Re: [mailop] What is Yahoo TSS09 ?

On 6 May 2024 23:47:20 -0400, John R Levine via mailop wrote: >> Any suggestions? > >To answer the obvious questions, it all has DKIM signatures and the SPF is >updated, so it ain't that. My suspicions point in the direction of a seldom-updated file of invalid routes, or some such.

Re: [mailop] is warming IPs still necessary?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:58:33 -0700, Gerald Oskoboiny via mailop wrote: >Is it still necessary to warm up new IP addresses gradually >instead of going directly to this volume of deliveries? My >impression is that it's less and less necessary in the age of >DMARC, SPF and DKIM. The rule that

Re: [mailop] Debt Collection Client Email Servers

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:21:51 +, Matt Palmer via mailop wrote: >That's some mighty early adoption you've got there. Yeah. I'm gonna have my cataract surgery in a couple weeks. Meanwhile, the correct number is 1996. Fytu, mdr ___ mailop

Re: [mailop] Debt Collection Client Email Servers

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:47:11 +, Michael Irvine via mailop wrote: >I can't say the specific lenders, but I can say that it is not just bank and >money lending. We have clients who are from the courts and other 3rd parties >that do not fully validate the email that is given to them. We still

Re: [mailop] SpamHaus listings

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:55:19 -0600, Richard W via mailop wrote: >I don't participate in guessing games. Too old and grumpy for that. I >just move on. Thus my own lack of further engagement. mdr -- Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Re: [mailop] SpamHaus listings

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:40:16 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via mailop wrote: >Are there any other checks or measures I can do? What exactly is the Zen result code? There are many reasons for such listings. mdr -- "There are no laws here, only agreements." --

Re: [mailop] Anyone from Microsoft?

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 14:59:09 -0800, Mark Fletcher via mailop wrote: >Is there somewhere else I should be looking? You might wish to consider omphaloskepsis. The chances of a useful outcome will be closely similar. mdr ___ mailop mailing list

Re: [mailop] Bounces at cox.net (AUP#CXSNDR)

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:04:07 +, Simplelists - Andy Beverley via mailop wrote: >Hi all, > >Has anyone seen an uptick in bounces in the last day or so to cox.net? Looking at consolidated statistics for all our hosted senders, 1,034,662 new messages in past 72 hours, 6,151 (0.52%) failed.

Re: [mailop] Contact of postmaster for hostedemail.com domains

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:22:27 + (GMT), Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: >If nobody complains, >then a single complaint is likely to get attention :-) In my corporate experience, if nobody complains, then there will be nobody to read complaints. Simple cost containment. mdr --

Re: [mailop] Increase in outlook.com S3150 rejections

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 11:15:44 -0300, Fernando MM via mailop wrote: >Hi, > >Over the past two weeks, I started to notice an increase in the number of >S3150 rejections. A significant percentage of my clients are seeing complete blockage at those domains. At the moment the best we can offer is

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] Anyone else noticing an increase in spam from Office365 distribution lists?

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 15:35:42 +0100, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: >Am 17.01.24 um 15:20 schrieb Paul Menzel via mailop: >> With this in mind, did somebody compile a block list yet? Or should I just >> create a whitelist? > >A block list does not make sense, as new domains are added

Re: [mailop] Mimecast - Increased greylisting/rate-limiting

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 17:35:38 +0200, Stephan Fourie via mailop wrote: >Anyone else seeing the same issue? Or, can offer some advice? A large number of the clients I monitor daily are seeing this regularly. The mail eventually goes through. mdr ___

Re: [mailop] Historical spam loads - was Re: Google rate-limiting more aggressively than usual?

On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 19:02:04 + (GMT), Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: >That is a surprise to hear. Reading this list has given me the impression >that the spam volume is worse now than it was then. Spamming is a much bigger >business now and the internet is faster, so I would have

Re: [mailop] Legit-looking mail to the wrong address with no unsubscribe

On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 11:30:19 -0600, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote: >Well, and also *confirming* the email address to start with. Let's think about Heather, a mother of three in eastern Kansas, who signed up a while ago for real estate topics, presumably at a co-reg site of some sort. Cometh

Re: [mailop] Charter/Spectrum contact

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:47:56 -0400, "John Stoffel" wrote: > >I'd love to be contacted as well, since my VPS is black listed and I >can't get email into my own personal @charter.net account from my own >mail server. Sigh... Based on my experience so far today, I expect that you will already

Re: [mailop] Charter/Spectrum contact

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 18:10:50 +, Brian Kowalewicz via mailop wrote: >Hi, > >For the record, someone did reach out. I’ll try and put you in contact. I've been contacted. Thanks, all. mdr ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org

Re: [mailop] Charter/Spectrum contact

Hello, Did you get a reply? We're seeing some strange (reported) concurrent connection issues with customers who never make more than one concurrent connection, but when this condition is absent otherwise have a single-digit per 10,000 messages refusal rate. mdr -- Those who can make

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

On 9 Jul 2023 22:07:38 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >In fact it's for people but you never know what some people will do. >Don't start by letting your chatty user send "here's my new address" >to all 10,000 people in his address book. Ah. Somebody doing that on my server would get an

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

On 9 Jul 2023 18:39:22 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >= start slow and look at any bounces This implies to me that this will be a broadcast server rather than mailboxes for individuals and businesses. If so, there are some paragraphs that might need to be added, especially about list

[mailop] Seeking Synacor / Zimbra contact

We (GreenArrow Email) are having a bit of false-positive problems with the spam filtering system that appears to be part of this product. A couple of our hosted senders only get complaints when their mail _doesn't_ arrive. When those complaints arrive, they open a ticket with us. We'd like to

Re: [mailop] SendGrid is deleting your mail

On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 14:28:33 +0100, Dmytro Homoniuk via mailop wrote: >*In a very non-confrontational way* I want to express my opinion and to >note that's pretty much how senders operate right now: too often the smtp >code and enhanced code the recipient system returns have nothing to do with

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Strange mail delivery from microsoft

On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:26:22 -0400, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: >> That is absolutely ignorant to tell the people that you do mail in a >> broken way and tell them it is for a reason, you don't want to tell. > >Sharing an outbound queue amongst many different machines is not >"broken" in any

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Strange mail delivery from microsoft

On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 20:55:19 +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: >If you're using GreyListing, know that a given email will not be coming from >the same IP address twice. > >The outgoing IP address is randomized for ... reasons. Most of our customers will look the same. We don't got to show

Re: [mailop] Massive botnet going off today?

On Mon, 15 May 2023 17:31:47 +, Slavko via mailop wrote: >Don't worry, you are not alone, ~3000 of them is already in my >MSA's firewall due AUTH attempts. On average, between 3,000 and 5,000 connection attempts occur per day, at my tiny and shrinking (down to four active users). After all

Re: [mailop] Official traffic shaping rule sources?

On Mon, 8 May 2023 13:29:48 +, Mike Hillyer via mailop wrote: >Thanks, these are good best practices but I was talking more about "10 >connections max per IP, 5 messages per connection" type of traffic shaping >rules. I should mention that our systems (GreenArrow) normally offer 1 message

Re: [mailop] Official traffic shaping rule sources?

On Mon, 8 May 2023 13:29:48 +, Mike Hillyer via mailop wrote: >Thanks, these are good best practices but I was talking more about "10 >connections max per IP, 5 messages per connection" type of traffic shaping >rules. Sorry, I didn't make the end point clear. If you follow the warm-up

Re: [mailop] Official traffic shaping rule sources?

On Fri, 5 May 2023 13:39:03 +, Mike Hillyer via mailop wrote: >I have a number of samples of various community-sourced traffic-shaping rules, >but does anyone know of any official posts where the desired traffic-shaping >behavior is listed for the larger MBPs? They nearly all have

Re: [mailop] ab...@microsoft.com => Mailbox full

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:25:41 -0500, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote: >I'm surprised they even have an abuse inbox. I just block spammy senders >from MS/O365 domains and let them deal with the reduced number of people >they can do business with, as the result of their choice to send spam. As

Re: [mailop] ab...@microsoft.com => Mailbox full

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:32:18 +0200, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: ... >Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups: > >ab...@microsoft.com >The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Please try >resending your message later, or contact

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid abuse forwarding to Google - not one of your brightest ideas

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:01:53 +0100, Sebastian Nielsen via mailop wrote: >A good idea when you get this type of response, just include the full >headersand not the actual body of message.A competent abuse department should >be able to fish out a verbatim copy of the message being reported in

Re: [mailop] vrfcanaclu03.rfcanalyzer.net / 2001:470:1f14:fa5::2 / tunnel613353-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net

On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 02:54:56 +0100, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote: >So, has anyone else seen this in mail.logs/has an idea what that host >is doing? The connections here attempt STARTTLS, which fails with SSL error 0x80090331. These come from 87.215.108.211 and .212, in .nl. This behaviour

Re: [mailop] *LIKELY SPAM 08.3* Re: New iteration of SMTP callback snakeoil

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 19:01:54 +0100, "Peter N. M. Hansteen via mailop" wrote: >I hadn't noticed any of those, but then again the things that run automatically >here are somewhat geared towards fishing out new candidates for spamtraps. >Those >generated addresses have of course joined the list of

Re: [mailop] New iteration of SMTP callback snakeoil

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 12:57:11 +0100, "Peter N. M. Hansteen via mailop" wrote: >Hi, > >Since some time yesterday I've seen a largish number of delivery attempts to >obviously generated, invalid addesses in some of our domains, with the >following >apparent senders: >information@validmbx .com I

Re: [mailop] New iteration of SMTP callback snakeoil

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 12:57:11 +0100, "Peter N. M. Hansteen via mailop" wrote: >Hi, > >Since some time yesterday I've seen a largish number of delivery attempts to >obviously generated, invalid addesses in some of our domains, with the >following >apparent senders: > >informat...@ckuser.com

Re: [mailop] New iteration of SMTP callback snakeoil

On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 12:57:11 +0100, "Peter N. M. Hansteen via mailop" wrote: >Hi, > >Since some time yesterday I've seen a largish number of delivery attempts to >obviously generated, invalid addesses in some of our domains, with the >following >apparent senders: [snip]

Re: [mailop] warming up IPs, Microsoft?

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 10:52:35 +, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >I have had a number of clients over the last 3 or 4 years using SES without >any delivery problems that we could attribute to the IP addresses. Once we ran >through fixing the things under their control, delivery was great. I

Re: [mailop] Intuit directly spaming

On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 21:48:46 +, Slavko via mailop wrote: >This looks very nice, i installed and tried it, but i got no output, >after quick check it uses by default whois.pwhois.org, which >returns NXDOMAIN. Please, which whois server are you using? I appear to be using the default. From

Re: [mailop] Intuit directly spaming

On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 22:58:23 +, MRob via mailop wrote: >Thanks you Atro, is there popular tool for to do that in real time? This works for me: >mdr@LUSZ ~ $ whois AS11377 >% IANA WHOIS server >% for more information on IANA, visit http://www.iana.org >% This query returned 1 object >

Re: [mailop] Gmail blocking of good customer

On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 10:34:11 +, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >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

Re: [mailop] What is the canonical path around Microsoft S3150 breakage?

On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 11:46:20 -0500, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: >Meanwhile, my boss tried working another route and has opened 2 tickets: >SRX1544040988ID asking for just the one IP and SRX1544076120ID for the whole >/24. Got the dreaded "Not qualified for mitigation" boilerplate response to

Re: [mailop] T-Online is now really blocking messages from non-commercial and simliar senders

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:47:40 +0200 (CEST), Bernardo Reino via mailop wrote: >However, I still find that Postel's law should apply, in any context, and >specifically in this one. You want to run an e-mail server and don't want to >be >blocked, so you should (liberally) accept, instead of

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 19:15:46 -0700, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote: >- > >On 9/12/2022 7:01 PM, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: >> Because I disagree with the whole premise >> that self hosting mail is impossible today [snip] >I believe the prevailing sentiment is that it is a challenging task,

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 12:50:57 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: >By their very nature, the personal servers that people are talking about >here just don't see >the same volume of spam. Just about any spammed account will see a different collection of senders, topics, My tiny self-hosted

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

On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:27:05 -0700, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: >I assume that: >- When I walk up to a bank teller wearing a mask One of the irritating aspects of the unnecessary pandemic was that my very favorite Jack Vance quote became awkwardly inoperative. mdr -- "Honest folk do not

[mailop] Forged subscriptions affecting GovDelivery

If anybody at GovDelivery has questions about deliverability issues, I see some continuing fallout from a subscription forgery run against several US Government agencies, beginning on Fri, 10 Dec 2021. Some of these agencies performed subscription verification, and no further traffic after

Re: [mailop] I understand less and less why I accept any mail at all from Sendgrid

On 13 Aug 2022 20:06:44 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >Sure, but do they come from Sendgrid, which purports to be a service for >legitimate businesses? The most recent was >Received: from o50316380.outbound-mail.sendgrid.net >(o50316380.outbound-mail.sendgrid.net [50.31.63.80])

Re: [mailop] I understand less and less why I accept any mail at all from Sendgrid

On 13 Aug 2022 18:46:02 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >This showed up today, send to the email of my father who died in 2019. I wasn't able to find anything notable about that. "Nadine", who died quite a while back, frequently gets the "I've hacked your system and have the video of

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Disabling TLS 1.0 and 1.1 for MTA to MTA communication

On 4 Aug 2022 15:29:52 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >If my logs are at all typical, there are no large entities still using >TLS 1.0. I see a lot of spambots, some compromised VPS at the usual >suspects like OVH, one well-known IETFer who knows that he needs to >update his mail server,

Re: [mailop] Disabling TLS 1.0 and 1.1 for MTA to MTA communication

On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 13:34:02 +0200 (CEST), Sidsel Jensen via mailop wrote: >We were having a discussion on the possibility to disable TLS 1.0 and 1.1 for >MTA to MTA communication, and based on the numbers we've seen so far, it >doesn't look that far fetched. Our analysis states that the most

Re: [mailop] Trouble sending to sympatico.ca

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 12:07:43 -0500, John Gateley via mailop wrote: >The sending domain is annbauer.com, mx is hosted by mx.oustrencats.com. > >IP addresses: > >root@giraffe:~# host mx.oustrencats.com >mx.oustrencats.com has address 50.116.29.164 Look clean as far as publicly accessible

Re: [mailop] Trouble sending to sympatico.ca

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 08:36:31 -0500, John Gateley via mailop wrote: >I don't see any details in the error message. Since you have included none of the information that might have been used by the receiving system (your IP? Your HELO string? The domain in the envelope? Any domains referenced

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

On Sat, 30 Jul 2022 18:44:10 +, "Larry M. Smith via mailop" wrote: >.. I really don't know, but I tend to discount the belief that this is a >conspiracy against them. Looking over the past seven years' data, I find that exactly one Democrat campaign purchased an address that delivers here.

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

On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 20:42:43 -0400, Brett Schenker via mailop wrote: >"They can say whatever they want, but .. I'm +1 with John. They have a >*lot* to learn about email and how it works" > >Unless the language has changed since I read it, it says you need to report >on how much goes to spam. If

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

On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 13:11:24 -0700, Justin Scott via mailop wrote: >Interestingly any email "operator" with fewer than 500 employees or less >than $5 billion in annual revenue is exempt, so clearly targeted at the >major providers and not self-hosted operators or small hosting companies,

Re: [mailop] How can spam originate fron a kazakistan governmental adress?

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 16:38:50 +0200, Sebastian Nielsen via mailop wrote: >Got the following 2 spam emails, se attach, which originates from a >kazakistan government. Not particularly uncommon. I get spam traffic through every imaginable sort of governmental or institutional facilities. In this

Re: [mailop] Talking DOXING of spammers on this mailing list..

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 15:52:35 -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: > >The goal is not only to DOX this actor, but list EVERY IP Range they are >using in their spam operations.. > >Does this sound like fun for this mailing list, or is this too off topic >or noisy? I think it would be a bit

Re: [mailop] *LIKELY SPAM 27.9* Re: Any reason to NOT block the entire .cam domain?

On Fri, 27 May 2022 15:22:29 -0600, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: >Is there a reason that you (dynamically) re-configure your MTA(s) via a >script verses configuring an upstream router to not route traffic from >the IPs in their ASN? > >I'm just trying to understand and learn vicariously

Re: [mailop] *LIKELY SPAM 27.9* Re: Any reason to NOT block the entire .cam domain?

On Fri, 27 May 2022 22:57:37 +0200, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: >If you look up the MX records for these domains, you see a certain clustering >around one provider. The IP addresses that >I checked don't accept port 25 connections at this time, but probably they did >when the spam

Re: [mailop] *LIKELY SPAM 29.9* Any reason to NOT block the entire .cam domain?

On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:01:46 -0600, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote: >We've started getting a fair amount of spam from .cam domains; in fact they >all look the same, using the same HTML template with the same body format, but >from different .cam domain for different 'businesses', so I suspect

Re: [mailop] Comcast thottling at a dozen emails

On Mon, 23 May 2022 15:41:20 -0600, Rob Nagler via mailop wrote: >I'm struggling to get mail through to Comcast on our new-to-us IPs from >Linode. We are a sending less than a dozen emails and getting throttled: It's not the quantity so much as the instantaneous rate. If you have a

Re: [mailop] Internet Research Project on Linode - Any Experience?

On Fri, 06 May 2022 15:31:12 -0700, Mike D via mailop wrote: >I highly recommend using greynoise.io to help filter your logs. They do >a pretty good job of determining what connections are benign scanners >and which lead to subsequent attacks. Benign scanners are the ones who transparently

Re: [mailop] Internet Research Project on Linode - Any Experience?

On 6 May 2022 14:53:35 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >They appear to fail on all three criteria. As do a couple of parties operating out of several /24 or smaller blocks, none of which are now allowed to connect here. I cheerfully participate in research, both to my personal benefit and

Re: [mailop] WTaF? I just got spammed BY Active Campaign

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:30:28 -0600, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote: >WTaF?? I presume they are encouraging you to spam your legal services through them, rather than on the cover and spine of the local Yellow Pages™? mdr -- The world was almost won by such an ape! The nations put him

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 12:17:25 -0400, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: >Should Google be better about noticing when problems go away? Maybe. Should IP >addresses be made permanently useless for email because one well-intentioned >sysadmin didn't recognize a problem for long enough that Google

Re: [mailop] Our experience on Gmail blacklisting our IPs range

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 16:39:16 +, ml+mailop--- via mailop wrote: >BTW: AFAIK "don't be evil" is not Google's motto anymore. Geek tradition requires inserting "FSVO 'Evil'". mdr -- One thing you discover after opening a can of worms is that each worm is carrying another can. --

Re: [mailop] large number of mail connections

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 17:57:44 -0600, Geoff Mulligan via mailop wrote: >I have 3 different mail servers that are currently being inundated with >mail connections from: > >109.237.103.42 > >This appears to be from Russia - go figure. There were a bunch of relay attempts and AUTH LOGIN attempts

Re: [mailop] sorbs DNS problems

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 19:54:00 +0100, Slavko via mailop wrote: >Please, encounter someone else this? Are here some problems on their >side? They frequently fail the timeout setting on a DNSBL checker tool I use. Running the tool again pulls the records in cache that arrived after the timeout.

Re: [mailop] Microsoft banned sender (Linode hosted IPs)

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 20:12:13 +, Andy Smith via mailop wrote: >Following the link leads to a delist form but this comes back as >"139.162.167.107 is not listed" and then says to get the Microsoft >tenant to open a ticket. I've asked my recipient to do that and they >said they would today, but

Re: [mailop] [RESOLVED] Getting 'Access Denied' on Microsoft supportrequestform

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 15:25:39 +0100, Axel Rau via mailop wrote: >Thanks Eric, > >I tried again (using Safari instead of Firefox) and it succeeded, There is an often-unnoticed tie to one's Hotmail account (if one has one) which can deliver this issue. I found it necessary (when I worked at

Re: [mailop] Forms vs email abuse reporting

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 22:01:49 -0600, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: >Further from that, I'm not really sure if that's the type of abuse contact >the OP was referring to in this thread. At various times over the past 26 years I have been responsible for the various kinds of activities one needs

Re: [mailop] Forms vs email abuse reporting

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:55:40 -0600, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: >(AT is just an example here, but serves to better illustrate how a form >could be useful in this situation) Based on their corporate behaviour in recent experience, I would assert that AT is not a useful case, comparable to the

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Lindo - junked,not blocked

On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:04:30 -0600, John Gateley via mailop wrote: >The IP address in question is not currently blocked in our system. >Please refer to the email message you received from Microsoft and follow >the steps it suggests. I have no detailed knowledge of what the current system

Re: [mailop] What a drag it is sending DMARC reports

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 21:31:02 -0700, Dave Warren via mailop wrote: >Many/most centralized communication systems require phone number >verification/validation (SMS or voice, typically) to activate a new >account. Even when multiple accounts can be activated using a single >phone number they can

Re: [mailop] What a drag it is sending DMARC reports

On 26 Dec 2021 21:39:36 -0500, "John Levine" wrote: >Last time I checked Gmail sends you an SMS with a code you need to provide to >register a new account. Ah, that. Obtaining a phone is not difficult nor will the expense exceed zero in a number of cases (such as my wife's recent adventure

Re: [mailop] What a drag it is sending DMARC reports

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 02:44:35 +0100, Ángel via mailop wrote: >I wonder however if that's still the case for "professional" spammers, >as I expect they would be able to buy phone numbers more easily and >cheap than common users. What is this 'buy' of which you speak? Phone numbers are composed

Re: [mailop] Seeking route to AT Fraud on a weekend

On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 08:42:23 + (GMT), Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: >Can your wife ask Frisco law enforcement to watch the address ? As noted: nope. >If this were under UK law, the package would now belong to her, not AT >- which is a complication that works in the thieves favour

Re: [mailop] Seeking route to AT Fraud on a weekend

On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 08:42:23 + (GMT), Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: >Can your wife ask Frisco law enforcement to watch the address ? > >If this were under UK law, the package would now belong to her, not AT >- which is a complication that works in the thieves favour in this sort of

[mailop] Seeking route to AT Fraud on a weekend

This is actually email-related, as someone used an old seed address as a contact point for a fake AT Wireless account to order a tricked-out iPhone, to be sent to my wife at a street address we vacated months ago, and which is not currently inhabited. The email address is a test seed I used to

Re: [mailop] Got any users in Texas? Better turn off your spam filters by Dec 2

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:41:41 -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: >Why is there no laws that help protect the innocent victims of all the >phishing attacks that go on unabated from some of the largest companies? In the case of unsolicited broadcast email (UBE, spam) the laws tend to be

Re: [mailop] Got any users in Texas? Better turn off your spam filters by Dec 2

On 23 Sep 2021 23:42:38 -0400, "John Levine" wrote: >Oh, you can't block them at all. See sec 321.054. > >https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.321.htm#321.054 Which states, unless my monitor deceives me, that the denial must be "based on the content of the message". Since the

Re: [mailop] Got any users in Texas? Better turn off your spam filters by Dec 2

On 23 Sep 2021 23:26:12 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >Do you really want to negotiate with every spammer who complains >you're blocking his stuff, as 321.114(a) requires? How much free time >do you have? Plenty. I'm retired. However, given that the quoted statute claims to govern

Re: [mailop] Got any users in Texas? Better turn off your spam filters by Dec 2

On 23 Sep 2021 22:45:48 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >* it “provides a process for the prompt, good faith resolution of a dispute >related to the blocking with the sender of the commercial electronic mail >message” or Fortunately, all of the senders that I publicly announce that I am

Re: [mailop] Anyone seen this "email warmup" pattern?

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 12:35:54 -0500, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote: >However, I have reason to suspect Active Campaign may be related. >Roughly one day prior to the relevant outbound events, users who sign up >for this begin receiving a bunch of emails from the domains that they'll >later

Re: [mailop] Anyone seen this "email warmup" pattern?

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:46:59 -0500, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: >Yes, there are whispers of this in the deliverability world. Good >people always recommend against doing this because it's scummy and >unethical and even if it works today, it's not going to work tomorrow. >I am absolutely certain

Re: [mailop] Anyone seen this "email warmup" pattern?

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 02:29:17 -0500, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote: >I've been catching my customers left and right lately signing up for >some email warmup service. OK, I see I've been completely out of touch with that segment of the industry. The process of attempting to game reputation

Re: [mailop] Anyone seen this "email warmup" pattern?

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 02:29:17 -0500, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote: >I've been catching my customers left and right lately signing up for >some email warmup service. I don't know what it is. I take this to mean that you know they are signing up, but do not know what they are signing up to?

Re: [mailop] Abuse reporting to Microsoft?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 23:49:55 +0100, Simon Arlott via mailop wrote: >Is it actually possible to report email abuse to Microsoft? Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur:Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? --

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: protection.outlook.com refusing to accept mail with misleading temp error message

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 22:35:56 +0200, Florian Effenberger via mailop wrote: >what IMHO would be much better to check newly assigned IPs is, if >there's a way to query via DNS, or a web form. That way the issue can be >solved and clarified in advance, and not only when problems occur. Not

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: protection.outlook.com refusing to accept mail with misleading temp error message

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 04:15:30 +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: >That would shut down email as a viable communications mechanism almost >immediately. In the past six days of logs on the tiny server I run (friends, family, personal business) 97.3% of all connection attempts were hostile in

Re: [mailop] protection.outlook.com refusing to accept mail with misleading temp error message

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 10:50:05 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >I think the system has accreted and evolved to a point where not even the >folks inside Microsoft can tell you why a mail was delivered where it was. I >mean, that’s been true for more than a decade now. It’s not, somehow, that

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Wed, 12 May 2021 10:47:34 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >Or… care? Heh. The difference between not knowing and not caring is in the time lapse between the offence and the inevitable "time wounds all heels" event(s). mdr -- There's a funny thing that happens when you know the

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Wed, 12 May 2021 09:27:40 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >The things we normally recommend to folks don’t always work as expected. >Sometimes they do and we can fix things no problem. But sometimes they are >just an inscrutable black box with variable responses. This is a

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Wed, 12 May 2021 10:08:37 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >Your second paragraph can be basically summed up that there is no economic >incentive for Microsoft to care about the quality of email service they >provide - right? Tochno. >If yes, don't you agree that Microsoft should ;)

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Wed, 12 May 2021 09:59:35 +0200, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: >I'm not talking about hotmail/outlook, I'm talking about Office365 customers >who *do* pay and who would be pretty much >not amused if their mails were broadly rejected. Ah. As one who was a Spam Analyst in the

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Wed, 12 May 2021 09:29:13 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >But if they do provide it, they should do it well. It's no justification for >providing a crappy service that it is free. If you are doing something, do >it well, or don't do it at all. > >Sadly, they are so big that they can

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Wed, 12 May 2021 08:37:30 +0200, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: >Yet at the same time Microsoft expects "the world" to accept mail from their >customers. It would be difficult to verify this. There is nobody at MSFT (or at least wasn't when I worked there) that pays any attention to

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:45:28 +0200, André Peters via mailop wrote: >What is this crap good for when it sends one out of 1000? You may wish to take into account economic realities. YOU are not a Microsoft customer. The RECIPIENTS are not Microsoft customers. None of the above parties pays

Re: [mailop] Duplicate duplicate mail mail from from Gmail Gmail ?

On 9 May 2021 21:37:35 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >The only thing I have changed lately is that I added CHUNKING so it sends the >mail using >the SMTP BDAT command rather than DATA. As far as I can tell that is working >correctly >and other places send me mail with BDAT without

Re: [mailop] How stale is too stale for contacts?

On Tue, 4 May 2021 10:50:22 -0600, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: >I'd like to know if I'm off my rocker or if the person / company that >sent the message with the following excerpt is using purportedly once >good contact information /well/ /past/ it's best by date. In my experience, this

  1   2   >