Re: [mailop] freenet.de routing issues anyone? (Cloudflare-OVH issue?)

On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 02:15:21PM +0100, Marco Moock via mailop wrote: > Can you test 53/udp and 53/tcp on their authoritative NS from home? pgregg@pgsurfacepro8:~$ dig +short +tcp soa freenet.de @ns1.fdkcloud.de. ns1.fdkcloud.de. hostmaster.freenet-business.de. 2024030701 28800 7200 604800 3600

Re: [mailop] freenet.de routing issues anyone? (Cloudflare-OVH issue?)

On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 01:26:48PM +0100, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote: > On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 13:17, Marco Moock wrote: > > Can you access their website on freenet.de from OVH? > > No. I can't even reach their NS from OVH network. > So I can't resolve www.freenet.de: but if I try with the

Re: [mailop] Verifying receipients?

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 02:49:12PM -0600, Jesse Hathaway via mailop wrote: > Does probing for recipients work these days, is it considered abusive? It rarely works they way you might hope. And yes, we consider it abusive. PG ___ mailop mailing list

Re: [mailop] Proofpoint mailop contact?

On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 04:37:41PM -0500, Thomas Johnson via mailop wrote: > Hello- > > We're seeing some dropped connections from various servers on ppe-hosted.com > - the Proofpoint hosted service. > > I'd like to discuss with an admin there, but I cannot locate any

Re: [mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 05:54:28PM +, Slavko via mailop wrote: > Dňa 12. mája 2023 13:40:14 UTC používateľ Paul Gregg via mailop > napísal: > > >4.5.3.1. Size Limits and Minimums > > When you read RFC, you MUST read all, not only interesting parts. >

[mailop] Thoughts on envelope address local-part length limits

I'd like to start a discussion on folks opinions(*) on enforcing Envelope Sender/Recipient local-part length limits. *opinions - because no mail operator seems to agree what it should be. For context, RFC5321 defines local-part (the bit of an envelope address to the left of the @ in an email

Re: [mailop] Proofpoint contact needed - Duplicate ticket for IP block removal issue

On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 08:04:35AM +, Andy Onofrei via mailop wrote: > Can anyone has a way to reach out to Proofpoint, my contacts are unresponsive > for the last weeks, after MAWWG. > I have a ticket with status unresolved for several weeks, they seem to be > stuck on their queue.

Re: [mailop] Bell.ca servers disconnecting before 250 OK

On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 01:35:12PM -0500, David Sovereen via mailop wrote: > [2023.03.06] 13:43:28.763 [204.101.223.59][57867550] cmd: DATA > [2023.03.06] 13:43:28.763 [204.101.223.59][57867550] Performing PTR host > name lookup for 204.101.223.59 > [2023.03.06] 13:43:28.763

Re: [mailop] problem sending messages to gmail

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 11:31:22AM -0500, John Covici via mailop wrote: > Hi. For some reason this morning, I am having problems sending to > gmail addresses. I get the following error for each: > > <<< 550-5.7.1 [166.84.7.93 12] Our system has detected that this > message is > <<<

Re: [mailop] gmail putting most messages into Spam

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 08:28:54AM -0600, Mark Alley via mailop wrote: > Just to clarify - Do you mean from Proofpoint enterprise (PoD) customers or > Proofpoint essentials? I could definitely see essentials having this problem > as their IP space is shared amongst customers, but PoD clusters each

Re: [mailop] gmail putting most messages into Spam

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 02:50:04PM +0100, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: > Just a wild guess based on experience - do those deliveries happen over IPv6? In this case, no. We* only have IPv4 throughout the stack - IPv6 is disabled everywhere. *Proofpoint Essentials I did think it might be TLS -

[mailop] gmail putting most messages into Spam

Heads up in case anyone else is experiencing this. We are aware of a recent change in behaviour of gmail.com where most email is placed directly into Spam folder. So far we have dozens of customers reporting this. Tested myself with full SPF, DKIM and DMARC with p=reject - which gmail itself

Re: [mailop] Fwd: RFC 9228 on Delivered-To Email Header Field

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 06:34:07AM -0700, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote: > > Folks, > > This was just issued. It will aid in evaluating handling history of a > messsage, especially through aliasing and mailing list sequences. > > d/ > > Forwarded Message > Subject: RFC 9228

Re: [mailop] Best email server for home use...

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 06:38:24PM +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > And in this particular case we are discussing, not only a VPS is involved, > but also a 3rd party service that acts both as a MX for incoming mail and as > an outgoing SMTP server that actually delivers mail to recipients.

Re: [mailop] Best email server for home use...

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 01:19:47PM -0500, John Levine via mailop wrote: > It appears that Sinclair, John via mailop said: > > I have the hardware and the bandwidth, ... > > More importantly, do you have a static IP with matching forward and reverse > DNS that > is not in the PBL or otherwise

Re: [mailop] Feasibility of a private DNSBL

On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 10:22:11AM +0200, Leandro Santiago via mailop wrote: > Thank you all who shared their knowledge. > > We decided, on our solution, to go away from the DNSBL approach which has > way too many caveats and are now experimenting with solutions on a higher > level on the network

Re: [mailop] Info - DMARC at WEB.DE, GMX, mail.com coming soon

On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 04:51:34PM +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > > > > On 1 Apr 2021, at 15:36, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 12:43 AM Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop > > mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote: > > > > One option that you should consider to

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 02:57:43PM +, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 12:03:45PM +, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: > > On 04/02/2021 11:39, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: > > >It sounds like you are using PIPELINING when the remote doesn't support

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 12:03:45PM +, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: > On 04/02/2021 11:39, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: > >It sounds like you are using PIPELINING when the remote doesn't support it > >(properly). > >See if you can turn off pipelining (at least to t

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 11:37:05AM +0100, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: > Hi List > > We managed to reproduce the issue while sniffing the SMTP connection. > > From my observation, I suppose it's a bug in EXIM as it encounters a > situation which probably is somehow unique with our

Re: [mailop] MessageLabs "cluster1a*" MX records

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:52:49AM -0700, Luke via mailop wrote: > Starting very precisely on January 6th, we started to see a number of > previously reliable domains turn up with secondary MX records that look > like these: > > cluster1a.us.messagelabs.com > cluster1a.eu.messagelabs.com >

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 08:24:24AM +0100, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: > Hi Paul and Gang > > I have been testing with our Exim and Postfix. > > Everything works as expected. If Postfix rejects a recipient with 452 > Exim is immediately re-sending that recipient with a new SMTP session. >

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 09:48:51AM +0100, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: ... > mail from: > 250 2.1.0 Ok > rcpt to: > 250 2.1.5 Ok > rcpt to: > 452 4.5.3 Incompatible Antispam Action, please resend this recipient > separately > > And that is exactly what I expected and what see in our logs...

Re: [mailop] Firefox Relay

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:52:31AM +, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: > > I note a new service: Firefox Relay > https://relay.firefox.com > >As you browse, the Relay icon will appear in form fields where >sites ask for your email address. Select it to generate a new, >