Re: [mailop] AOL/Yahoo: Confusing enhanced SMTP codes in response?

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 1:01 PM 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 > > However, the "554 5.7.9" doesn't make

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

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 12:24 PM Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:01 AM Todd Herr via mailop > wrote: > >> Users can only click "This is spam" on messages that end up in their >> inbox. If all of your traffic went to t

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

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:51 AM Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: > > It would also give feedback to spammers allowing them to fine-tune their > > messages to avoid getting flagged. > > What about feedback loops? Don't those also fall into the category of > aiding the spammer? But they are also

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: BIMI boycott? Lookup tool, why we publish BIMI anyway, and intellectual property law considerations

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 12:30 PM Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > As an aside, I find it interesting that the BIMI Group doesn't > have > a Verified Mark (no PEM specified in the "a=" parameter): > >

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: BIMI boycott? Lookup tool, why we publish BIMI anyway, and intellectual property law considerations

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:03 PM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > Dnia 12.01.2024 o godz. 11:18:32 Tim Starr via mailop pisze: > > By publishing the BIMI spec. No one's required to follow the spec, but if > > they don't, then they're not doing BIMI, and that's not the fault of the > > spec. > >

[mailop] Lions in Africa (was Re: If one signature is good, 72 signatures must be better)

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 4:53 AM Gellner, Oliver via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > This reminds of the joke how a computer programmer would hunt a lion in > Africa: > 1. Go to the northernmost place > 2. Traverse the continent alternately east and west working southwards > 3. Catch every

Re: [mailop] DMARC and subdomains

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 10:11 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > Dnia 16.06.2023 o godz. 09:31:58 Todd Herr via mailop pisze: > > Yes, the DMARC protocol does describe the search for the organizational > > domain for the RFC5322.From domain in an email message. > >

Re: [mailop] DMARC and subdomains

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 9:21 AM Andy Smith via mailop wrote: > Hi, > > Let's say I have domain example.com with SPF, DKIM and DMARC > records. I've put an A record in there to point foo.bar.example.com > at someone else's IP address. > > Probably some cron job or other automated task on that

Re: [mailop] verifier.port25.com

As a postscript to this, I was formerly employed by SparkPost and so still have some contacts with people associated with Port25. When this thread kicked off yesterday, I noticed that the DNS for verifier.port25.com was a bit wonky; specifically, the MX record for that name resolved to

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Office365 not rejecting emails when instructed so by SPF recored?

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 4:13 PM Benny Pedersen via mailop wrote: > Todd Herr via mailop skrev den 2023-05-23 20:54: > > >> Indeed, an email will only be rejected if it has DMARC setup as > >> reject. > > > > There should be one exception to the rule of

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Office365 not rejecting emails when instructed so by SPF recored?

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 2:24 PM Alex Liu via mailop wrote: > Indeed, an email will only be rejected if it has DMARC setup as reject. > There should be one exception to the rule of waiting till after DATA to check for a DMARC policy, and that's in the case of the following SPF record: "v=spf1

Re: [mailop] Feedback Loops and Sub-Domains

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 12:02 AM Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > On 2/9/23 2:21 AM, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote: > > In my experience the spam report button is not only used as a sort > > of fast unsubscribe, but also as a replacement for the delete button. > > Knowing how unreliable

Re: [mailop] Valid SPF/DKIM/DMARC *SPAM* coming from my domain ?!

This looks like a message that maybe might've been sent to a reflectiv.net address (perhaps the one advertised on your website? contact at reflectiv.net?) and then automatically forwarded by Mailgun (which hosts inbound mail for reflectiv.net) to a Google account (since Mailgun probably doesn't do

Re: [mailop] SPF (and other email security protocols) Survey

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 2:00 PM Taejoong (tijay) Chung via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > Greetings, > > The Sender Policy Framework (SPF) is an easy way to check whether the > sender is authorized to send emails – however, it may cause some security > holes if it causes too many DNS

Re: [mailop] Best practices for forwarding email to Gmail (revisited)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 11:18 AM Petar Bogdanovic via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > Hello, > > After a discussion on mailop back in 2015, I made the following note in > some to-gmail-forwarder configuration: > > When forwarding to non-local addresses, don't automatically rewrite >

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

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:35 AM Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > After a discussion with OVH about this potential issue, I discovered that > the problem was worst than that. By comparing all the emails from > Spamcop.net reports, I discovered that they were from a few

Re: [mailop] How did this get routed to me?

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:58 AM Sinclair, John via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > Valid email (supposedly) from petvetcarecenters.com to > drew.q.tay...@gmail.com, and it got delivered to MY domain (mspca.org)… > > > My presumption would be that you were bcc'd on the message. -- *Todd

[mailop] GoDaddy Here?

Hi. Archives seem to indicate that GoDaddy's not represented here, but figured I'd ask again in case that had changed. If they are here, or if anyone has a contact there, please reach out to me; I'm looking for clues on how best to deal with throttling issues on mail inbound to GoDaddy-hosted

Re: [mailop] SPF soft fail vs. hard fail

"How common is it to have receiver systems set so that SPF hard fail will reject messages even if they otherwise pass DKIM and DMARC, but to accept them on the DKIM pass if the domain uses SPF soft fail?" SPF checking is/can be done at the MAIL FROM part of the conversation; it's keyed to the

Re: [mailop] Sanity Check - Signal Spam and Signal Arnaques

rities and security companies > and initiative (among others) to help punishing ... bad people. > > > > I'll notify the Signal Spam folks. > > > > Thanks again! > > > > -- > *Benjamin* > > > > *From:* mailop *On Behalf Of *Todd Herr via >

[mailop] Sanity Check - Signal Spam and Signal Arnaques

Hi. I believe from past posts that there are Signal Spam reps on this list, and I just want to sanity check something with them. We have a customer seeing their good name sullied on the website signal-arnaques.com, where they're being implicated as sending fraudulent messages. They're not

Re: [mailop] DMARC p=quarantine pct=0

We saw no negative side effects when we did it here for our domains, and we did it for precisely the reason you're planning to do it, to trigger Google Groups. On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote: > Does anyone know of any negative side effects of

[mailop] Anyone Here From Vertical Response?

If so, please contact me off-list. Thank you. -- *todd herr* *sr. delivery engineer www.sparkpost.com * *twitter* @toddherr @sparkpost *tel* 415-578-5222 x477 *mobile* 703-220-4153 *email* todd.h...@sparkpost.com

[mailop] Contact at Mxtoolbox?

Hello. Anyone have a contact at Mxtoolbox? We had a buggy script that sent way too many API calls their way, and now it looks like they're blocking our source IP. We've fixed the script and started engaging through regular channels, but I'm hoping to short-circuit the mitigation process.