>
> On Sat, 3 Sept 2022 at 15:54, admin admin via mailop
> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone here point me to a contact for dealing with a problem
>> regarding
Hi Andrew, Ladies & Gentlemen,
>
> Coincidentally, I have just been helping someone enable SMTP VRFY in exim.
> I suppose that you do use VRFY
> when it is availble ?
That's interesting indeed - we haven't implemented SMTP VRFY as it is very
uncommon.
However, I truly think that it would be gr
Feel free to ping me with any issues
On Sat, 3 Sept 2022 at 15:54, admin admin via mailop
wrote:
> Can anyone here point me to a contact for dealing with a problem regarding
> Cloudmark CSI.
>
> I tried their website for support but they have not replied.
> __
23 matches
Mail list logo
