On 2024-03-31, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> Dňa 31. marca 2024 15:02:31 UTC používateľ Odhiambo Washington via mailop
> napísal:
>
>>> Something bad seems to have gained the ability to use that IP...
>>>
>>
>>Not that easy unless there is some recent exploit that I am not aware of.
>
> Don't
On 2024-03-14, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> sendmail tried to deliver it 20 times during the night - this morning
> I deleted the mail from mqueue.
That's a fairly aggressive retry strategy. If there's something about
that message gmail doesn't like, then retrying that often might be
enough
On 2024-03-14, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Yesterday I replied somebody directly on debian-users (he uses a crappy
> mailer and sends to the author and the mailing list...).
>
> Gmail doesn't like this mail, but rejects it with a tempfail. I've now
> deleted it from mqueue.
>
> Mar
On 2024-03-08, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On 2024-03-08 at 12:07:23 UTC-0500 (Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:07:23 +)
> Julian Bradfield via mailop
> is rumored to have said:
>> Is there any reason not to use the old routing character '%' instead?
> Yes: it is an old
An idle question: people who do SRS or similar things usually use
'=' as the replacement for '@' in the rewritten address
localpart=origdomain@mydomain
Is there any reason not to use the old routing character '%' instead?
I did this some years ago when I hacked in SRS to keep gmail happy
with
On 2024-03-07, Sebastian Nielsen via mailop wrote:
> Exactly, but when the mail client tries to display the crap in the name
> field, it causes it to crash. Guess it tries to render Emoji in a field that
> is not designed to accept Emoji, thus it just silentcrash into desktop.
> So people can't
I just had a bounce, when a member of the list posted, from what is
presumably a mimecast served company, to one of my club lists.
The member's own copy of the list posting was bounced by his provider
with
550 Rejected by header based Anti-Spoofing policy:
[member's address redacted] -
On 2024-03-01, Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop wrote:
> @Julien Bradfield:
> I've initially shared the exact line in the code on what Aiosmtpd - not my
> software - is doing, which it is saying is following the RFC by removing
> the first character if it's a dot. I could share emails that went
I did
On 2024-03-01, Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop wrote:
> Upon further investigation, we realized that GMail does NOT respect that
> RFC. They keep the dot. And if you add two dots, as per the RFC, GMail will
> keep the two dots, making the URL broken.
What *exactly* did you do to realize
On 2024-02-29, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
> Today an italian mailvox provider started refusing our emails with this
> message
>> 550 5.1.0 sender rejected:
> domain does not have neither a valid MX or A record
>
> The "e.#customerdomain" is a CNAME record that points to app.mailvox.it and
On 2024-02-09, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> I don't know if any MTA out there supports [DKIM] directly or supports
> Milter.
Exim supports it, even in the rather old version in Debian 10 that I
use.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
On 2024-02-08, Archange via mailop wrote:
[...]
> No, I agree with you (I’m running two forwarders that have no issues so
> far). And having a DMARC enforcing policy without DKIM is a bad idea.
>
> I would have wished that DMARC would require both SPF and DKIM, but now
> it is too late for
I run some small mailing lists for a club, and there's one member with
an address at icloud.com that rejects (with a generic "policy"
message) many of the messages sent to the club lists. Sometimes it's
possibly explicable because the message was sent by somebody whose
provider doesn't DKIM-sign.
On 2023-06-11, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> Now i did search in both, the my MX's SPAM archive and
> my own maildir. I found really small amount of multipart/related
> with type= argument in my maildir, all was pointing to text/html.
> I found relative many multipart/related nessages in SPAM
>
On 2023-06-11, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> from time to time i get SPAM with Content-Type with extra
> type= argument, eg.:
>
> Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; ...
>
> I spend a lot of time to find where that type= argument is
> defined. I guess, that they try do
On 2023-05-12, Jenny Nespola via mailop wrote:
> Hope you are well. I was wondering what else I may be missing when
> researching a Gmail/Workspace placement issue. I have a client that
[ snip ]
> Once you engage, the mail will stay in the inbox or if you pull from spam,
> but anyone new (with
On 2023-03-24, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop wrote:
> fh--- via mailop (Fr 24 Mär 2023 03:56:53 CET):
>> > does anybody from mailgun read here?
>> > Your messages are tmprejected at our systems, w/o any chance to pass
>> > ever.
>> b/c they were sending spams?
>
> I can't tell, because we
On 2023-02-28, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> Dnia 28.02.2023 o godz. 11:10:05 Julian Bradfield via mailop pisze:
>> Maybe worth pointing that people do greylisting, and with
>> greylisting it's helpful to retry quite soon. Immediately isn't
>> useful, but withi
On 2023-02-28, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> Another nonsense thing for me is that some senders - again, mostly the big
> ones - retry almost *immediately* (often from a different IP address) if
> they encounter a 4xx, and after a few such unsuccessful retries (within only
> a few minutes)
On 2023-02-22, Taavi Eomäe via mailop wrote:
>> Why should I need to use a program registered to the service provider
>> in order to read my email? (Or in my case, register myself as a
>> developer with Microsoft in order to allow me and my colleagues to
>> read our own mail.)
>
>
> You are
On 2023-02-22, Taavi Eomäe via mailop wrote:
> This discussion is getting awfully close to reinventing OAuth2.
>
> It's quite clear by now that long-lived tokens that are nearly
> impossible to properly revoke just don't work well in any human-operated
> contexts.
>
> Hopefully we'll see an
For the last couple of decades, I've been running Exim, using
long-lived self-signed certificates for TLS, and since the last but
one upgrade a couple of years ago, these certificates haven't even
been for the right machine:)
Almost everybody seems happy to talk to me, including gmail and
On 2022-10-21, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
[ in reply to a poster who had pain setting up new mxes ]
> To stay ontopic here, the question is: _why_ were you getting "blocks left
> and right"? And what were they?
>
> Was it a "fresh & clean" IPv4 address or one that had been abused in
23 matches
Mail list logo
