Sebastian Arcus via mailop wrote:-
>> Michael's suggestion of checking for compromise of CPE (routers etc) is
>> also well worth pursuing.
>
>I have though about that as well. The only possibility that I can come
>up with is the Fritzbox VDSL modem/router sitting in front of the Linux
Sebastian Arcus via mailop wrote:-
>In that case I think I am back to square one. If an infected device
>connecting to 587/465 to various servers on the internet, from our
>network, to try and guess passwords/break into accounts wouldn't have
>used the FQDN of our public IP as HELO - then
The "anti-spoofing" policies within Mimecast are configured on a customer
by customer basis. These policies are a fairly blunt tool, and are set by
default on new Mimecast accounts. They can apply to the "From:" header,
the sender envelope address or both.
The member should be able to take it
ith bounce processing is going to
>have a mismatched return-path/envelope sender.
>IMHO, hasn't really been a good spam sign for a good long time.
>
>Cheers,
>Al
>
>On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 9:22 AM Matthew Richardson via mailop
> wrote:
>>
>> I have an issue wit
I have an issue with email from one domain being repeatedly mis-classified
as spam by assorted receivers, including Messagelabs.
Looking at their outgoing email, I notice that it uses BATV, the Internet
Draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-levine-smtp-batv having
been written by
Ken O'Driscoll wrote:-
>* Use different DKIM keypairs for each list
Out of interest, why?
Are there any known issues with using the same keypair across multiple
lists, or indeed across multiple sending domains?
--
Best wishes,
Matthew
___
mailop
Slavko:-
>D?a 13. júna 2022 11:19:08 UTC pouívate? Matthew Richardson via mailop
> napísal:
>
>>One item to be aware of is that the outgoing servers (which return the
>>messages) do DANE validation, and thus will not deliver to any servers with
>>failed DANE.
>
Jesse Hathaway:-
>I am working on some architectural changes to our email systems at the
>Wikimedia Foundation[1] and I am a bit befuddled as to the best way to
>test changes to the current system. As you all are all aware email is a
>distrubted system which encompases a wide variety of protocols.
Alexander Huynh via mailop wrote:-
>On 2022-01-29 09:15:02 +0000, Matthew Richardson via mailop wrote:
>> You may wish to have some authentication between O365 and Exim. The MS
>> document linked discusses how to do this with certificates.
>
>The certificate setup li
Alexander Huynh via mailop wrote:-
>Meaning that domains `outlook.com` and `mail.alokind.com` have managed to use
>Exchange
>365 infrastructure to try and route email through my connector.
As a thought (probably wrong) could this be caused by your O365 users
forwarding INCOMING email to them
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 09:01:39 -0800, Don Owens via mailop
wrote:-
>We have the domain back now, but we have to wait for propagation delays. If
>you query the name servers they Arne mentioned, that should give you the right
>IPs.
>
>Sorry for the trouble, folks. Now I have to go see who needs
lop
>To: "Matthew Richardson via mailop"
>Cc:
>Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 08:24:36 -0500
>Subject: Re: [mailop] DNS issues for CloudFilter?
>On 12 Jan 2021, at 3:02, Matthew Richardson via mailop wrote:
>
>> That NS is provided by AWS Route53. My experience is that t
That NS is provided by AWS Route53. My experience is that they have some
sort of internal propriatory propagation of updates which does not use the
serial number. Looking at another zone, I also think that they leave the
serial number at 1 all the time.
Best wishes,
Matthew
--
>From: Bill
13 matches
Mail list logo
