Heho,
after our paper on mail sending configurations some time ago [1], we
now glued that together into a self-service site:
https://email-security-scans.org/
I'd be happy to hear your feedback, especially if things do not work as
expected (then, your test ID and ideally stored emails would be
On Mon, 2023-02-27 at 15:45 -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
>
> With that said, given the responses in this thread, we will be taking
> a close look at the few rules we have in place where we retry 5xx and
> see if A.) the rules are still being hit at all, and B.) are these
> retries still
> Interesting to me Atro said this is sendgrid. I saw sendgrid format
> sender address but headers do no show any sendgrid. So now its
> harder to give due suspision on sendgrid because they give full
> infrastructure to rent for other domain like intuit?
Yes.
Full headers (munged of course) and
> > harder to give due suspision on sendgrid because they give full
It's actually kind of easy.
Is the IP announced by AS11377?
Yes? -> SendGrid.
--
Atro Tossavainen, Founder, Partner
Koli-Lõks OÜ (reg. no. 12815457, VAT ID EE101811635)
Tallinn, Estonia
tel. +372-5883-4269,
The examples I have received are indeed doing that, using a real QB account to
send invoices with fraudulent payloads.
-Original Message-
From: mailop On Behalf Of Faisal Misle via mailop
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 2:06 PM
To: mailop List
Subject: Re: [mailop] Intuit directly
It appears that Kelly Molloy via mailop said:
>On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:14 PM Matt Palmer via mailop
> wrote:
>> That's something to talk to your ESP about. They're in charge of retrying.
>
>Christine *is* the ESP.
She's at Shopify, but Sendgrid is the ESP.
Perhaps she can confirm with
Usually I have to remind ESP's on this..
If you have a domain in the PTR record, make sure that it has an
associated URL for the domain, or redirects to your company website.
Maybe someone can help me, but there was a M3AAWG Best practices
document that covered this..
Today, (hey Ken, can
On Mon, 2023-02-27 at 04:55 +, Denny Watson via mailop wrote:
>
> All I have said (which you had conveniently redacted) is that RFC5321
> leaves the door open to process bounces differently should the
> sending MTA be able to determine the reason for non-delivery.[1]
>
> ...
>
> [1] See my
I can't go into the specifics in great detail, but I want to make it clear
that these are rare edge cases. We aren't out there retrying 5xx every
chance we get because we don't care about being a good citizen. These are
small scale, often short-lived exceptions where retrying a very specific
5xx
On 2/27/23 12:59, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote:
after our paper on mail sending configurations some time ago [1], we
now glued that together into a self-service site:
https://email-security-scans.org/
I'd be happy to hear your feedback, especially if things do not work as
expected
Nice!
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 08:05:31PM +0100, Faisal Misle via mailop wrote:
> I wonder if its the similar MO as PayPal, where they use Quickbooks accounts
> to send fake invoices... so it uses the legitimate QB stream
Right on the money, that is exactly what it is.
--
Atro Tossavainen, Founder,
For better or worse, *not *retrying *some *4xx is even easier to justify.
Here are a few massive examples.
421 4.7.1 Message permanently deferred: less than 1% delivered rate after
32 retries. This is across 100s of millions of messages, thousands of
unique senders, and thousands of IPs, looking
On Mon, 2023-02-27 at 18:53 -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
> For better or worse, *not *retrying *some *4xx is even easier to
> justify.
> Here are a few massive examples.
>
> 421 4.7.1 Message permanently deferred:
>
> 452 Sender Rejected:
Keeping in mind that the RFC says not to use the text
Those possible (and likely) explanations for a few of the rejections are
actually really insightful. It sounds like we agree that there are cases
where 4xx should not be retried. That's progress! The question around the
downside of queuing them up for a while is essentially 2-part.
First, we send
Heho,
> The inevitable questions about how bad the issues are. I.e. what
> could happen?:
> - My ip4 and ip6 reverse DNS records are not DNSSEC-signed. I could
> ask my hosting provider if they can sign them. Could there be a
> reason not to?
> - I'm not DKIM-signing the MIME-Version header
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 7:14 PM Matt Palmer via mailop
wrote:
> That's something to talk to your ESP about. They're in charge of retrying.
Christine *is* the ESP.
Kids these days.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
16 matches
Mail list logo
