> On 10 Jan 2019, at 16:42, Chris Boyd wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jan 10, 2019, at 3:53 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>
>> mcimail.com (30 Jun 2003 )
>
> I used to have an mcimail.com address, and an @internetmci.com address.
>
> Anyone know if that’s still in use?
mcimail.com was turned into
> On Jan 10, 2019, at 3:53 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> mcimail.com (30 Jun 2003 )
I used to have an mcimail.com address, and an @internetmci.com address.
Anyone know if that’s still in use?
—Chris
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_major_email_domains_no_longer_in_service
--
Benjamin
-Original Message-
From: mailop On Behalf Of Benjamin BILLON
Sent: mercredi 9 janvier 2019 18:15
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] List of unused, big email-domains?
I didn't
2019 20:19
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] List of unused, big email-domains?
RBL would be useful but I can start a list of defunct domains based on my
experience, my email history and a few logs. I can't publish a RBL in a blink.
Also in my case, I wouldn't need a MTA to consume t
On 01/09/2019 09:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
Sounds like it'd be more productive to fix the code in the MTA rather
than to invent a band-aid and then try to make the MTA use the band-aid.
Rejecting mail for authoritative NXDOMAIN failure is pretty basic.
I think most of the MTAs (that I've
In article
you write:
>On 01/09/2019 07:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Sounds like it'd be more useful to persuade those domains to publish a
>> null MX. Then everyone's mail to them will fail automagically.
>
>Agreed.
>
>However that requires that the domains still be registered and having
On 01/09/2019 07:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
Sounds like it'd be more useful to persuade those domains to publish a
null MX. Then everyone's mail to them will fail automagically.
Agreed.
However that requires that the domains still be registered and having
DNS service.
Granted, MTAs should
* John Levine :
> In article <0eb10a39-fe76-e064-ae17-dc1484260...@stefan-neufeind.de> you
> write:
> >Part of my reason to start this mail-thread was that for some domains
> >which get mistypes from time to time (like gmail.de instead of
> >gmail.com) it would maybe nice to reject that email
In article <0eb10a39-fe76-e064-ae17-dc1484260...@stefan-neufeind.de> you write:
>Part of my reason to start this mail-thread was that for some domains
>which get mistypes from time to time (like gmail.de instead of
>gmail.com) it would maybe nice to reject that email right away ...
Sounds like
On 1/8/19 9:20 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> you write:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>>
>> On 01/08/2019 12:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Why would spam trap domains want to say anything?
>>
>> So that their domain(s) would be ineligible to be listed.
>
> You're still making the key
From: http://www.sorbs.net/general/using.shtml
Under 'Zones Available':
nomail.rhsbl.sorbs.net - List of domain names where the owners have
indicated no email should ever originate from
these
domains.
.. Its pretty much
Ah yes.. have to have the ACL's in place to send empty replies ;)
With our company having run RBL's for well over 10 years, (like many
others on this list) we have seen it all, spammers checking for clean IP
space, employees at competitors, the 'startups' wanting to seed their
data sets
On 8 Jan 2019, at 15:58, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
On 01/08/2019 01:49 PM, John R Levine wrote:
(I) don't see it as very useful.
Fair.
I'm of the opinion that an RBL is not difficult to set up. To me the
difficult thing is sourcing data to put in it.
No, the difficult part of
It's just another tool in our toolbox.
--
Benjamin
-Original Message-
From: mailop On Behalf Of John R Levine
Sent: mardi 8 janvier 2019 21:49
To: Brandon Long
Cc: mailop ; Grant Taylor
Subject: Re: [mailop] List of unused, big email-domains?
> Tools can be used for good and
On 01/08/2019 01:49 PM, John R Levine wrote:
(I) don't see it as very useful.
Fair.
I'm of the opinion that an RBL is not difficult to set up. To me the
difficult thing is sourcing data to put in it.
I do also want to be sure that if such is done, there is some sanity
around it.
Can I
Tools can be used for good and bad purposes. At some level, an ESP is
trusting mailing lists from their customers, and
knows that some of those lists are bad, even if the customer claims the
lists are on the up and up. Any "white hat" ESP is going
to have various systems in place to try and
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 11:53 AM John Levine wrote:
> In article <
> 939a57ce-4fcc-bd72-b2a4-632fe...@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> you
> write:
> >Also, it would be trivial for spam trap operators to disqualify their
> >domains by stating that they do send email from said domains.
>
> Why
In article
you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On 01/08/2019 12:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> Why would spam trap domains want to say anything?
>
>So that their domain(s) would be ineligible to be listed.
You're still making the key assumption that they would care.
>Receivers could use it
On 01/08/2019 12:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
Why would spam trap domains want to say anything?
So that their domain(s) would be ineligible to be listed.
Something as simple as the following would render a sending domain
ineligible.
From: postmaster@domain.eample
Subject: I send email.
In article <939a57ce-4fcc-bd72-b2a4-632fe...@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
you write:
>Also, it would be trivial for spam trap operators to disqualify their
>domains by stating that they do send email from said domains.
Why would spam trap domains want to say anything?
What would tbe point
on Wikipedia tomorrow, if nobody does it first =)
--
Benjamin
-Original Message-
From: mailop On Behalf Of Grant Taylor via mailop
Sent: mardi 8 janvier 2019 19:58
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] List of unused, big email-domains?
On 01/08/2019 10:32 AM, John Levine wrote
On 01/08/2019 10:32 AM, John Levine wrote:
A lot of them have been turned into spamtraps after rejecting mail for
a year or so. For obvious reasons, the people using them will not tell
you what they are.
I think there is a significant difference in a list of defunct sending
domains and a
On 01/08/2019 09:55 AM, Benjamin BILLON wrote:
I'd be interested in that too.
As would I.
As I'm not aware of such list, what about just starting it from
scratch? We could put it on Wikipedia or anywhere else where it makes
sense, and where we would have history and versioning.
I'm not
In article <570336ea-8179-23c2-6a8c-1fa95380e...@stefan-neufeind.de> you write:
>Does somebody know of a list of domains that are known to not run
>email-services anymore these days?
A lot of them have been turned into spamtraps after rejecting mail for
a year or so. For obvious reasons, the
De : mailop De la part de Benjamin BILLON
> Envoyé : mardi 8 janvier 2019 17:56
> À : Stefan Neufeind ; mailop@mailop.org
> Objet : Re: [mailop] List of unused, big email-domains?
>
> I'd be interested in that too.
> As I'm not aware of such list, what about just starting it from
t of addresses found in lists?
Mathieu Bourdin.
-Message d'origine-
De : mailop De la part de Benjamin BILLON
Envoyé : mardi 8 janvier 2019 17:56
À : Stefan Neufeind ; mailop@mailop.org
Objet : Re: [mailop] List of unused, big email-domains?
I'd be interested in that too.
As I'm not awar
+1 in being interested in that documentation. I have a relatively small
list based on shutdown announcements from industry blog posts, e.g. what Al
Iverson has compiled here:
https://www.spamresource.com/search/label/dead%20domains
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM Benjamin BILLON wrote:
> I'd
I'd be interested in that too.
As I'm not aware of such list, what about just starting it from scratch? We
could put it on Wikipedia or anywhere else where it makes sense, and where we
would have history and versioning.
I recently saw a few domains decommissioned for years, and they still have
28 matches
Mail list logo
