On 2020-08-26 13:36, flo via mailop wrote:
Hi there
Have any of you had any bad experiences with Deutsche Telekom lately?
They put one of my servers on their blacklist after an IP change with
the reason that I have to provide an imprint on that machine.
Have I missed something? Is this how it
On 26/8/2020 20:36, flo via mailop wrote:
I prefer not to put my private address unprotected on the internet.
Well duh.
Not everyone is a business with already-public information. I run my own
server and host some domains on that. What assurances do I have that my
personal information is
Am 27.08.2020 um 08:37 schrieb Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via mailop:
T-Online (or Deutsche Telekom) require that somewhere on your domain is
your address visible. Even if you don't have a web page at all. And
just use the domain for sending mails.
If only there were some standardized mechanism for
Dnia 27.08.2020 o godz. 09:21:20 Felix Zielcke via mailop pisze:
> Deutsche Telekom uses a whitelist which IPs can send mails to @t-
> online.de accounts. They block every IP by default.
>
> So if you got some cloud vm with a new IP address, which never before
> sent mail to a @t-online.de
On 27/08/2020 11:22, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
So if you got some cloud vm with a new IP address, which never before
sent mail to a @t-online.de address, mails will be rejected.
You need to write their postmasters so it gets added to their
whitelist. And for this process you need to have
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 09:21:20AM +0200, Felix Zielcke via mailop wrote:
[..]
> Deutsche Telekom uses a whitelist which IPs can send mails to @t-
> online.de accounts. They block every IP by default.
>
> So if you got some cloud vm with a new IP address, which never before
> sent mail to a
Alternately, cloud providers could block port 25 outbound by default, requiring
new instances/owners to perform some action to be allowed to use port 25. Some
VPN and Tunnel providers do that now. Really depends where you want to place
the burden.
I feel like I've seen an RBL operator or two
Hi,
Benoit Panizzon via mailop writes:
> In the last couple of days we face an increasing amount of phishing
> sites hosted @ firebasestorage.googleapis.com targeting our customers.
We have been hit by the same, although strangely it has not been
happening so much recently.
> Now I start to
Dnia 27.08.2020 o godz. 12:06:29 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
> >>So if you got some cloud vm with a new IP address, which never before
> >>sent mail to a @t-online.de address, mails will be rejected.
> >>You need to write their postmasters so it gets added to their
> >>whitelist. And for this
Hi List
In the last couple of days we face an increasing amount of phishing
sites hosted @ firebasestorage.googleapis.com targeting our customers.
They get taken down rather quickly when added to phishtank.com, but
still they are valid for one or two days after reception, long enough
for stup**
On 27 Aug 2020, at 13:46, micah anderson via mailop wrote:
> Benoit Panizzon via mailop writes:
>
>> In the last couple of days we face an increasing amount of phishing
>> sites hosted @ firebasestorage.googleapis.com targeting our customers.
>
> We have been hit by the same, although
Also page.link which seems to be a firebase hosted / google owned shortener
Sample hxxps://fv01zz75.page.link/amTC redirecting to
hxxp://dach-sovet.ru/opros?utm=2
On 27/08/20, 6:22 PM, "mailop on behalf of micah anderson via mailop"
wrote:
Hi,
Benoit Panizzon via mailop writes:
On 27/08/2020 12:39, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
It's rather strange that you are comparing this to SPF.
1) SPF has no "default deny" policy; if a domain has no SPF record at all,
then mail is (or at least should be) accepted by default.
No, but it's possible for a receiver to have a
On 2020-08-27 at 12:22 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> This is so absurd that it's even hard to find words to describe it.
>
> And it should be - in my opinion - a reason for everyone to block all
> e-mails FROM t-online.de in return.
> Maybe such an Internet-wide block will force them
On 8/27/20 8:24 AM, Felix Zielcke via mailop wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 26.08.2020, 21:06 +0200 schrieb ml+mailop--- via
mailop:
But it was enough to have the imprint visible for them just for the
Sorry for a stupid question: What is "the imprint"?
Does that mean you have to operate a web
Am Mittwoch, den 26.08.2020, 21:06 +0200 schrieb ml+mailop--- via
mailop:
> > But it was enough to have the imprint visible for them just for the
>
> Sorry for a stupid question: What is "the imprint"?
> Does that mean you have to operate a web server with an "Impressum"
> (I guess that's the
Am Donnerstag, den 27.08.2020, 09:02 +0200 schrieb Renaud Allard via
mailop:
>
> On 8/27/20 8:24 AM, Felix Zielcke via mailop wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 26.08.2020, 21:06 +0200 schrieb ml+mailop--- via
> > mailop:
> > > > But it was enough to have the imprint visible for them just for
> > > >
Am Donnerstag, den 27.08.2020, 09:21 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke via
mailop:
> Am Donnerstag, den 27.08.2020, 09:02 +0200 schrieb Renaud Allard via
> mailop:
> > Does this mean that if you send a mail for "u...@domain.com" from
> > the
> > server "mail.example.com" with a correct FCrDNS, it will
Felix Zielcke via mailop writes:
> T-Online (or Deutsche Telekom) require that somewhere on your domain is
> your address visible. Even if you don't have a web page at all. And
> just use the domain for sending mails.
If only there were some standardized mechanism for this information...
On 27 Aug 2020, at 16:53, Tim Bray via mailop wrote:
> Why t-mobile want to white list, I don't know. But you can be sure they
> don't get random spam from random compromised home broadband or cloud servers.
...until someone registers an IP with them, then $time passes and they
terminate
On 27/08/2020 10:30, G. Miliotis via mailop wrote:
Not everyone is a business with already-public information. I run my
own server and host some domains on that. What assurances do I have
that my personal information is protected by T-Mobile / DT after I
send it to them? Why should I be forced
Lots of attacks coming from this block I'm only seeing non-SMTP attacks
however.
Things like attempted SMB breakins, telnet password probing (likely
IoT), VOIP attacks, a variety of botnets.
This could be a badly infected netblock or a dynamic segment with no
method to prevent IP hopping.
Sometimes sites like those have enough info in the url that you can split
it into separate uses/customers yourself, and run different
volume/reputation checking on each separate thing, and that can be useful.
It does seem like that site has a decent amount of non-spam mail usage, but
whether that
23 matches
Mail list logo