[mailop] Is there a MimeCast rep in the house?

Please reply off-list, thanks! Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." | Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ? ___ mailop

Re: [mailop] Messages over IPv6 rejected by Google for failed authentication checks

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > > On 09.06.2016 18:20, Laura Atkins wrote: >> >>> On Jun 9, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Bernhard Schmidt >>> wrote: >>> >>> Header-From and Envelope-From are aligned, the sending domain does not

Re: [mailop] Messages over IPv6 rejected by Google for failed authentication checks

On 09.06.2016 18:20, Laura Atkins wrote: > >> On Jun 9, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: >> >> Header-From and Envelope-From are aligned, the sending domain does not >> have any DKIM/SPF/DMARC published. We're working on DKIM, but this is >> not rolled out for

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 09:25:00AM +0100, Paul Smith wrote: > I'd have thought that even if you do decide to just throw "extreme" > junk away (which I think is a very bad idea, BTW), then you should > tell the user that you've done so - either in a daily/weekly summary > email or an online list or

Re: [mailop] I trust my candor is appreciated...?

> If the traffic is Transactional, by all means open a ticket and push it. It > is always the best plan to keep Transactional traffic strictly separate from > all other traffic, and if there are issues, point the nature of said traffic > out in follow-up emails, as once validated, it will

Re: [mailop] Messages over IPv6 rejected by Google for failed authentication checks

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Michael Peddemors wrote: > On 16-06-09 11:26 AM, Franck Martin via mailop wrote: > >> As people pointed out, an SPF record is easy to set and fast to solve >> the issue, DKIM can come later... >> > > Hehehe... 'easy' is a relative word,

Re: [mailop] Messages over IPv6 rejected by Google for failed authentication checks

On 16-06-09 11:26 AM, Franck Martin via mailop wrote: As people pointed out, an SPF record is easy to set and fast to solve the issue, DKIM can come later... Hehehe... 'easy' is a relative word, amazing how many poor SPF records are out there, and sometimes it is hard enough to get email

Re: [mailop] Messages over IPv6 rejected by Google for failed authentication checks

It is a M3AAWG best practice to not accept unauthenticated emails over IPv6, Microsoft does it, we do it, Google too... https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/M3AAWG_Inbound_IPv6_Policy_Issues-2014-09.pdf It is also likely that bad stuff (less visible for the sender) is also

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 11:07 AM, John Levine wrote: > >>> List-Unsubcribe: >>> List-Unsubscribe-Post: mailaddr=some...@receipient.de=0209023 > >> If there is a requirement from MUA developers for an https-based >> non-interactive

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

>> List-Unsubcribe: >> List-Unsubscribe-Post: mailaddr=some...@receipient.de=0209023 >If there is a requirement from MUA developers for an https-based >non-interactive unsubscribe - and >researching whether that's the case and what their actual

Re: [mailop] Contact at Mailchimp?

On 6/9/16 8:50 AM, Al Iverson wrote: Wouldn't ab...@mailchimp.com be a better place for a non-customer to contact them about an email issue? They've been very responsive to me via that address. Yes, got it resolved. This had nothing to do with abuse from Mailchimp but horrible behavior on the

Re: [mailop] Contact at Mailchimp?

Hi Al, Yup, ab...@mailchimp.com and postmas...@mailchimp.com should both get a person and is always a good way for customers and especially non-customers to get in touch with us; although if it’s a customer support issue we’ll find a way to get them over to the right area. We got rid of free

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

+1. This was what I was thinking when I read it, too. -S > -Original Message- > From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of > John Levine > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 09:11 > To: mailop@mailop.org > Cc: tobias.herk...@optivo.de > Subject: Re: [mailop] "One-Click"

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:24 PM, wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:53:16 -0400 > Al Iverson wrote: > >> This also brings us back to the issue of what happens when security >> devices or services click the link, instead of the subscriber. In this

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

> You're saying that, simply because a sender or recipient > MIGHT be in Germany, that my US-based mail server has to send > an NDR? And risk getting added to a "backscatter" RBL? No, you also have the option of delivering it to the user in a method that equates to delivery, such as delivering

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 9:11 AM, John Levine wrote: > >> It's a public document and I welcome requests with updates... >> https://github.com/Lockhead/oneclick/blob/master/draft-herkula-oneclick.txt > > Hmmn. One the one hand, I'm definitely in favor of making it as easy > as

Re: [mailop] Messages over IPv6 rejected by Google for failed authentication checks

On 09.06.2016 18:18, Hugo Slabbert wrote: Hi, >> since around 13:00 UTC today all of the sudden we see massive rejects of >> mails towards Google when delivering on IPv6 >> >> Jun 9 15:12:07 lxmhs52 postfix-postout/smtp[50664]: 3rQQgp3VQTzyWn: >> to=, >>

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

On 9 Jun 2016 16:11:17 - "John Levine" wrote: > >It's a public document and I welcome requests with updates... > >https://github.com/Lockhead/oneclick/blob/master/draft-herkula-oneclick.txt > > Hmmn. One the one hand, I'm definitely in favor of making it as easy > as

Re: [mailop] Messages over IPv6 rejected by Google for failed authentication checks

On Thu 2016-Jun-09 18:21:17 +0200, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: Hi, since around 13:00 UTC today all of the sudden we see massive rejects of mails towards Google when delivering on IPv6 Jun 9 15:12:07 lxmhs52 postfix-postout/smtp[50664]: 3rQQgp3VQTzyWn:

Re: [mailop] Messages over IPv6 rejected by Google for failed authentication checks

On 6/9/2016 11:21 AM, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: Hi, since around 13:00 UTC today all of the sudden we see massive rejects of mails towards Google when delivering on IPv6 Jun 9 15:12:07 lxmhs52 postfix-postout/smtp[50664]: 3rQQgp3VQTzyWn: to=,

Re: [mailop] Messages over IPv6 rejected by Google for failed authentication checks

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > > Header-From and Envelope-From are aligned, the sending domain does not > have any DKIM/SPF/DMARC published. We're working on DKIM, but this is > not rolled out for all domains yet. The hosts in question do have

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:53:16 -0400 Al Iverson wrote: > This also brings us back to the issue of what happens when security > devices or services click the link, instead of the subscriber. In this > scenario, it sounds like it would cause an unsubscribe that was not >

Re: [mailop] Messages over IPv6 rejected by Google for failed authentication checks

Hi, since around 13:00 UTC today all of the sudden we see massive rejects of mails towards Google when delivering on IPv6 Jun 9 15:12:07 lxmhs52 postfix-postout/smtp[50664]: 3rQQgp3VQTzyWn: to=, relay=gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2a00:1450:400c:c0a::1b]:25, delay=0.7,

Re: [mailop] Messages over IPv6 rejected by Google for failed authentication checks

On Thu 2016-Jun-09 18:06:30 +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: Hi, since around 13:00 UTC today all of the sudden we see massive rejects of mails towards Google when delivering on IPv6 Jun 9 15:12:07 lxmhs52 postfix-postout/smtp[50664]: 3rQQgp3VQTzyWn:

[mailop] Messages over IPv6 rejected by Google for failed authentication checks

Hi, since around 13:00 UTC today all of the sudden we see massive rejects of mails towards Google when delivering on IPv6 Jun 9 15:12:07 lxmhs52 postfix-postout/smtp[50664]: 3rQQgp3VQTzyWn: to=, relay=gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2a00:1450:400c:c0a::1b]:25, delay=0.7,

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

>It's a public document and I welcome requests with updates... >https://github.com/Lockhead/oneclick/blob/master/draft-herkula-oneclick.txt Hmmn. One the one hand, I'm definitely in favor of making it as easy as possible for people to make the mail go away. On the other hand, this particular

Re: [mailop] I trust my candor is appreciated...?

It's great to see mailbox providers openly sharing information and willing to help senders out. Kent McGovern On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Laura Atkins wrote: > Thirding this. Thanks so much for sharing such insightful information with > us. > > laura > > > > On

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

>> At one point, Hotmail tried to turn off the delete action for sufficiently >> spammy, and just delivered it >into Junk; Customers complained. Loudly. > >Is there a public place/forum/whatever where people complained loudly? I >am just curious to see their arguments about this. The Hotmail

Re: [mailop] Contact at Mailchimp?

Wouldn't ab...@mailchimp.com be a better place for a non-customer to contact them about an email issue? They've been very responsive to me via that address. Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson www.aliverson.com (312)725-0130 On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Joey Rutledge

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

This also brings us back to the issue of what happens when security devices or services click the link, instead of the subscriber. In this scenario, it sounds like it would cause an unsubscribe that was not actually requested by the recipient. I think that is suboptimal. Regards, Al Iverson

Re: [mailop] I trust my candor is appreciated...?

Michael, I greatly appreciate your participation and candor as well. Cheers, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson www.aliverson.com (312)725-0130 On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:40 AM, G. Miliotis wrote: > On 9/6/2016 16:44, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > > > These are hard issues

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails [slightly OT]

On 9/6/2016 17:46, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote: Actually, many small operators also silently discard email. Whether it's by incompetence, or voluntarily doesn't matter much. It's just less visible than hotmail. Undoubtedly, but they can't use the scaling-is-hard argument as a free pass. We

Re: [mailop] I trust my candor is appreciated...?

I very much appreciate you, Michael, taking part in the discussions on this list and giving us some hints on what the issues are. Microsoft could (unfortunately) easily ignore every inquiry from small mail providers and it won't affect them, so... thanks for not ignoring ;-) My hint to german

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails [slightly OT]

On 06/09/2016 04:33 PM, G. Miliotis wrote: > On 9/6/2016 16:13, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: >> The discussion is on-going. > > This is at least one good thing about this whole deal. I think your > suggestion about deleted items (marked as such somehow) would be a good > compromise. > While

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

On 06/09/2016 03:34 PM, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > That's a violation of RFC 821, etc. It might be, but it's the conservative (less scalable) approach instead of the aggressive one. There are RFC5321 violations everywhere like this one ;) RFC5321 4.5.3.2. Timeouts 4.5.3.2.7. Server

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

Hi Michael, Can you advise how one would “ramp up” such a new IP? The very nature of such transactional traffic is that it’s bursty, and may go for weeks when one may send a few dozen mails, then a few thousand on a specific day, then nothing again. Wouldn’t your systems detect that as

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

Le Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:09:31PM +, Michael Wise via mailop [mailop@mailop.org] a écrit: > Unsure what you're saying. If it's the .DE extension, then by that > logic, we, "explicitly target" a lot of users. Pretty much the whole > world, actually. That was the point :) Eric (in my

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

On Thu Jun 9 15:59:33 2016, Dominique Rousseau wrote: > Le Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 01:49:26PM +, Eric Henson [ehen...@pfsweb.com] a > écrit: > > You're saying that, simply because a sender or recipient MIGHT be in > > Germany, that my US-based mail server has to send an NDR? > > I do believe

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

Unsure what you're saying. If it's the .DE extension, then by that logic, we, "explicitly target" a lot of users. Pretty much the whole world, actually. Or perhaps your point is lost on me. :) Aloha, Michael. -- Sent from my Windows Phone From: Dominique

Re: [mailop] I trust my candor is appreciated...?

If the traffic is Transactional, by all means open a ticket and push it. It is always the best plan to keep Transactional traffic strictly separate from all other traffic, and if there are issues, point the nature of said traffic out in follow-up emails, as once validated, it will factor in the

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

Le Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 01:49:26PM +, Eric Henson [ehen...@pfsweb.com] a écrit: > You're saying that, simply because a sender or recipient MIGHT be in > Germany, that my US-based mail server has to send an NDR? I do believe that Microsoft is explicitely targetting german users : # dig

Re: [mailop] I trust my candor is appreciated...?

On 2016-06-09 15:44, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: These are hard issues to discuss, and I hope the view I present of how certain issues are viewed from behind the trenches of a large scale mail service are useful. Sometimes, what scales and what doesn't are not obvious. But the comment

[mailop] I trust my candor is appreciated...?

These are hard issues to discuss, and I hope the view I present of how certain issues are viewed from behind the trenches of a large scale mail service are useful. Sometimes, what scales and what doesn't are not obvious. But the comment on German law in particular is interesting, and ... Will

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

And they WILL notice. Aloha, Michael. -- Sent from my Windows Phone From: Eric Henson Sent: ‎6/‎9/‎2016 3:46 AM To: Renaud Allard Cc: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop]

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

The point is lost on you. So here it is, spelled out: There's a huge difference to most, "Senders" between a 250 and any kind of 4xx or 5xx refusal. Some top tier ESPs even have real-time graphs! Aloha, Michael. -- Sent from my Windows Phone From: Renaud Allard

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

Thanks Michael, That’s helpful and at least something I can give to our admissions people. Cheers, Duncan From: Michael Wise Date: Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 14:26 To: Duncan Brannen ,

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

"Well Known" to people who send high volumes of mail. HotMail has hundreds of millions of users. Things that work when you have a thousand users are under strain when you have ten thousand, and fail long before a hundred thousand. Things that work well for a hundred thousand can barely handle

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 14:30:29 +0200 Dave Warren wrote: > On 2016-06-09 12:23, David Hofstee wrote: > > Same here, auto-unsubscribe presumed. The https is a nice addition > > that I will pass along. I hope that all implementations can handle > > https. Did people verify? > >

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

On 2016-06-09 12:23, David Hofstee wrote: Same here, auto-unsubscribe presumed. The https is a nice addition that I will pass along. I hope that all implementations can handle https. Did people verify? I treat it nearly as strict as a feedbackloop. All streams (of my customer X) to the

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

On 9/6/2016 05:08, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: At one point, Hotmail tried to turn off the delete action for sufficiently spammy, and just delivered it into Junk; Customers complained. Loudly. So whether the system is correctly classifying your traffic or not, I cannot say. But the

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

You're giving spammers very valuable information on which of their emails are classified as spam and which aren't. -Original Message- From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Renaud Allard via mailop Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 4:05 AM To: mailop@mailop.org

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

Same here, auto-unsubscribe presumed. The https is a nice addition that I will pass along. I hope that all implementations can handle https. Did people verify? I treat it nearly as strict as a feedbackloop. All streams (of my customer X) to the recipient will cease permanently. I cannot

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

FWIW I understood that the policy of large recipients is to already 'demand' and 'assume' that the URLs in List-Unsubscribe behave as 1-clicks and that mailto: links can also be triggered from backend systems. That was the requirement that I passed to our R I'd be happy if anyone from a large

[mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

Hi List, I'm working on a document about a topic that came out of an open roundtable discussion at M³AAWG, it is more or less a way for mail senders to signal that a URI in the List-Unsubscribe Header has "One-Click" functionality and therefore can be triggered by backend systems to provide MUA

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

On 06/09/2016 10:25 AM, Paul Smith wrote: > The problem is there may be a few other users who get false positives in > that type of spam quite frequently, and suddenly they are losing > messages with no hope of redemption or even knowledge that it's > happening. Actually, what I do is that when

Re: [mailop] Quick practical question on DMARC.

DKIM is a way to authenticate message by signing domain, it doesn't tell you which domain should sign this message and what should you do if the messages is not signed. DMARC does not replace DKIM, is uses DKIM and SPF as an authentication mechanisms. DMARC is a way to publish an authentication

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

On 09/06/2016 08:42, David Hofstee wrote: I'm dazzled by users here... Isn't the junk-box supposed to hold junk? Wow. Maybe there should be more junk-boxes for the various shades of grey :-). I'd have thought that even if you do decide to just throw "extreme" junk away (which I think is a very

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

I'm dazzled by users here... Isn't the junk-box supposed to hold junk? Wow. Maybe there should be more junk-boxes for the various shades of grey :-). Met vriendelijke groet, David Hofstee Deliverability Management MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP) - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van:

Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail discards mails

Hi, On 06/09/2016 04:08 AM, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > > At one point, Hotmail tried to turn off the delete action for sufficiently > spammy, and just delivered it into Junk; Customers complained. Loudly. Is there a public place/forum/whatever where people complained loudly? I am just