It appears that Al Iverson via mailop said:
>I think John also said he's auto-whitelisting a bunch of stuff based
>on an initial pass, which is an automation step I surely wish I had.
If you greylist everything, that's going to be awful. After a host has
successfully retried once, there's no
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 3:33 AM ml+mailop--- via mailop
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2023, Carsten Schiefner via mailop wrote:
>
> > The question, however, is: will it ble..., erm, can one do without
> > greylisting?
>
> It would mean more spam is coming through - so for my case greylisting
> is
Dňa 25. júna 2023 15:39:44 UTC používateľ Andy Smith via mailop
napísal:
>I think that you are perhaps only considering this from the
>perspective of a sender. When it comes to choosing text for SMTP
>responses there are many different types of person involved and many
>of them will not be
Yes, me being only on the senders' side for now is driving some of the
bias. I'll work on that.
I agree with the rest of your mail, except for "actionable" being equal to
"how to deliver this message in future" - I would consider *"we'll
never accept mail from you"* to be also very actionable with
Hi Dmytro,
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 02:28:33PM +0100, Dmytro Homoniuk via mailop wrote:
> 450 4.3.2 Local problem - couldn't query foobar blacklist
>
> I do think this very hypothetical example is a bit of an outlier. It's
> providing non-actionable information to the sending system: it should
On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 14:28:33 +0100, Dmytro Homoniuk via mailop
wrote:
>*In a very non-confrontational way* I want to express my opinion and to
>note that's pretty much how senders operate right now: too often the smtp
>code and enhanced code the recipient system returns have nothing to do with
On Sun, 2023-06-25 at 14:28 +0100, Dmytro Homoniuk via mailop wrote:
>
> 450 4.3.2 Please retry immediately. If your message was rejected by a
> blacklist, see for more information.
>
> Now this just adds needless ambiguity: was it rejected because of the
> blacklist or not? Am I on a
On 6/24/23 14:03, Andy Smith via mailop wrote:
If this sort of thing is common amongst large senders, does that
mean that we should all be combing our 4xx responses for
"triggering" words like "blacklist" and "blocklist"? And how are we
to keep up to date with the heuristics of multiple senders?
On Sat 24/Jun/2023 16:41:25 +0200 Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
On 2023-06-24 at 05:49:30 UTC-0400 (Sat, 24 Jun 2023 11:49:30 +0200)
Alessandro Vesely via mailop
is rumored to have said:
I had a bounce:
Reporting-MTA: dns;PR3PR05MB7547.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com
Received-From-MTA:
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023, Carsten Schiefner via mailop wrote:
> The question, however, is: will it ble..., erm, can one do without
> greylisting?
It would mean more spam is coming through - so for my case greylisting
is not useless -- which was the unsubstantiated claim to which I
replied.
--
Hi N.N. -
On 24.06.2023 21:57, ml+mailop--- via mailop wrote:
On 6/23/2023 9:13 PM, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
What if we just got to the heart of the matter and admitted that
greylisting is useless 2023?
It isn't.
(it works fairly well for the way I'm using it...)
No doubts.
The
11 matches
Mail list logo
