Re: [mailop] Ubuntu Noble/24.04 - TLS 1.0, 1.1 and DTLS 1.0 are forcefully disabled

On 13.03.24 18:55, Slavko via mailop wrote: > Dňa 13. marca 2024 16:32:42 UTC používateľ Andrew C Aitchison via mailop > napísal: > >> Has anyone checked what traffic is still using TLS 1.0 or TLS 1.1 ? > > Yes, some infected machines from DZ, BR, AR, ID and so :-) So we are removing a

Re: [mailop] Why is mail forwarding such a mess?

On 12.02.24 21:21, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: The mail server providing the redirection may not be doing what the original address owner OR the owner of the address to which they are redirecting actually wants. Redirection could allow malicious server operators to direct 3rd parties to

Re: [mailop] Why is mail forwarding such a mess?

Hey Bill, On 12.02.24 17:31, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: On 2024-02-12 at 07:13:13 UTC-0500 (Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:13:13 +0100) Thomas Walter via mailop is rumored to have said: There are other issues with this though. For example you are exposing information you might not want to. Beyond

Re: [mailop] Why is mail forwarding such a mess?

On 12.02.24 11:59, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: Dnia 11.02.2024 o godz. 00:10:54 Thomas Walter via mailop pisze: Remember when we had an SMTP status code 551? 551 User not local; please try Would be an ideal solution if sending SMTP servers would actually react to it like web browsers

Re: [mailop] Why is mail forwarding such a mess?

Remember when we had an SMTP status code 551? 551 User not local; please try Pepperidge Farm remembers. SCNR, Thomas Walter -- Thomas Walter Datenverarbeitungszentrale FH Münster - University of Applied Sciences - Corrensstr. 25, Raum B 112 48149 Münster Tel: +49 251 83 64 908 Fax: +49

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

Hello Sebastian, On 10.02.24 05:02, Sebastian Nielsen via mailop wrote: just because SPF and DMARC are so badly designed that they can't handle it doesnt make it "forging" anything. It isn't badly designed. Forwarding a email, is the equvalient of, when you receive a signed envelope from me

[mailop] 2600 Magazine podcast about Gmail issues

Just a quick FYI: 2600 Magazine just did a podcast about the issue that they can't reach most of their subscribers because they're on Gmail and Google seems to not like hacking related content and either blocks it or pushes it to the spam folder: "We've gotten to the point where we've

Re: [mailop] problem setting up open-dmarc

On 07.02.24 14:20, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: For outgoing, Google requires that you have DMARC record set up. So if you are sending anything to Google, you need that. "If you send 5,000 messages a day or more..." Regards, Thomas Walter -- Thomas Walter Datenverarbeitungszentrale FH

[mailop] Three word alliterations

Moin, we've been seeing a lot of mails since the weekend with three word alliterations as their only content. Examples: Subject: Agreda Body: Aleff Alick Alwood Subject: Decator Body: Dedomenico Degro Deiterman This looks to me like someone is testing addresses using a system like

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

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. So why not just deliver these to the Inbox then - and add a tag/label instead

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

Hello, On 27.01.24 12:47, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: There is remediation available. What there isn’t is some imprimatur that ensures that every email is delivered to the inbox every time unless the sender considers it spam and agrees with the decision. That’s just not how it works.

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

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 their own sender guidelines. Just to clarify, because some of our customers

Re: [mailop] SMTP smuggling

Hello everyone, On 19.12.23 13:31, Mark Alley via mailop wrote: Hey all, recently saw this mail server SMTP vulnerability that popped up on a blog yesterday. Sharing here for those interested. https://sec-consult.com/blog/detail/smtp-smuggling-spoofing-e-mails-worldwide/

Re: [mailop] Hotmail complains about their own mail

Hello Richard, On 16.12.23 18:12, Richard via mailop wrote: Your approach is generating backscatter spam (to hotmail, where the mail may not even have originated - the "From:" address is likely forged so your assumption that it originated from hotmail could well be wrong), which (being polite)

Re: [mailop] Hotmail complains about their own mail

On 16.12.23 12:11, ml+mailop--- via mailop wrote: On Sat, Dec 16, 2023, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote: 2. Our server bounces with 550 5.1.1 User doesn't exist. Does your server generate a DSN? If the "User doesn't exist" then it seems you should be able to determine that fact

[mailop] Hotmail complains about their own mail

Hey guys, this was new: 1. Hotmail user sends delivery service phishing email. 2. Our server bounces with 550 5.1.1 User doesn't exist. 3. User marks non-delivery mail as Junk? 4. Hotmail sends complaint about the bounce message to our abuse. I'm not sure how to react to that. Would it be

Re: [mailop] Outlook.com losing eMail messages and SNDS reporting failures

On 02.12.23 04:36, Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop wrote: Some of my users have been reporting that eMail messages are getting lost intermittently when they're sent to users at any internet domain name that relies on OUTLOOK.COM for its MX. In German universities Microsoft's

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

Hey Michael, On 13.07.23 00:53, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: And yes, email forwarding will break.. but email forwarding remotely should be killed off anyways.. everyone can log into two accounts. Everyone has always been able to log into two accounts. There are other reasons why this

[mailop] SMTP disconnect… (Was: Hosteurope contact?)

Hello, according to replies from Hosteurope it turns out our server with 212.201.120.206 is listed on csi.cloudmark.com. I can't find an RBL check to confirm that. The following two say, it is not: https://tinycp.com/page/show/rbl-check

Re: [mailop] Hosteurope contact?

Hello, On 04.05.23 10:43, Ken Peng via mailop wrote: May 4, 2023 at 4:09 PM, "Thomas Walter via mailop" wrote: I am trying to get in contact with someone at Hosteurope to resolve delivery issues. I tried contacting their postmaster about a week ago, but did not receive a reply.

[mailop] Hosteurope contact?

Hello everyone, I am trying to get in contact with someone at Hosteurope to resolve delivery issues. I tried contacting their postmaster about a week ago, but did not receive a reply. May 3 10:40:39 mx-out-02 postfix/smtp[30657]: 67402E099E: to=<[censored]>,

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

Hey Heiko, On 19.10.22 13:33, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop wrote: A given mailhost (ran privately for smaller entities) can't send messages to T-Online anymore. 554 IP=168.119.159.241 - A problem occurred. … The sending IP belongs to a rented host (rented from a major German hoster). The

Re: [mailop] Certificate Question

Hey John, On 16.10.22 00:28, John Levine via mailop wrote: It appears that Mary via mailop said: I've never heard of SmarterMail server, I use dovecot. Dovecot allows me to setup 100+ domains on the same server, each with its own certificate, thus always giving a valid TLS connection

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On 15.09.22 03:04, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: FWIW in Germany it's against the law to not deliver an email after you have accepted it. (Not sure if it made it to EU law yet…) Even spamfolders are a grey area unless you make sure your user is not only using POP3 to access

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On 14.09.22 18:12, William Kern via mailop wrote: On 9/14/2022 7:49 AM, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote: Your users opinion may also change if they can't get that automated 'forgot my password' reset link from a service they want to use. No, they'll contact support and tell them they don't

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

Moin, On 14.09.22 17:52, Slavko via mailop wrote: In my case, the false-positives are really rarely. Mostly when user meets new eshop (or so) with broken email system (and need to be WL -- but that seems to be improved in last year). The biggest problem, which i meet with false positives was

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On 14.09.22 14:16, Dan Malm via mailop wrote: I disagree hard on that one. We used to reject mails flagged as spam by our filters and it was wildly unpopular. Implementing delivery to a spam folder was very much welcomed by most users (though ofc you can't please everyone... We got some

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On 14.09.22 11:24, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote: On 9/14/22 10:57, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: * Stop blackholing. That one is the absolute worst of the worst of the worst. Blackholing is something that _MUST NOT_ be done, ever, for whatever reason. There is never and has

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On 12.09.22 21:50, 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. But this is exactly the other direction from which you might want to look at it? Of course you receive more Spam in

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On 12.09.22 12:14, Evert Mouw via mailop wrote: After self-hosting my email for twenty-three years I have thrown in the towel. The oligopoly has won. What bothers me most is that the oligopoly makes it impossible to deliver emails to protect their users from spam, yet it is the biggest

[mailop] mailop charter (Was: SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud)

Hello Christopher, On 03.09.22 00:13, Christopher Hawker via mailop wrote: Seems like a whole lot of bitching and whinging is going on here regarding bouncer.cloud. Pretty sure this is a mail operations list, not a “let’s whinge and complain about mail services” list On

[mailop] USGOabuse.net?

Hello, I have just received an abuse report from USGOabuse.net regarding an incident that happened on July 6th and was resolved immediately: Abuse report for email from: 212.201.120.206. Email was received: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 03:31:52 -0500 (CDT). IP Address 212.201.120.206 is now blacklisted.

Re: [mailop] Why TLS is better without STARTTLS

On 09.08.21 18:18, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: Did the researchers include protocol vulnerabilities and / or implementation vulnerabilities and / or configuration vulnerabilities? I'm sorry, I don't have more details than I've linked to so far. The page includes a preprint, but I am not

[mailop] Why TLS is better without STARTTLS

Hey guys, just a quick heads up on a paper that will be published at USENIX Security 21 about "A Security Analysis of STARTTLS in the Email Context". Don't panic! Or as quoted from the document: > How important is this? > [It's not the most important thing you should worry about today.] >

Re: [mailop] m-365 still works like a spammer !

Hi, On 23.07.21 19:44, Xavier Beaudouin via mailop wrote: Well had another domain with 10 priority, same bloody behavior... Still don't understand why Microsoft does not implements RFC974 as it should... (well Microsoft and the mail has been a lng way to break all RFCs but... in this

Re: [mailop] mail.ru broke mailing lists

On 19.07.21 10:56, Tim Bray via mailop wrote: I do this.  For a corporate email system is makes a lot of sense.   I shouldn't be receiving email externally with a From: domain which is local. As long as your users don't have an external mailbox which gets forwarded to the local one. In that

[mailop] polspam.pl contacts?

Hello guys, does anyone know how to get in contact with the polspam.pl blacklist owners? Their contact form does not work and the website footer lists an email address, but asks to "not send any messages to this address". Regards Thomas Walter -- Thomas Walter Datenverarbeitungszentrale FH

Re: [mailop] Hen and egg problem with Talos

On 07.07.21 23:12, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: >> Encourage transparent 2FA, and options like country auth restrictions, >> blocking AUTH from cloud providers/hosting companies known for being a >> haven for those types of attacks, (should make a blog post on best >> practices for

Re: [mailop] Hen and egg problem with Talos

On 07.07.21 22:08, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: > Start by including the IP(s) you are discussing ;) mx-out-01.fh-muenster.de [185.149.214.63] mx-out-02.fh-muenster.de [212.201.120.206] > Compromised accounts are indeed the bane of the responsible > administrator, and as you can see.. the

[mailop] Hen and egg problem with Talos

Hey guys, I have to take the walk of shame and report a spam outbreak on my systems because of a phished user account and a loophole in the rate limiting we do. As soon as we got notifed, we stopped and cleaned the queues, blocked the user, investigated the cause and fixed the rate limiting

Re: [mailop] Gmail's MTA is broken

'llo, On 07.06.21 20:13, Mark Milhollan via mailop wrote: > In general Google's MTA handles SMTP just fine.  But an MTA isn't always > run in a way that blindly follows the RFCs. And there's also systems that send a 5xx and immediately disconnect without waiting for the "quit" from the

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

On 11.05.21 19:45, André Peters via mailop wrote: > What is this crap good for when it sends one out of 1000? There was not > a single spam mail that left our system. It was an unwanted mail, not > spam but just a message they did not like. We have hard rate limits and > a no mass mail policy.

Re: [mailop] Haraka status? Exim the only choice? (v Postfix)

On 01.05.21 09:05, Chris via mailop wrote: > Heh. You've never used Qpsmtpd or Haraka, I can tell. Haraka and Nope. Didn't have to. That's why I was curious about use cases that were not possible with the more common MTAs. > qpsmtpd are basically skeletons where you can insert plugins to >

Re: [mailop] Haraka status? Exim the only choice? (v Postfix)

Hello MRob, On 01.05.21 05:18, MRob via mailop wrote: > I used Postfix along time but my experience is that it is incredible > difficult to implement custom logic especially across the different > binaries/processes it uses to fulfil a mail delivery transaction. Its > designed in the "unix

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Some Days I think that Gmail isn't even trying to stop outbound spam..

Hello, On 05.02.21 17:23, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: > Would it be useful to include a link in each email header, similar to > List-Unsubscribe: and relatives, but unique to each message sent, > so that recipients could give similar feedback to the sending service ? You can not trust

Re: [mailop] RFCs on quoted pairs in From:?

On 28.01.21 12:37, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: > On Thu 28/Jan/2021 11:05:37 +0100 Thomas Walter via mailop wrote: >> swaks --server mx3.fh-muenster.de \ >> --to 'b...@fh-muenster.de' --from 'b...@fh-muenster.de' \ >> --header-From '"Some Person &quo

Re: [mailop] RFCs on quoted pairs in From:?

On 28.01.21 10:38, Dan Malm via mailop wrote: > On 2021-01-27 13:40, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote: >> While playing with this I noticed that Thunderbird shows the full header >> field without quotes and replies go to the first address - even though I >> thought t

Re: [mailop] RFCs on quoted pairs in From:?

Hello, On 28.01.21 07:29, Jay R. Ashworth via mailop wrote: > So you agree with him that an angle-bracketed address *inside quotes* should > be ignored by an MUA -- at least if there's a valid address not inside quotes > in the same header? > > Should the MUA go inside the quotes in the header

[mailop] RFCs on quoted pairs in From:?

Hello everyone, I have a question regarding the standards on mail headers, specifically quoted-pairs in the From: header line. My understanding is that a quoted pair can contain characters that otherwise would be treated differently. Characters like spaces, but also angle brackets and such. So

Re: [mailop] Gmail & SPF=none & Adobe campaign

On 14.01.21 19:08, Pascal HOARAU via mailop wrote: > Extra quotes are OK cf : https://kb.isc.org/docs/aa-00356 > > And strings are all no longer than 255 characters. While this is true there are libraries that do not support it. I have seen multiple SPF check

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: What's the point of secondary MX servers?

On 18.12.20 02:58, John Levine via mailop wrote: > In article <469F9E736EE5DB4A8C04A6F7527268FA01CA03E20B@MACNT35.macro.local> > you write: >> Hi >> >> Where we have multiple internet connections, we setup MX records for both >> connections. If one connection is down, >> email flows through

Re: [mailop] What's the point of secondary MX servers?

On 17.12.20 23:07, Mark Fletcher via mailop wrote: > If this is really an issue, why don't we have backup A records as well? > My website is just as important as my MXes, yet I do just fine without A > record priorities... > > I agree with John, MX record priorities are an unneeded relic. You

Re: [mailop] Looking for possible mailing list hosting

On 16.12.20 18:21, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: > Honestly, I see mailing lists as a dying breed (said as I post this to a > mailing list).  A forum tends to work out better.  It's a pull (users > pull content only if they want to receive the content) rather than a > push (users are pushed

Re: [mailop] Current OSS anti-spam software best practice?

Hey, On 16.12.20 10:42, Ralf Schenk via mailop wrote: > we are still on amavisd + SpamAssassin incl. some best-practices > rule-sets but there is a promising alternative: > > https://www.syn-flut.de/rspamd-das-bessere-spamassassin > >

Re: [mailop] GMail 550 5.1.1?

On 15.12.20 11:16, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > I wonder why they are returning 5xx and not 4xx when they have a failure. I > think the system should be foolproof enough to return 4xx in such cases. With all the services being down at the same time I am expecting it to be an issue with the

Re: [mailop] GMail 550 5.1.1?

Hey, On 15.12.20 01:13, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: > Many Google services including Gmail, Google Drive, and YouTube have > been having issues today according to Outages mailing list. Though some > are reporting restoration this could be lingering problems.

Re: [mailop] Effeciveness (or not) of SPF

Hey Brandon, On 09.12.20 00:55, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:31 AM Paul Smith via mailop > wrote: > If you're forwarding to your own company's mail server, then it should > be easy to have that forwarding work with SPF, and if

Re: [mailop] Effeciveness (or not) of SPF

On 08.12.20 11:58, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: > Verifying the sender is who they say they are is valuable, even if some > people are fooled by messages from "b...@micr0soft.com". For that it would help _a lot_ if mail clients didn't stop displaying the actual address of the sender. Yes, I am

Re: [mailop] Effeciveness (or not) of SPF

On 08.12.20 02:02, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > Obviously I disagree.  Thankfully SPF w/ -all allows second order > receivers to know that I have not authorized the first order receiver to > re-send email on behalf of my domain name. So in that case you are against servers supporting SRS

Re: [mailop] Effeciveness (or not) of SPF

On 07.12.20 22:47, John Levine via mailop wrote: > People do use them as part of a scoring spam filter. But no sensible person > uses SPF alone to do mail filtering. I also thought that no sensible person would discard messages even though the SPF entry owner asks them to do a softfail, but I

Re: [mailop] Effeciveness (or not) of SPF

On 06.12.20 19:27, Mary via mailop wrote: > Now, having a large list of real email bodies, they re-use them for phishing. > They re-send a previously legitimate email but with variations, like > replacing attachments. They can also send mail directly from the inside - without any SPF checks

[mailop] from= to=?

Hello Ops, does anyone know what mail client probes(?) email connections with from= to=? I am preparing to enforce the sender address to match the user account, but I am now seeing warnings with these combinations. According to the helo it seems to be IOS devices likes iPhones and iPads.

Re: [mailop] New server email being treated as spam by Google

Hello, On 21.11.20 12:54, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > You can configure your MTA to disable IPv6 only for delivery to Google - at > least with Postfix it should be possible. how would one do that? We don't know all domains that sue Google MXs, we don't know all MXs Google uses and they

Re: [mailop] Maximum message size

On 24.10.20 00:48, Adam Moffett via mailop wrote: > Nail on head Brandon. > > An additional argument is how much support labor is it worth to > guide/force/teach the use of cloud storage compared to the risks of > allowing larger emails?  One of these is things is way easier.  Someday > I may

Re: [mailop] Maximum message size

On 23.10.20 22:51, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: > Perhaps someone should come up with a protocol designed to transfer > files. They could name it File Transfer Protocol and abbreviate it FTP. I'd prefer something with "Secure" in it's name though, preferably in the front, so it shows the

Re: [mailop] Delivery problem on Microsoft e-mail (code 250 but does not receive)

Heyho, On 21.10.20 11:38, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > Microsoft has always silently dropped mail on the floor when it judges > that to be the right thing to do. It’s an issue and I personally believe > it’s bad practice. But I’m pretty sure that Microsoft have their reasons I've mentioned

Re: [mailop] GMX.net

Hey Jeremy, On 14.10.20 02:09, Jeremy Weiss via mailop wrote: > But this customer's PTR records look to be in order. Does anyone have a > GMX.net contact I could reach out to for more information? it would help a lot if we knew the IP in question. That way we could check if it not only "looks to

Re: [mailop] Any chance that Microsoft would tell it's customer that the 'junk' folder creates complaints?

Hey fellow mailmasters, On 24.09.20 10:10, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: > Now the Microsoft customer contacted us, that he had indeed subscribed > to the newsletter of our customer and still wanted to receive it. So we > checked with the recipient WHY he kept reporting those emails as spam >

[mailop] United Internet X-UI-*Filterresults headers?

Hello wonderful people, one of our clients is forwarding E-Mails from geocaching.com that are sent to GMX to his personal mailbox with us. Some of them are being rejected as SPAM, main reason being that our rspamd feels if United Internet thinks it SPAM, we should do so too. According to the UI

Re: [mailop] Google and Spam detection

Hi, On 24.07.20 18:09, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote: > Not saying that it's the case here (what do I know about Google's spam > filters or your friends...) but sometimes the cause for this is on the > receiving end and quite low tech. Ie: We have quite a few cases where > users mark mail from

Re: [mailop] Is DNS-over-HTTPS bad? Sure.

On 07.07.20 06:59, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: >> Historically, 'choosing' to set your DNS provider at the OS was an end >> user choice, but with D'oh, it opens the door to the application layer >> to bypass firewall rules as well. > > ?? Historically the DNS provider was set by the

Re: [mailop] Is DNS-over-HTTPS bad? Sure. (was: Happy Holidays Everyone!)

Hello Jaroslaw, On 06.07.20 12:39, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > But is content filtering - especially in corporations - really based on DNS? yes. That's why systems like https://pi-hole.net/ exist, even for home users. In Germany ISPs were even forced by lawmakers to block specific DNS

Re: [mailop] Abusix Potentially Compromised Account Report

On 19.05.20 13:11, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: > A bug/issue tracking system or othe5r "help desk" tool > *may* be a better solution here ... That's a little overkill for boss & secretary environments. Regards, Thomas Walter -- Thomas Walter Datenverarbeitungszentrale FH Münster -

Re: [mailop] Abusix Potentially Compromised Account Report

Hey Jaroslaw, On 19.05.20 12:01, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > A shared account by itself is a security loophole. Why is that? You can perfectly share an account with IMAP4 Access Control Lists. The issue is not the shared account, the issue is a shared password. > There are no practical

Re: [mailop] Abusix Potentially Compromised Account Report

Hey everyone, On 22.03.20 05:11, Ted Cooper via mailop wrote: > Has anyone run into "Abusix" /potentially/ compromised account > notification emails before? I got the same email with some of our local accounts and aliases. Interestingly enough it included the same IP address 185.234.219.89.

[mailop] Hey.com?

So, this https://hey.com/ has been making it rounds through my filter bubble. It seems to be a new concept(?) for an email service ("not client" as the emphasize) by the Basecamp guys. They say > [Mail] deserves a dust off. A renovation. Modernized for the way we > email today. > > With HEY,

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Business justification to use noreply sender addresses?

On 07.02.20 14:53, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >> If you're using a MLM, the "real" bounces go to the bounce processor >> of the MLM. But stuff like Exchange/Outlook will autoreply to the >> "From:"-Header address. > > I don't understand - what does "noreply" address have to do with >

Re: [mailop] How long to retry?

On 04.02.20 11:31, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > However, for big web-based email providers like Google, who tend to have > less educated users ;), it would be a good idea what Brandon already > mentioned here - some way of signalling in the GUI that a particular message > has not yet been

Re: [mailop] MUA archaeology

Hey John, On 11.12.19 18:07, John Levine via mailop wrote: > I have my mail presorted into IMAP folders (with procmail of course) > and could never figure out how to make mutt scan them for new mail > like Alpine does automatically. http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/#imap-check-subscribed Regards,

Re: [mailop] BIMI

On 05.12.19 02:20, Matt Vernhout via mailop wrote: > Stay tuned for more info on the bimigroup.org website, we are planning to add > more info very soon. But why? Regards, Thomas Walter -- Thomas Walter Datenverarbeitungszentrale FH Münster - University of Applied Sciences - Corrensstr.

Re: [mailop] Junk filtering as a tool for unfair competition

Hay Jay, On 24.10.19 01:58, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: > It does seem that the user behavior of incorrectly marking mail as spam > has been going on far too long. Large webmail providers, PLEASE update > your UI to label that choice "Report as spam", not simply "Junk". This doesn't help as

Re: [mailop] Junk filtering as a tool for unfair competition

On 23.10.19 10:11, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote: > PS: I REALLY don't think Microsoft is doing filtering for "unfair > competition", as I also receive Microsoft own invoices for an Office365 > plan I buy in my office365 junk folder. I simply guess SmartScreen is > somehow "out of control"

Re: [mailop] Junk filtering as a tool for unfair competition

On 23.10.19 08:51, Sébastien Riccio via mailop wrote: > This will have to change. Do small operators need to start a petition against > this ? I'm going to send thoughts and prayers to help! SCNR :) But yes, what are you going to do? "Block all mails to big players Wednesday" to protest? I

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On 18.10.19 14:56, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote: > My personal client has rules that send messaged from CBL-listed IPs to the > junk folder and marks them "read". Other than for research purposes, I've not > looked at one of those in well over a decade. If you don't look at them anyway,

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On 15.10.19 10:44, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: > Ditto. Yesterday, I got 400 emails. About 200 were spam that was > filtered, about 15 were spam that wasn't filtered, the rest I wanted at > one level or another.  No way do I want 200 spam messages shoved into my > Inbox. So instead of

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On 15.10.19 00:34, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote: >> Doesn't "550 Requested action not taken: We don't like you." apply >> after DATA? > > it does > > most severs honor this but not all > > (i experience this sometimes, my domain somtimes gets a lot of > backscatter) What MTAs do not honor

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On 14.10.19 23:59, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote: > This is not a pure performance issue. It's more a matter of not having > the data at hand to decide whether the message is ham or spam. To do so, > filters need user feedback. You can still have feedback if you don't move emails to a spam

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On 14.10.19 20:57, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > Having the mail bounce at the edge is a VERY useful signal for any spammers > trying to enhance their deliverability. Not bouncing mails at edge is a very useful signal for any spammer too, because he delivered an email and is getting paid?

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On 14.10.19 20:39, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote: > While I'm clearly not a representative sample of the average email user, > 3 or 5 spam messages per day is two orders of magnitude short of the > mark on a bad day for me. > > So ... Yes: we need spam folders. But you still have to check

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On 14.10.19 20:17, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: > A lot, in my case a good portion is "targeted" B2B spam, more than half > of which is sent via ESPs. If people can handle 3 or 5 spams per day, > can they handle 30 or 50? 300 or 500? How does it scale? Yes, but you still have to handle these

[mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

Hello fellow email-enthusiasts, all this discussion about emails being marked as spam or not and why always makes me think about one thing: Do we even need Junk/Spam-Folders? I mean how much mail gets through the first "block directly" level on your site? Every now and then a wave comes through

Re: [mailop] Hotmail: Moving Email to 'spam' folder generates ISP complaint?

Hey, On 16.08.19 09:47, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: > So I wonder, does the simple act of moving of an email to the hotmail > spam folder generate a spam complaint to the ISP? And possibly impact > the sender IP reputation? Yes. Because people are stupid and do not understand the

Re: [mailop] Outlook/Hotmail reporting to us that a mail has been declared as SPAM by a recpient, but... ?

On 28.06.19 16:41, Brielle via mailop wrote: > The amount of people who treat the Spam button as a Delete button is > staggering. This is even more difficult with users who speak a different language and don't understand the difference between Trash and Junk... Regards, Thomas Walter --

Re: [mailop] What is the story with QQ.COM?

Hey Brian, On 01.06.19 12:17, Brian Kantor via mailop wrote: > For the past several months, one of the mailboxes on one of my > servers has been getting messages, mostly in Chinese character sets > that I can't decipher, short little messages from various senders > with FROM addresses like

Re: [mailop] Is Digital Ocean a spammer safe haven?

On 09.05.19 23:42, Ronald F. Guilmette via mailop wrote: > At the following link, I provide a list of 862 currently live IP addresses, > all located on AS14061 (Digital Ocean) which I have meticulously verified > as all being in use by a single large-scale snowshoe spamming operation > which is

Re: [mailop] openspf.org down

On 02.05.19 11:48, lukn via mailop wrote: > Hello mailops > > openspf.org seems to have been down for quite some time now, "the > internet" (as in reddit, twitter and friends) are wondering why - but > nobody knows anything. > > does anyone have some (shareable) insight? speculations?

Re: [mailop] Admin: Gmail users of mailop suspended due to bounces.

On 30.04.19 04:45, Noel Butler via mailop wrote: > On 30/04/2019 05:35, Andreas Klein via mailop wrote: >> so the SPF >> check will fail if the FROM of the original message is retained and an >> SPF record exists for that domain. >> > > ancient FUD > > I was a  very, *very* early adopter of

Re: [mailop] Admin: Gmail users of mailop suspended due to bounces.

On 28.04.19 13:20, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote: > On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote: >> Well since that email just triggered another round of bounces I've >> just updated mailop's mailman config to mung all email addresses >> (hopefully, this email is a test). > > Well the good