Re: [mailop] Opinions on what qualifies as a "false positive" RBL listing that should be fixed?

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 12:33:21 -0800, Robert L Mathews via mailop wrote: >Interesting, thanks. I find I disagree with the "full stop" part, but it seems >I'm in the minority. Perhaps. I take Google for an example. Fossicking through the logs here, I find... >> cidrsearch *all /nonu

Re: [mailop] Verifying receipients?

Dňa 16. februára 2024 21:03:18 UTC používateľ Marco Moock via mailop napísal: >Use the VRFY SMTP command for that. If the remote site doesn't provide >it, they don't want that somebody probes for the mailboxes. IMO only between own servers, if at all. Disabling it (for public access) is

Re: [mailop] Opinions on what qualifies as a "false positive" RBL listing that should be fixed?

It appears that Robert L Mathews via mailop said: >On Feb 15, 2024, at 6:13 PM, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote: > >> Not using COI, as well as hitting spamtraps are both solid, affirmative >> indications of spam. Full stop. > >Interesting, thanks. I find I disagree with the "full stop" part, but

Re: [mailop] Verifying receipients?

On 2024-02-16 at 15:49:12 UTC-0500 (Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:49:12 -0600) Jesse Hathaway via mailop is rumored to have said: What is this current attitude on using something like Postfix's `reject_unverified_recipient`? ONLY use this when you are relaying for specific domains that you service

Re: [mailop] Verifying receipients?

Am Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:49:12 -0600 schrieb Jesse Hathaway via mailop : > Does probing for recipients work these days, is it considered abusive? Use the VRFY SMTP command for that. If the remote site doesn't provide it, they don't want that somebody probes for the mailboxes. Some dnsbl (e.g.

Re: [mailop] Is forwarding to Gmail basically dead?

> On 15.02.2024 at 03:55 Philip Paeps wrote: > > On 2024-02-15 02:51:17 (+0800), Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote: >>> On 13.02.2024 at 17:05 John Levine via mailop wrote: >>> More to the point, whether it's DKIM nor S/MIME or PGP, bad guys can >>> and do sign their mail, too. >> True, however I

Re: [mailop] CloudSererblocks - was Re: Outgoing Spam from Microsoft IPs

Dňa 16. februára 2024 19:42:08 UTC používateľ Andrew C Aitchison via mailop napísal: >AMAZON > https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-ip-ranges.html > https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json Please, is somewhere described what "service" values means in it? regards --

[mailop] Verifying receipients?

What is this current attitude on using something like Postfix's `reject_unverified_recipient`? Does probing for recipients work these days, is it considered abusive? Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org

Re: [mailop] Opinions on what qualifies as a "false positive" RBL listing that should be fixed?

On Feb 15, 2024, at 6:13 PM, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote: > Not using COI, as well as hitting spamtraps are both solid, affirmative > indications of spam. Full stop. Interesting, thanks. I find I disagree with the "full stop" part, but it seems I'm in the minority. Don't get me wrong --

[mailop] CloudSererblocks - was Re: Outgoing Spam from Microsoft IPs

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Matt Palmer via mailop wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 07:57:09AM +0100, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: Is there some way to identify the host IPs which are used by those cloud servers, so one could block incoming SMTP from them if Microsoft can't be bothered to

Re: [mailop] Outgoing Spam from Microsoft IPs

Am 16.02.24 um 03:37 schrieb Matt Palmer via mailop: Although I must say that without reverse DNS would seem to be the easier blocking option -- when was the last time you saw legitimate mail from an IP without rDNS? - Matt We do that, with some exceptions, as we indeed get some legitimate