On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 12:06 PM Mark E. Jeftovic via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> So it is looking like Yahoo is not accepting email forwards (at least from
> us) since Friday, May 17th.
>
No, that's not the case.
PH01 errors are suspected phish.
And as I suggested yesterday, please
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 12:25 PM Richard W via mailop
wrote:
> Since Shaw is now owned by Rogers, would that be a Yahoo issue?
>
No.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 10:43 AM Mark E. Jeftovic via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> Either hard bouncing:
>
> Those contain the reason, a link with more information as well as how and
where to get support.
> Or worse: accepting the email *and then not delivering it*.
>
No.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:56 AM Gellner, Oliver via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> True, however I never came across a S/MIME- or PGP-signed spam or phishing
> message - and we receive a lot of S/MIME emails. I wonder if others on this
> list have made different experiences.
> The spammers
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 7:11 AM Michael Peddemors via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> All throw away domains, .xyz, .shop, .online, they are using ATT/Yahoo
> addresses
> From: RTIC backpack cooler
>
> Lil? Marcel? Any luck stopping these actors from your end?
>
Looking. Those are ATT
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 2:48 PM Damon via mailop wrote:
>
> I do believe attaching anti-spam/anti-phish benefits to the promotion
> of BIMI was a poor choice.
>
Wait. Somebody managed to combine two dumpster fire topics into one?
Forwarding and BIMI? Well done...
-- Marcel
On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 01:26 Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> Can someone help me understand what will happen when an MTA that Google
> would classify as large, thus triggering their strict compliance
> requirements, sends what isn't list email, and where the idea of an
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 7:46 AM Royce Williams via mailop
wrote:
> This only applies if your sending more than 5000 messages per day.
>> Most smaller senders are still fine using only "SPF *or* DKIM" and do not
>> *need* a DMARC record:
>>
>> https://support.google.com/a/answer/81126
>>
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:03 AM Robert L Mathews via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> I see occasional bounces from AOL/Yahoo that look like this:
>
> 554 5.7.9 Message not accepted for policy reasons. See
> https://postmaster.yahooinc.com/error-codes
Without knowing anything else, I'd
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 07:40 John Levine wrote:
>
> >They support IMAP as well.
>
> That's the other direction. You can tell them to collect mail from
> external
> accounts, which they only do by POP.
That’s not the only option they offer. While they might use POP3 for most
accounts in the
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 5:25 PM Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> Interestingly, Google's GMail allows access to external eMail
> accounts via POP3. There's no IMAP4 support there.
>
They support IMAP as well.
-- Marcel
On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 13:33 Thomas Walter via mailop
wrote:
>
> Well, there could be if providers would stop delivering what they think
> is spam into spamfolders and reject it instead.
That’s actually what they already do in 99% of all spam cases. Rejecting
known bad email at the gate is
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 10:35 AM Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
> It seems messages being sent from 173.225.104.91 are being delivered into
> Gmail user's spam boxes.
> These messages are DKIM signed, pass SPF and DMARC.
>
Properly meeting basic email authentication standards does not mean
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 12:09 AM Thomas Walter via mailop
wrote:
That said: Does anyone know if Google identifies "senders" by
> From:-Domain or IP?
>
It's documented: https://wordtothewise.com/2024/01/yahoogle-faqs/
(And I keep using Steve's blog post so I don't have to remember the URLs
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 9:33 AM Tim Starr via mailop
wrote:
> https://senders.yahooinc.com/smtp-error-codes/
>
> I think they have the wrong URL in the bounce. Will report to Yahoo.
>
Thanks. We already know. Sometimes things break. Will fix.
___
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:14 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop
wrote:
> Attempting to legally prevent MUA developers from displaying logos
> competing with BIMI's
> approved logos, likewise.
>
Nobody is doing or expecting this.
___
mailop mailing list
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:58 AM Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> They could
> easily afford set up a company, get a Trademark, and then use a
> different logo image when sending their junk eMails.
>
No, that's not how VMCs and BIMI set ups at
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:15 PM Brett Schenker via mailop
wrote:
> so please try again to justify why this is needed
>
I don't think I have to. The actual reasons and motivations are laid out on
that page.
And if you try a little harder you can even listen to me talk about it
elsewhere on the
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 2:38 PM Brett Schenker wrote:
> I've read that, multiple times.
>
Then I am sure you read everything on that page and not just the first
sentence.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 1:12 PM Brett Schenker via mailop
wrote:
> Since DMARC is now required by Google and Yahoo for bulk sending, it kind
> of makes BIMI not as needed. I'm still not sure what BIMI solves that
> enforcing authentication doesn't.
>
https://bimigroup.org/mailbox-providers/
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 9:34 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
> NOBODY NEEDS THESE IMAGES.
>
You are certainly entitled to that opinion. But what do we really need?
Quite a philosophical question...
-- Marcel
___
mailop mailing list
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 8:20 AM Olga Fischer via mailop
wrote:
>
> How will common platforms show user2user?
> Will they use platform logos? No logos?
>
BIMI is for organizational logos. Personal avatars and profile pictures are
for people. It's really simple.
-- Marcel
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 10:05 AM Gregory Gulik via mailop
wrote:
> We did get one response and told them that the issue they identified had
> been addressed by having that customer removed and permanently banned from
> our platform.No response since then. That was several days ago.
>
So it
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:05 AM Mamidi, Sandeep via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> We need cox.net post master details
>
Google answered your question with:
https://www.cox.com/residential/support/cox-postmaster-administration.html
___
mailop
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 2:52 PM Mamidi, Sandeep via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> We need comcast postmaster email address , Any one from comcast ?
>
Have you tried this first: http://postmaster.comcast.net
-- Marcel
___
mailop mailing list
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 8:54 AM Larry Smith via mailop
wrote:
> Hmmm, so are these simply connections this filter is blocking
> or verifiable (high probability of spam source) spam connections?
>
Spam. Of course.
> From the conversation it seems mom and pop's are the ones losing
>
"seems"
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 12:46 AM Thomas Mechtersheimer via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> Do you have any numbers that suggest that this specific method does filter
> a significant amount of spam which other filters would not recognise?
>
Yes, of course. We wouldn't do it otherwise. It's
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:19 AM Slavko via mailop
wrote:
>
> Would not be more effective to not use technique prone to false
> positives? For both sides...
>
So you mean not trying to filter spam or fight spammers at all? I have not
seen a solution which doesn't produce false positives.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:35 AM Robert L Mathews via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> I still think this is a check that's prone to false positives
>
Or other issues. Yes. That's why we are also helping where we can when
folks reach out to us.
-- Marcel
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:00 AM Bill Cole via mailop
wrote:
>
> It is worth noting that this is in no way a "standard" or even a
> widely-known "best practice"
>
Nobody has claimed that.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
>
>
> No. I might as well reveal the actual domain names involved, since it's
> not particularly secret: it's "westfir.or.us" and "ci.westfir.or.us".
>
>
It's actually not that complicated. We want to see an SOA record for either
the domain OR the organizational domain.
We use the PSL to
Kyle? Or optipub?
If you send an email to the support address listed on the website (which I
think you did several times) you will get an automatic response telling you
more. I suggest actually reading through that.
On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 21:18 Opti Pub via mailop wrote:
>
>
> Is anybody
On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 11:28 PM Matt Palmer via mailop
wrote:
>
> It's also a completely unhinged policy. But, then again, Yahoo!'s been so
> deranged for so long that the boss of a job I worked at the better part of
> a
> decade ago decided that if someone complained about not receiving our
>
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 11:13 AM Christian Seitz via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> Now it would be great to hear anything directly from Yahoo
>
Aber natürlich!
Replied off list.
-- Marcel
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 12:16 PM Jarland Donnell via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> id=<481770.862217189-sendEmail@srv4414> (554 Message not allowed -
> [299])
>
This is most likely not the full SMTP response we provide. The full one
will tell you the reason -- including a link to a page
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 2:08 AM Graeme Slogrove via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> We are having emails from our cloud service going directly to the SPAM
> folder in Yahoo/ATT.
>
Lili already helped, but in general we encourage folks to go to
https://senders.yahooinc.com for help and
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 1:46 AM Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> Forwarding your abuse mail to a google mailbox isn't really a good idea...
>
Most likely not a forward. Most likely the mailbox is actually hosted
there. They also have proofpoint in front. Wrong
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 13:32 Julian Bradfield via mailop
wrote:
>
In what way is it easier to revoke an OAuth2 token than it is to
> change a password?
It’s easier to revoke access of a specific app without interrupting the
users access to other apps. Vs. Invalidating the password which
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 2:54 PM Andrew C Aitchison via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2022, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) via mailop wrote:
>
> > If you're running OpenSMTPD (such as an OpenBSD system),
> > here's how to return the favour to t-online.
>
> Can people
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:54 AM Carsten Schiefner via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
Having read up the entire thread now, I wonder if this issue might be worth
> raising with Germany‘s federal regulator for (inter alia) postal and telco
> services, BNetzA.
>
I'd say don't embarrass
Dear RFC2142,
Email responses to email abuse. thank you, very much
> Best regards, RFC 2142
>
Just because you exist doesn't mean I can't be helpful and provide
alternate means to somebody who wants to share abuse details with us while
the other means are being looked at and fixed.
Regards,
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 10:43 AM Peter Nicolai Mathias Hansteen via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
My attempt at reaching the conventional abuse contact for yahoo dot com
> bounced as undeliverable, apparently what they rewrote to on incoming does
> not in fact exist:
>
You can use
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 11:01 AM Michael Peddemors via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> Pop Quiz.. how many recursive DNS queries are supposed to be
> in SPF max?
>
42?
- Marcel
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 4:46 PM Tobias Fiebig via mailop
wrote:
The gmail feature 'dynamic email' [1] just flew by me,
>
It's not really "new". It's also not unique to Gmail. Other providers
(including us) support it as well. Brandon already provided the details.
It's actually AMP for email,
On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 4:29 PM Michael Peddemors via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
IT also requires one to have the resources of Gmail to implement...
Sender side? MBP side? MUA side? Short answer is: "No". Slightly longer is
"it depends".
> Where they care about every change that
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 16:27 Robert L Mathews via mailop
wrote:
Anyone else seeing the same thing? Now I'm in the position of having to
> either start adding missing Message-ID headers, which people online
> recommend against because it potentially breaks DKIM, or telling people
> Windows
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 4:04 PM sam via mailop wrote:
> I am trying to track down a contact for aol.com as we have a couple users
> who are emailing into aol.com but there mail is landing in spam
>
You can get support at https://senders.yahooinc.com
- Marcel
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:17 AM Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
Been preaching about this for years. Have yet to get anybody of value's
> attention.
>
I might not be of value, but I did respond to this the last time you
brought this up and shared our reasoning and perspective.
- Marcel
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 3:10 AM Benoît Panizzon via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> I added our ISP email service email domains. But we also host
> business customer domains on that email platform, which I can not all
> add.
>
It might be a good idea to sign those emails leaving your
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 9:22 AM Bill Cole via mailop
wrote:
Yahoo accepting mail that never arrives anywhere is not.
>
That's not really a thing. But please elaborate. You can also share
examples off-list if you want.
- Marcel
___
mailop mailing list
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 2:58 PM Paul Vixie via mailop
wrote:
> that google is provably wrong and provably non-transarent in how they
> decide what inbound e-mail to reject.
>
Unless you have a solution which ensures that only good senders are able to
send email, then yes, you will find that
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 7:29 AM Luis E. Muñoz via mailop
wrote:
>
> I am looking at some data showing substantial email traffic increase (2x
> baseline) along with a visible change in the spam filtering statistics,
> centered at or near 2022-02-28. Are you guys aware of any publicly
> available
On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 8:53 PM Mike via mailop wrote:
>
> : host mta7.am0.yahoodns.net[67.195.228.106] said: 554
> 5.7.9
> Message not accepted for policy reasons. See
> https://postmaster.yahooinc.com/error-codes (in reply to end of DATA
> command)
>
> And refers me to a useless
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 20:43 Al Iverson wrote:
>
> > That "URL" is our postmaster / sender support site.
> > Everything you are looking for is right there. So not sure why you did
> not click on "Contact". Or at least "FAQs".
I was in fact referring to the first URL he got in the SMTP error
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 4:28 PM Matthew Pounsett via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> The 4xx error message we were getting
> included a URL to some best practices, which suggested signing up for
> Yahoo's Complaint Feedback Loop, but without providing any indication
> of how to do that.
>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 2:00 AM Edgaras | SENDER via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> sorry, I can't describe the stupidity and incompetence of Gmail systems
> lately without resorting to expletives.
>
Personally I think it's more productive -- and in the spirit of this
mailing list -- to
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:27 AM Michael Peddemors via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> The regular Docusign stuff is going through fine.. Just to help out a
> developer who might not realize what's going wrong ;)
>
I shared it with a DocuSign employee who shared it in their internal
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 4:14 PM Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
If a service is going to block/blacklist/throttle messages by the sending
> IP, then what good does it do to base feedback loops and spam reports on a
> domain basis? A sending IP could have 1000 domains sending from it and
> only 1
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 2:39 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
>
> Maybe set up an address like spamrep...@your-provider.com where users
> should
> forward all messages they consider to be spam?
>
Not helpful. And please don't encourage regular users to forward spam to
abuse addresses.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 4:12 PM Russell Clemings via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
Not sure about Yahoo -- looking quickly I don't see a way to autofilter
> into spam
>
We don't allow that -- for precisely the obvious reasons.
- Marcel
___
mailop
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 3:34 PM Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
> Yahoo's Feedback Loop is DomainKey based, but their blocking is IP based.
> At least that's how it used to be. Never made much sense to me to have an
> FBL based on DomainKeys
>
You are changing the topic. But regardless: Makes
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 1:38 PM Marcel Becker
wrote:
>
> We only send FBL/CFL reports if the user actually hits the "Report as
> Spam" button in our apps.
>
Well. Turns out I lied. A little.
There might be *some* ARFs being generated if we have reason to believe
that it was a valid spam vote /
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 2:01 PM Matt Vernhout via mailop
wrote:
> Also check which email client they are using. For example Thunderbird, or
> another plugin, may move mail from the inbox to the junk folder without the
> user taking action.
>
>
That will not (or rather *should* not) not trigger
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 2:22 PM Douglas Vought via mailop
wrote:
> The weird thing is that it came ~10 seconds after that email was sent.
> So I'm wondering if maybe it's automated. Or my customer has superhuman
> spam-reporting capabilities ;)
>
Some people are ;-)
Let me double check that
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:09 PM Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> If it was sent by Yahoo on behalf of their user (I don't know whether that
> happens), you might want to reach out to
> Yahoo to clear things up.
>
We only send FBL/CFL reports if the user actually hits
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 11:24 AM Douglas Vought via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> But it happened again. The Yahoo anti-spam feedback system is saying an
> email we sent her is abuse.
>
Can you clarify what you mean by the "Yahoo anti-spam feedback system"? Is
it an actual ARF report
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 6:53 PM Luke via mailop wrote:
> PH01 is their phishing rejection. They see something they don't like in
> one of the URIs. They usually fix these false positives pretty quick if you
> submit a ticket here
>
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:16 AM Mary via mailop wrote:
>
> The moment I read that BIMI requires payment, my mind went to the paid SSL
> certificates and how its all about scamming normal people for money they
> shouldn't pay in the first place.
>
>
BIMI itself is free (as free as DMARC or any
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 2:57 AM Otto J. Makela via mailop
wrote:
>
> Contacts automatically collects email addresses from email messages and
> other sources into the user's address book.
>
I have never seen this and I am not sure that this is even a thing. The
contacts app should really just
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:10 AM Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> However, this technology seems to be very immature and only fragmentary
> documented in some aspects. I was able to find just one (!) valid VMC
> for `valimail.com` domain in the wild.
>
Have a look at
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 2:50 PM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
Postmaster Tools is and always was empty.
>
I am pretty sure they have a minimum volume limit for privacy reasons. We
offer similar feeds and we have the same requirements.
Even if someone clicks on "this is not spam", the
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:51 AM Bastian Blank via mailop
wrote:
> And that's where it is up to you to stop ranting and providing proof.
> Aka provide enough e-mail headers (aka all with only identifying
> information removed) so people can identify what you see.
>
>
All good. I got details off
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 6:16 PM Steven Champeon via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> Lately, none of her messages have
> contained a Message-ID header
>
Of course we add message ids headers. How are those emails being sent? Feel
free to share more details directly with me if you don't want
On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 5:31 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
>
> Therefore, apart of obvious cases to block (widespread distribution of the
> same, unsolicited email to random users, obvious scam/phish or messages
> containing known malware) the spam filtering needs to be adjusted per user
>
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 8:41 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
discriminating small senders, by not trusting those senders by default
>
More than 90% of the stuff hitting us is garbage. So I think not trusting
anybody by default is not a bad idea.
> running over-aggressive spam filters,
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 3:46 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
>
> Those from Google come usually in 4 copies, with those from Yahoo the
> number
> varies from 2 to 14 (that seems to be maximum number I got).
>
If they are indeed the same (ie: the actual report in the attachment is the
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:25 AM Alvin Fu via mailop
wrote:
> Anyone getting an unreasonable amount of soft bounces from Verizon?
>
> This is killing our deliverability by 20%.
>
>
>
> Messages from XXX temporarily deferred due to unexpected volume or
> user complaints - 4.16.55.1; see
>
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 3:11 PM Matthew Black via mailop
wrote:
> It looks like AOL’s mail servers won’t authenticate swallowed accounts
> (Verizon and Fronteir) as of July 13, or perhaps earlier. Any AOL
> postmasters around?
>
1: This is not a postmaster issue.
2: I already provided you with
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:16 AM Matthew Black via mailop
wrote:
> I can no longer sign in to my @verizon.net e-mail account using Outlook
> but can using https://mail.aol.com
>
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 12:43 AM Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> One option that you should consider to mitigate the effects for recipients
> is to allow per-recipient DMARC exceptions, because the recipient is the
> one who ultimately decides whether mail is wanted
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:58 Jay Hennigan via mailop
wrote:
> Simply changing "Junk" to "Report as
> spam" would help a lot.
Unfortunately no, it would not.
- Marcel
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 9:18 AM Thomas Walter via mailop
wrote:
>
> You can not trust users to identify spam.
>
This. A Thousand times this. A lot of us privileged with the insight into
how mail technically works (or so) have difficulties grasping how real
people use mail. And the available
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 08:07 Michael Orlitzky via mailop
wrote:
>
> Abuse reports for non-abuse also scale linearly.
No.
> I don't see ignoring spam to decrease expenses
>
I see you actually didn’t read Brandon’s mail.
___
mailop mailing list
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 7:58 PM Brandon Long via mailop
wrote:
>
> We can always do better. When people start to complain, it probably means
> we're missing something new or have let the low level things grow too much.
> Thanks.
>
I really admire you. That you took that time to explain the
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 4:38 AM Michael Orlitzky via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> Pay more and more people to do it, until the number of unhandled abuse
> reports at the end of the day is zero. It scales linearly.
>
So you would gladly pay thousands of people to deal with abuse reports
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:02 AM Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> If a company is active in some business area, it should be competent in
> handling the risks associated with that area. A small business does not
> need to run an abuse desk, even though their e-mail
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 7:11 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
>
> Strange that Sendgrid, being an email company, does not even self-host it's
> company email, but resorts to Google for this. Doesn't look very
> professional...
>
Bulk mail, email marketing, consumer email, enterprise email.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 7:00 PM Michael Wise via mailop
wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, Elizabeth Zwicky said it was quite dead.
>
>
>
That was replaced with this:
https://postmaster.verizonmedia.com/email-deliverability-performance-feeds
Cheers,
Marcel
___
mailop
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 11:00 Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
>
> Back in the day, AOL had a great feedback loop system. This system was
> immensely helpful for us, because it allowed us to find spammers on our
> servers very quickly. But either that feedback loop system died off or AOL
>
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 7:48 AM Laura Atkins via mailop
wrote:
> I don’t think it survived the VMG merger.
>
> It ceased to exist long before that. There are other IP based feeds now.
Cheers,
Marcel
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:14 Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
> I only ever knew of the DKIM one. Which never made a lot of sense to me -
> since with shared hosting there can be multiple domains sending mail from
> an IP. To configure DKIM and the DKIM feedback loop for every domain
> wasn't
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 9:36 AM Seth Mattinen via mailop
wrote:
>
> It asks for DKIM stuff; I need IP based.
>
That hasn't been a thing for many years. Everything else is at
https://postmaster.verizonmedia.com.
Cheers,
Marcel
___
mailop mailing list
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:13 PM Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
> Anybody from AT able to contact me off list concerning an issue with
> messages sent from our server (192.158.238.23) to AT related email
> addresses and being delivered into their spam folder?
>
>
That highly depends on which
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 1:11 AM Atro Tossavainen via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> Why does Google bounce after accepting a message? At Google's scale,
> the potential to become the world's biggest spammer simply through
> backscatter is enormous.
>
>
What do you prefer they do with that
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:17 PM Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
I've got a user that claims he's not getting our messages. I checked our
> outbound logs and the messages are showing as being accepted by AT's mail
> servers - 144.160.235.144 - but the user is claiming they don't have the
>
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 10:51 AM Adam Moffett via mailop
wrote:
> Meanwhile I have found in Google searching that GMail allows 25MB and I
> believe O365 is 150MB max.
>
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/message-size-limits-yahoo-mail-sln5673.html
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:34 AM Ryan Wittenauer via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> Looking to build as much information possible on the best contact and best
> approach to get a dialogue started with Verizon Media
>
group about email from our system getting blocked.
>
The very first step
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:36 PM Andre Mascak via mailop
wrote:
> We've got a client with emails going directly to the SPAM folder to his
> clients and his own account at Yahoo. The SPF / DKIM / DMARC records
> have all been configured as of a few months ago, but this seems to have
> just come
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:14 AM Vaibhav via mailop
wrote:
> dkim=perm_fail
>
> What could be the reason for the above issue ?
>
Without any additional information we can all just guess ;-)
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 2:02 AM Atro Tossavainen via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> For example, take 13.111.0.0/16. A network of /16 size has 65,536 entries,
> more or less. About one third are whitelisted by the CSA in this case.
> All are however owned by the same op that is required
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
