Re: [mailop] Yahoo no longer accepting email forwards?

Have you opened a ticket with Yahoo? Are you *SURE* there’s not a problem with one of the links in your message pointing to phishing / malware / etc? Remember, Yahoo sees the entire content of the message before they reject it - so if your content contains links that are infected or hosting

Re: [mailop] Anyone from t-mobile?

yes. I’ve reported there. Repeatedly. I was looking for a contact that might be able to help. Laura Sent from my iPhone > On May 6, 2024, at 4:11 PM, Marco Moock via mailop wrote: > > Am 06.05.2024 um 15:56:31 Uhr schrieb Laura Atkins: > >> 205.183.255.162 > > Have a look in the whois

Re: [mailop] Anyone from t-mobile?

> On 6 May 2024, at 13:35, Marco Moock via mailop wrote: > > Am 06.05.2024 um 12:59:46 Uhr schrieb Laura Atkins via mailop: > >> Looking for an abuse contact there or at messagereach. > > T-Mobile is a name used by many (sub)companies. > Can you specify the IP addr

Re: [mailop] Anyone from t-mobile?

T-Mobile for Business > On 6 May 2024, at 12:59, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > > Looking for an abuse contact there or at messagereach. > > laura > > -- > The Delivery Expert > > Laura Atkins > Word to the Wise > la...@wordtothewise.com >

[mailop] Anyone from t-mobile?

Looking for an abuse contact there or at messagereach. laura -- The Delivery Expert Laura Atkins Word to the Wise la...@wordtothewise.com Delivery hints and commentary: http://wordtothewise.com/blog ___ mailop mailing list

Re: [mailop] Sudden spike in Gmail failures ("TempFail – Spam")

> On 30 Apr 2024, at 12:44, Mendel Kucharzeck via mailop > wrote: > > Laura, > > Thanks for your reply! Highly appreciated. Inline: > >>> - Anyone else seeing this behaviour from gmail recently? >>> - Could the newly created, custom MAIL-FROM-domain cause a behaviour like >>> this? The

Re: [mailop] Sudden spike in Gmail failures ("TempFail – Spam")

> On 29 Apr 2024, at 16:02, Mendel Kucharzeck via mailop > wrote: [snip] > Questions: > > - Anyone else seeing this behaviour from gmail recently? > - Could the newly created, custom MAIL-FROM-domain cause a behaviour like > this? The MAIL-FROM-Domain has not yet been used before, but the

Re: [mailop] Are there other comparable services like spamcop.net / spamhaus.org?

> On 3 Apr 2024, at 18:32, John Levine via mailop wrote: > > It appears that Aban Dokht via mailop said: >> Hi list, >> >> are there other comparable services like spamcop.net or spamhaus.org worth >> submitting SPAM samples to? > > By the way, how do you think you're submitting stuff to

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: is warming IPs still necessary?

> On 26 Mar 2024, at 17:48, Brotman, Alex via mailop wrote: > > I'm not on the sending side, but I will note there are several ESPs running > out of EC2. Some seem to use their own IP ranges, some do not. Yeah, and they had problems in the past where some major ISPs were blocking all space

Re: [mailop] Debt Collection Client Email Servers

AWS has good IP reputation - I’ve got one client sending <500K a month and one sending >20M a day off AWS and their IP rep at google is all in the green. Mailgun/Sinch are one a lot of my clients are moving to, as well. There’s also whatever-they’re-called-now-but-used-to-be-Sparkpost. I’m

Re: [mailop] is warming IPs still necessary?

> On 25 Mar 2024, at 22:58, Gerald Oskoboiny via mailop > wrote: > > We are planning to move the system that hosts our email discussion lists from > its old home where it has been for decades to an EC2 instance on AWS. It does > about 15k deliveries per day, most of which go to gmail or

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

> On 12 Feb 2024, at 14:33, Sebastian Nielsen via mailop > wrote: > > >>Do they also allow you to search for the original sender? > No not via sender search, as the encapsulated email is part of the BODY of > the container email. > So usually you have to search via body search. So you are

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

> On 12 Feb 2024, at 13:44, Sebastian Nielsen via mailop > wrote: > > >> it basically makes it impossible to respond to the original email sender > Nope, you just open the encapsulated email (open the .EML attachment), and > respond to that. > > Some mail clients show the encapsulated

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

The problem with encapsulating like that is it basically makes it impossible to respond to the original email sender. It destroys functionality that has been around since the early stages of email. If we’re going to break email for people, then we should at least give them some good reason to

Re: [mailop] Spamfolder mini rant (Was: Contact Google Postmaster)

> On 30 Jan 2024, at 01:20, Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop > wrote: > >>> On 28 Jan 2024, at 20:23, Thomas Walter via mailop >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 28.01.24 20:02, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: There are "edge cases" when the mail couldn't be reliably classified

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Spamfolder mini rant (Was: Contact Google Postmaster)

> On 29 Jan 2024, at 18:02, Todd Herr via mailop wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 12:24 PM Scott Mutter via mailop > wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:01 AM Todd Herr via mailop > > wrote: >>> Users can only click "This is spam" on

Re: [mailop] Spamfolder mini rant (Was: Contact Google Postmaster)

> On 28 Jan 2024, at 20:23, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote: > > > > On 28.01.24 20:02, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >> There are "edge cases" when the mail couldn't be reliably classified as spam >> or non-spam. Even with best tuned spam filtering systems false positives >> will happen. >

Re: [mailop] Contact Google Postmaster

> On 26 Jan 2024, at 23:21, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: > > I've had domains listed in Google Postmaster Tools since 2016. Never gotten > one lick of any information from any of those except for "No data to display > at this time. Please come back later. Postmaster Tools requires that

Re: [mailop] Is Google jumping the gun for SPF / DKIM requirement?

> On 25 Jan 2024, at 07:57, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote: > > Moin, > > On 25.01.24 04:48, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: >> I knew that Google was going to start requiring SPF or DKIM (in addition to >> other sender guidelines [1]. But I thought they were starting February 1st, >> per

Re: [mailop] ECDSA DKIM validation?

> On 21 Dec 2023, at 17:13, John R Levine via mailop wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Dec 2023, Mike Hillyer wrote: >> John Said: >> >>> I'm sure that Google has code somewhere that can validate ED25519 >>> signatures. But that does not mean that it would be a good idea for them >>> to use that code in

Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions

> On 27 Nov 2023, at 20:09, Greg Brooks via mailop wrote: > > Maybe it's just like this in my world but: Everyone understands money. > > Can you make a compelling case about the hard-dollar expenses and time that > bungled IP rep and/or impacted deliverability costs? Or the math behind high

Re: [mailop] How to report abuse to cloudflare? Only via Web-Form?!? Phishing sites not against cloudflare policy!?!

On 16 Nov 2023, at 19:57, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: > > On 11/16/23 02:54, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >> The New York Times >> Laura > > Can you be more specific? Link to an article? https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=cloudflare+doxx https://letmegooglethat.co

Re: [mailop] Email Bounces

Did you follow the links and do what they told you to do? How long have you waited for a response?LauraSent from my iPhoneOn Nov 16, 2023, at 11:35 AM, Polath, Kiran via mailop wrote: Hello Team, We at Broadridge Financial Solutions sends millions of email as financial customer

Re: [mailop] How to report abuse to cloudflare? Only via Web-Form?!? Phishing sites not against cloudflare policy!?!

The New York Times Laura Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 16, 2023, at 10:19 AM, Marco wrote: > > Am 16.11.2023 schrieb Laura Atkins via mailop : > >> They protect a whole lot worse than phishing sites and have doxxed >> people who complain about abuse. > > Is

Re: [mailop] How to report abuse to cloudflare? Only via Web-Form?!? Phishing sites not against cloudflare policy!?!

> On 16 Nov 2023, at 08:49, Benoit Panizzon via mailop > wrote: > > Hi > >> If you want any real action from Cloudflare, you have to jump through the >> hoop of filling in the web based abuse form. It sucks but only you can >> decide whether it's worth your time and effort. > > Yes, but

Re: [mailop] SpamHaus FPs on 10/16 ?

Hi, Giovanni, The problem is the domain you’re sending to is using an open resolver, not that your sending IP is on spamhaus. That is explained in the link that was returned in the message. You need to contact the recipients and tell them they need to get their admins to fix it. At this

Re: [mailop] Gmail says "Message bounced due to organizational settings."

> On 27 Sep 2023, at 01:57, John Levine via mailop wrote: > > I'm doing some work for arxiv.org, the preprint server at Cornell university. > > Many gmail users have reported that when they try to send mail to > arxiv.org addresses to update their subscriptions, it fails saying > Message

Re: [mailop] New Validity policy for paid FBL (ARF)

If it’s simply a forwarding service then the format should not matter. It should be just as easy to format a XARF message as an ARF message. I think (and have thought for a long time - like since I was ab...@above.net and worked for MAPS and was trying to solve the

Re: [mailop] WPEngine, Mail Channels, 365, MX Toolbox, Mail Genius

Your SPF record is not causing your mail to hit your junk folder. Also, the link from MXtoolbox shows there is a SPF record there. It’s red because the domain doesn’t align with your 5322.from address, but you aren’t going to be able to fix that. That’s a valid SPF record and the IP address

Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin

> On 29 Aug 2023, at 03:31, John Levine via mailop wrote: > > It appears that Anne Mitchell via mailop said: >> I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this here, because it was a big win >> for Gmail plus has language which is applicable to any ISP. > > Mike Masnick at the always

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

> On 21 Aug 2023, at 10:08, Laurent S. via mailop wrote: > > > On 21.08.23 10:26, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > >> This recommendation doesn’t make sense. For companies that actually >> reject due to SPF, they’re most likely going to do it after M

Re: [mailop] hotmail.com SPF forgot IPv6

> On 19 Aug 2023, at 12:31, Gellner, Oliver via mailop > wrote: > > >> On 19.08.2023 at 12:30 Benny Pedersen via mailop wrote: >> >> prove it, it just loose dmarc aligment, if it was hardfails, lets not ignore >> domain owners, ever >> >> spf softfails can still pass dkim, hopefully you

Re: [mailop] Guide for setting up a mail server ?

> On 10 Jul 2023, at 17:44, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > > Dear ${FELLOW_EMAIL_ADMINIATRATOR}, > > I don't know how to preface this email other than to say -- I believe the > following needs to be said lest we loose even more control of our email > community. > > I'm sorry that both 1)

Re: [mailop] Transparency is key... Here is a perfect example.. M3AAWG is coming.. time to take a st

> On 31 May 2023, at 14:21, Mike Hillyer via mailop wrote: > >> I know that whois is a lost cause, and I still believe that methods for >> identifying the real controlling entities of domains would help quite a bit >> in reducing unwanted e-mail spam. > > I agree, but the reality of the

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Office365 not rejecting emails when instructed so by SPF recored?

> On 26 May 2023, at 19:16, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:34 PM Brandon Long > wrote: >> When forwarding mail, there are two options: rewrite the envelope sender or >> not. There are a variety of pros and cons to both of them, and

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Office365 not rejecting emails when instructed so by SPF recored?

> On 23 May 2023, at 21:09, Benny Pedersen via mailop wrote: > > Todd Herr via mailop skrev den 2023-05-23 20:54: > >>> Indeed, an email will only be rejected if it has DMARC setup as >>> reject. >> There should be one exception to the rule of waiting till after DATA >> to check for a DMARC

Re: [mailop] United Airlines / mileageplus DNS/rDNS mismatch issue

That’s a Sendgrid IP, they likely told UA to put in a DNS record, but UA never did. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ n > On 9 May 2023, at 18:01, Stephen Frost via mailop wrote: > > Greetings, > > I'm getting some inbound email attempts that I believe are legitimate > from United Airlines that are being rejected

Re: [mailop] Google cannot verify email authentication any more?

How long has it been since you changed it? Is it possible Google is caching SPF for longer periods of time than are in the cache to reduce their overhead? laura > On 21 Apr 2023, at 08:53, Alessandro Vesely via mailop > wrote: > > This morning I found this: > > 421-4.7.0 This mail is

Re: [mailop] Outlook.com: missing data in SNDS + IPs blocked on Apr 06

> On 16 Apr 2023, at 13:33, Fernando MM via mailop wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > April 6 data is still missing on SNDS and most of the IPs are still blocked. > > But a few hours ago I received these replies for 3 tickets that were created > on Apr 10: > > We have implemented mitigation for your

Re: [mailop] SPF behavior on email forwarding

> On 14 Apr 2023, at 12:26, Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop > wrote: > > Hi! > > What is the best approach when you receive an email that doesn't respect the > SPF (with a hard fail)? > > I'm asking because we've been running ImprovMX for a few years now and the > decision we took was that if

Re: [mailop] mailgun anybody? (variable sender address) time

> On 23 Mar 2023, at 14:47, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop > wrote: > > Hi, > > does anybody from mailgun read here? > Your messages are tmprejected at our systems, w/o any chance to pass > ever. Why are you using tmp rejections for something permanent? laura -- The Delivery Experts

Re: [mailop] warming up IPs, Microsoft?

> On 5 Mar 2023, at 21:53, Mark Fletcher via mailop wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 1:15 PM John R Levine > wrote: >> >> If you need a big VM there's always AWS. They do a surprisingly good job >> of managing outbound mail. You get 62K messages/mo for free, then

Re: [mailop] h-email.net

All of the domains I’ve checked with that MX are parked. Many of them go through multiple rounds of redirects and some of them even attempt to load apps when visited. I don’t know what they’re used for, but there don’t appear to be users there. When I do hygiene for clients I list anything

Re: [mailop] New member, trying to bring our mail server inline.

address provided to you on > https://learndmarc.com <https://learndmarc.com/>, it will show you > authentication results of direct messages from your mail server which you can > use to troubleshoot authentication further. > > - Mark Alley > > > > On 3/3/202

Re: [mailop] New member, trying to bring our mail server inline.

- if you send a test message to the address provided to you on > https://learndmarc.com <https://learndmarc.com/>, it will show you > authentication results of direct messages from your mail server which you can > use to troubleshoot authentication further. > > - Mark Alley

Re: [mailop] New member, trying to bring our mail server inline.

Based on the headers of the message you sent here (to mailop), you have yet to actually publish a public key in DNS. https://tools.wordtothewise.com/dkim/check/warwickri/1677852725 laura > On 3 Mar 2023, at 14:12, Salvatore Jr Walter P via mailop > wrote: > > We are in the final stages of

Re: [mailop] Mail Sending Self-Test Platform

> On 1 Mar 2023, at 16:21, John R Levine via mailop wrote: > >> Still, i am a bit wondering; Looking at the data flushed in so far (and >> already multiple bugs filed against implementations)... there are a lot >> of funny milters and often unmaintained software integrated in funny >> docker

Re: [mailop] Gmail blocking of good customer

If people intend to be interoperable, there is NO variation in what a 4xx and a 5xx mean. 4xx means: this message can be queued and retried at a future date. 5xx means: this message cannot be retried without human intervention. Those interactions are defined in RFC 821 and it’s successors. [1]

Re: [mailop] Feedback Loops and Sub-Domains

> On 9 Feb 2023, at 09:21, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote: > > On 2023-02-08 22:51, Support 3Hound via mailop wrote: > >> Note that especially on some providers, most user "feel" the reporting as a >> sort of "fast unsubscribe"... > > Just as a side note: In my experience the spam report

Re: [mailop] Intentionally vague SPF records.

> On 11 Jan 2023, at 13:08, Simon Burke via mailop wrote: > > All, > > This is an odd scenario, but sadly one I find myself in. > > Work is a large organisation, and currently does not have an SPF record. The > reason is that there are a large (and unknown) number of internal and >

Re: [mailop] Is there a way to unsubscribe from Nextdoor emails?

> Nextdoor is back with several messages per day. Unsubscribe link does not do > anything. > > Cheers, > Dan > > On 19/12/2022 16:51, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >> If you have an actual nextdoor account going into the account and setting >> everything to “never

Re: [mailop] Is there a way to unsubscribe from Nextdoor emails?

If you have an actual nextdoor account going into the account and setting everything to “never send me email, ever, no not even then” works fine. laura > On 19 Dec 2022, at 15:21, Daniele Nicolodi via mailop > wrote: > > Hello, > > it seems that Nextdoor recently went on a mission to

Re: [mailop] Massive bounce report campaign

This is not normal behavior, either by microsoft or your customer. My advice is the same as it was yesterday: terminate the customer. Microsoft doesn’t normally send backscatter, so the fact that you’re getting so much tells me your customer (y’know, the one who didn’t give you a way to

Re: [mailop] Massive bounce report campaign

> On 22 Nov 2022, at 11:39, Peter N. M. Hansteen via mailop > wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:54:21AM +0100, Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop wrote: >> I mean, to have 50k connections per minute to deliver bounce reports means >> that the running campaign must be in the order of millions of

Re: [mailop] SPF (and other email security protocols) Survey

On Nov 21, 2022, at 7:45 PM, Stuart Henderson via mailop wrote: > > On 2022/11/21 13:55, Taejoong (tijay) Chung via mailop wrote: >> Please note that we do NOT collect any personal information, thus >> the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Virginia Tech determined the >> survey as Non-Human

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Really good paypal phishing email this morning

Looks like this is evolving. The first round was the scammers impersonating PayPal. Looks like they got a handle on that (after a few weeks) but failed to think like the bad guys and anticipate the next round. Hopefully the fix is something that can be tweaked to cover brands not PayPal

Re: [mailop] Looks like I am getting blocked by msn.com only.

sender.office.com is for issues with O365 accounts only, it’s not for issues with the free mailbox domains. If you go to the URL in the message there will be additional information about how to resolve this. If the blocked IP is the same as the one you’re sending to the list, however, you

Re: [mailop] Update: it's not. Re: T-Online is now really blocking messages from non-commercial and simliar senders

m 21.10.2022 um 18:43 schrieb Laura Atkins via mailop : >>> >> The above statement is untrue. I know a number of mailservers that are able >> to successfully send mail to t-online.de and have never contacted the tosa@ >> address. > > Since when do those mailserv

Re: [mailop] Update: it's not. Re: T-Online is now really blocking messages from non-commercial and simliar senders

> On 21 Oct 2022, at 17:16, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop > wrote: > > Moin, > >> Consider T-Onlines move more like the overall accepted policy of not >> accepting mail from IPs that somehow have traces of residential in their PTR >> (cable, dialup etc.)? > > No. As it's not relevant

Re: [mailop] Email Cloud Providers

> On 20 Sep 2022, at 20:09, Michael Ellis via mailop wrote: > > Anyone have a suggestion for a good cloud email provider with good > deliverability and control over their customers? > > My client asked and said: > The big three seem to be Google, Microsoft, or Amazon. I expect that Google

Re: [mailop] Feedback loops (was: The oligopoly has won.)

> On 14 Sep 2022, at 09:48, Otto J. Makela via mailop wrote: > > On 13/09/2022 02.44, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > >> Most of the major mailbox providers do have other feedback loops, >> many based on ARF, that can be used for this... > Has anyone put together a good summary of available

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

> On 14 Sep 2022, at 01:24, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: > > On 9/13/22 16:13, John Levine via mailop wrote: > >> Um, why is it Google's fault that some random blacklist erroneously >> listed some of their IPs? >> As someone else said, it only makes sense to block IPs if you believe >> they

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

> On 13 Sep 2022, at 00:54, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 4:16 PM Paul Kincaid-Smith > wrote: > > We have a reasonably large sample of messages sent from Gmail, Yahoo and > Outlook and can assess how much was "spam foldered" by each

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

> On 13 Sep 2022, at 04:07, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > > On 9/12/22 8:15 PM, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote: >> I believe 'impossible' is not the prevailing sentiment. >> I believe the prevailing sentiment is that it is a challenging task, >> requiring significant expertise. > > The

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

> On 7 Sep 2022, at 13:08, Radek Kaczynski (Radek from Bouncer) via mailop > wrote: > > > > I think that destroying all email verifiers is not going to be the solution > to the problem. > I think that: > - when spam filters block based on bounce rates > - decent senders should have to have

Re: [mailop] double-singing with 2 independant DKIM-signatures for same domain

t the reason is invalid dkim signatur. > > Am Fr., 26. Aug. 2022 um 11:56 Uhr schrieb Laura Atkins via mailop > mailto:mailop@mailop.org>>: > When you say “fail” do you mean the mail is being rejected? Or just that one > signature is failing to verify with DKIM? > > laur

Re: [mailop] double-singing with 2 independant DKIM-signatures for same domain

When you say “fail” do you mean the mail is being rejected? Or just that one signature is failing to verify with DKIM? laura > On 26 Aug 2022, at 10:32, Stefan Bauer via mailop wrote: > > Hi folks, > > are 2 DKIM-signatures in a mail with different s= but for same d= a problem > in

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?

I once (many years ago) used eBay as an example of a large company the couldn’t get SPF right in a talk I gave to a bunch of marketers. Unknown to me, eBay was in the audience. Their SPF record is no longer broken. Laura Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 12, 2022, at 7:10 PM, Marcel Becker via

Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act

The research paper seems reasonably well done and I encourage people to actually read it and their conclusions rather than paying attention to the popular press takes on it. Laura Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 30, 2022, at 7:54 PM, Larry M. Smith via mailop > wrote: > > On 7/29/2022, Anne

Re: [mailop] So, Sendgrid / Zoom, planning on actually doing anything about webinar spams?

> On 25 Jul 2022, at 15:49, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote: > > On 24 Jul 2022, at 4:38, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > >> We’re trying to pull ‘what to do with a completely different message that >> might be sent in the future, possibly by a complete

Re: [mailop] So, Sendgrid / Zoom, planning on actually doing anything about webinar spams?

> On 23 Jul 2022, at 20:34, John Levine via mailop wrote: > > It appears that Bill Cole via mailop > said: >> If only we had a framework for error codes in SMTP that carry useful >> semantics... > > We do. That's what the enhanced error codes are for. See RFCs 1893 and > 5248. A lot of

Re: [mailop] So, Sendgrid / Zoom, planning on actually doing anything about webinar spams?

> On 23 Jul 2022, at 05:18, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: > > On 2022-07-22 at 12:45:18 UTC-0400 (Fri, 22 Jul 2022 12:45:18 -0400) > Luis E. Muñoz via mailop > is rumored to have said: > >> On 22 Jul 2022, at 11:49, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >> >>&g

Re: [mailop] So, Sendgrid / Zoom, planning on actually doing anything about webinar spams?

> On 22 Jul 2022, at 16:02, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote: > > On 22 Jul 2022, at 6:31, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > >> I’m agreeing there is a problem with ESPs and have said so to ESPs >> individually and as a group over the last few weeks. > > Someth

Re: [mailop] So, Sendgrid / Zoom, planning on actually doing anything about webinar spams?

> On 22 Jul 2022, at 12:22, Simon Arlott via mailop wrote: > > On 22/07/2022 10:21, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >>> After that there should be an integrated opt-in process to verify any >>> new email address for that ESP customer's list. >> >> While t

Re: [mailop] So, Sendgrid / Zoom, planning on actually doing anything about webinar spams?

> On 22 Jul 2022, at 11:13, Slavko via mailop wrote: > > Ahoj, > > Dňa Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:21:44 +0100 Laura Atkins via mailop > napísal: > >> ESPs have many, many problems, but the fixes being suggested here on >> mailop are overly simplistic

Re: [mailop] So, Sendgrid / Zoom, planning on actually doing anything about webinar spams?

>>> The basic problem is allowing an ESP customer to import a list that >>> existed before the customer became a customer of this ESP. I can't >>> think of an ESP that would not allow that. >> >> I saw this again as someone replied to it. >> >> Sadly, there is at least one legitimate reasons

Re: [mailop] Did Google become stricter about RFC 5322?

> On 13 Jul 2022, at 09:07, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote: > > On 2022-07-13 15:31:17 (+0800), Philip Paeps via mailop wrote: >> In the past couple of days, I'm seeing an uptick in rejects from Gmail as >> follows: [...] >> >> As far as I can tell, the message is compliant. It doesn't have

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Moving email server to new IP

How much mail are you sending in a single day? What kind of mail are you sending? If it’s just B2B mail you are likely to not have a huge issue here. What I would recommend is moving a few domains over at a time and let them warm up the service. So day one move your two smallest by volume.

Re: [mailop] Interesting question from a team member, MX chaining, list-manage.com

> On 1 Jul 2022, at 10:00, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: > > On 01/07/2022 09:52, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >> >>> It has a single MX record pointed at: >>> >>> mail.admin.mailchimp.com <http://mail.admin.mailchimp.com/> >>>

Re: [mailop] Interesting question from a team member, MX chaining, list-manage.com

> On 30 Jun 2022, at 22:00, Michael Peddemors via mailop > wrote: > > I know this doesn't look professional, but the question from the team member > does this contravene any rules or best practices. > > list-manage.com > > This domain does not have any A records. If there’s no website it

Re: [mailop] Looking for contact at iphmx.com

If you put iphmx into google, you get a clear statement in the first page of responses that says iphmx is controlled by Cisco. But the rejection message is telling you to contact the recipient - not the filter owner. laura > On 28 Jun 2022, at 11:09, Sidsel Jensen via mailop wrote: > >

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Announces Tenant Trusted ARC Seal

> On 20 Jun 2022, at 18:05, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: > > I didn't really "get" ARC when it comes to mailing lists, there seems > to be little point, as I felt that most people already dealt with > mailing lists under DMARC via header rewriting. Header rewriting is awful if you’re using

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Announces Tenant Trusted ARC Seal

> On 19 Jun 2022, at 20:22, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote: > > It occurred to me that it might help for me to provide more context to the > questions I asked. I was possibly relying too much on the thread context... > > > On 6/18/2022 3:40 PM, Noel Butler via mailop wrote: > >> I was a

Re: [mailop] Help with identifying invalid email domains

Given that DuckDuckGo is in the business of forwarding email, they MUST use confirmed opt-in to avoid having someone mistype an email address. It’s not just the domain part that’s in consideration here, they need to ensure that typos don’t happen on the left hand side as well. I’d argue that

Re: [mailop] Does anyone know, how operates h-email.net email service?

According to the wayback machine that domain has been redirecting to swisshost.ch ’s “domain for sale page” since at least December 2014. There’s an earlier crawl in mid-2014 that looks like it might be a real domain. laura > On 29 Apr 2022, at 14:16, Benoît Panizzon

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 15 Apr 2022, at 18:29, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote: > > > Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 16:53:11 Laura Atkins via mailop pisze: > > "EU.org, free domain names since 1996” > > You quoted that. Eu.org is a *domain registrar*. Only. They don't offer any > ema

Re: [mailop] DKIM by the third party

A major reason many ESPs double DKIM sign is because two major providers (Google and Yahoo) will only provide compliance data (FBL in the case of Yahoo and access to Google Postmaster Tools in the case of Google) based on DKIM. While it is possible to have customers (or register for customers),

Re: [mailop] Odd delay at Gmail ?

> On 20 Apr 2022, at 16:44, Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop > wrote: > > Thank you all. > > About Laura's question, I can confirm that on our end, we successfully > forwarded the message with a 2XX response from Google within a few seconds. > Our timestamp show that this user should have

Re: [mailop] FYI - Google/Gmail hard enforcing SPF presence

> On 19 Apr 2022, at 18:53, Tim Düsterhus via mailop wrote: > > On 4/19/22 16:57, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >> We just did 2 tests, one with an email that violated half a dozen best >> practices and one that has a SPFSoftfail (with no DKIM). > > I beli

Re: [mailop] FYI - Google/Gmail hard enforcing SPF presence

On 19 Apr 2022, at 16:11, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: > > And we also see that they have not yet 'hard enforced', but it looks like > some trigger on a domain results in requiring SPF for that domain. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were some triggers that made authentication be

Re: [mailop] FYI - Google/Gmail hard enforcing SPF presence

Short version: google is not hard enforcing SPF presence. Copies of emails delivered to my google spam folder are attached. > On 19 Apr 2022, at 14:54, Lichtinger, Bernhard via mailop > wrote: > > Hi, > >> Well i have no SPF records. See [doraji.xyz]. And all incoming emails go >> to

Re: [mailop] Office 365 Different Hop Count Exceeded

Content filters on the final destination domain rejecting the mail in a way that isn’t a permanent failure. Laura Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 18, 2022, at 9:49 PM, Mike Hammett via mailop > wrote: > >  > Reported error: 554 5.4.14 Hop count exceeded - possible mail loop > ATTR34

Re: [mailop] does ESP have the preference for email domains

> On 17 Apr 2022, at 23:57, wilson via mailop wrote: > > Hello > > some people told me not to use .xyz domain b/c it's more spammers liked. > may I ask if the big ESP or the open antispam policies have the preference on > domains? such as com/net/org is preferred, but xyz/top/pro is not.

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 18 Apr 2022, at 08:35, Vittorio Bertola via mailop > wrote: > > >> Il 15/04/2022 16:43 Laura Atkins via mailop ha scritto: >> >> All of the complaints I’ve seen about google track back to: the person was >> either actively sending spam (possibly u

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 17 Apr 2022, at 04:51, John Levine via mailop wrote: > > It appears that Paul Vixie via mailop said: >> srsly? do you really think changing one's domain name or ISP is a >> reasonable way forward when google isn't accepting one's e-mail? > > When your domain is a cruddy free one which

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 15 Apr 2022, at 18:29, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote: > > On 15 Apr 2022, at 12:50, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > > Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 16:53:11 Laura Atkins via mailop pisze: > > "EU.org, free domain names since 1996” > > You quoted that. Eu.o

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 15 Apr 2022, at 17:24, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: > > On 2022-04-15 at 10:43:13 UTC-0400 (Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:43:13 +0100) > Laura Atkins via mailop > is rumored to have said: > >> Recipients have agency here and can move elsewhere for mail. The fact that

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 15 Apr 2022, at 16:39, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > > On 4/15/22 9:09 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >> How is my own VPS, that I pay for, that only I control and only I use to >> send mail "a free service that doesn't police users for email" ??? > > Your VPS doesn't sound like

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 15 Apr 2022, at 15:24, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 7:41 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop > wrote: >> >> Dnia 14.04.2022 o godz. 12:40:52 Al Iverson via mailop pisze: Yes, it is unfixable. Once Google's AI decides (for no apparent reason) that it

Re: [mailop] Anyone else experiencing a spike in Spamhaus CSS listings lately?

That sounds very strange for sure. I’ve not heard anything from others about problematic CSS listings (and the 9am thing is weird). Are they accompanied by DBL listings or are they just the sending IPs? The standard with CSS-style listings is there is a problem with your address collection

  1   2   3   >