[mailop] Sort of old but Apple now accepts TLS1.2 on IMAP...

[Eric Tykwinski]

I just saw on Full Disclosure about Apple patching a bunch of services for 
disabling TLS1.0, so I figured I’d give Apple Mail a shot.
I can confirm that Apple Mail Version 11.1 (3445.4.7) does in fact use TLS1.2 
now, but of course you’re always going to have older clients hitting your 
servers unless you are corporate and can control it.

I can’t remember who was asking, but at least we are getting there to disabling 
TLS1.0.

Sincerely,

Eric Tykwinski
TrueNet, Inc.
P: 610-429-8300

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Hotmail and 4.5.1 4.7.500 Server Busy with some

[Emre Üst |euro . message|]

Hello Michael,

We have same issues

185.11.213.11;185.11.213.12;185.11.213.13;185.11.213.14;185.11.213.15

İts kind of like all network blocked .

Thank you


-- 
*EMRE ÜST*
Deliverability Specialist

*t.*   +902123430739
*f.*   +902123430742

*email: *emre@euromsg.com <%23>
*skype:* user_name
*web:* euromsg.com

Yeşilce Mh. Yunus Emre Cd. Ada İş Mrk. No: 4 Zemin Kat 4. Levent / İstanbul


 








This e-mail message may contain confidential or legally privileged
information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s).
Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the
taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is prohibited.
E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they
can be intercepted, amended, or contain viruses. Anyone who communicates
with us by e-mail is deemed to have accepted these risks. Related Digital
is not responsible for errors or omissions in this message and denies any
responsibility for any damage arising from the use of e-mail. Any opinion
and other statement contained in this message and any attachment are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Earthlink Unblock Requests

[Staudinger, Malcolm]

Sorry I missed this - am getting less and less involved in ELNK consumer mail 
abuse/delivery these days.

We recently found an issue that was causing outbound replies from some of our 
abuse automation to end up on the floor, and it's corrected now, so give it 
another shot, and please feel free to reach out to me off-list on specific IPs 
if you're still having issues

Ditto to anyone that was missing feedback loop emails, they should be flowing 
again as well

Malcolm Staudinger
Consultant – Info Security | EIRS Operations
malcolm.staudin...@windstream.com


-Original Message-
From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Suresh 
Ramasubramanian
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:18 PM
To: Al Iverson 
Cc: Michael Peddemors ; mailop 
Subject: Re: [mailop] Earthlink Unblock Requests

+1 to Al.  Also I thought the fun old days of obscure dnsbls run by cranks was 
long gone, I’m happy (!) to see that nothing much has changed.

--srs

> On 18-Oct-2017, at 6:39 AM, Al Iverson  wrote:
> 
> This is uncalled for. Casey is a very nice person who has worked in 
> the email industry for years, and many of us know him from his days at 
> Return Path.
> 
> Regards,
> Al Iverson

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Certified Senders Alliance

[David Hofstee]

The rules they offer are "normal" for an ESP. I have complained personally,
a couple of times (to the address they make you add in the headers). Did
not get any response on that (repeatedly).

Microsoft and Yahoo are partners of the CSA. Terry posted something on
it but I can't remember what they do with that membership. Personally the
only value I see is an open communication channel for senders/receivers if
something goes wrong. At least that is what I would expect.

Yours,


David

On 1 November 2017 at 16:26, Steve Atkins  wrote:

>
> > On Nov 1, 2017, at 6:28 AM, Alexander Burch 
> wrote:
> >
> > What is the general opinion of the Certified Senders Alliance? Does
> anyone find it impactful for delivery? They offered to let us join without
> any vetting, just sent us a bill for $___ without any questions. If there
> is no vetting process I have a hard time seeing how it would validate any
> sender as trustworthy.
>
> The advice they offer is good, and if you follow it it will likely improve
> your delivery[1], regardless of whether you pay them or are added to their
> whitelist. Just like the other certification programs.
>
> If your mail is marginal / borderline enough that it's getting blocked,
> but also marginal / borderline enough that it's stats aren't so bad and you
> can contact the ISP to have them have a postmaster put eyeballs on your
> mailstream, and they're an ISP that uses CSA data, then your being listed
> there might, if the stats are otherwise 50/50, persuade the postmaster to
> give you the benefit of the doubt.
>
> e.g. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/tzink/2017/07/06/how-we-
> use-the-certified-senders-alliance-ip-reputation-list/
>
> There are lots of other things you can do to signal the virtue of your
> policies and procedures, and buying your way into certification should be
> nearer the end of that list than the beginning.
>
> Cheers,
>   Steve
>
> [1] You can get advice just as good, and sometimes better, from places
> that aren't asking you to buy your way into a certification program.
>
> --
> -- Steve Atkins -- https://wordtothewise.com/
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>



-- 
--
My opinion is mine.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] About the Certified Senders Alliance

[Alexander Zeh]

Hello everyone,

a friend informed me about a topic going on about the Certified Senders 
Alliance on this mailing list. That’s why I joined it.
I work for the CSA for many years now. 
First and foremost of all: 
It is definitely not true that a sender can join the CSA without any vetting. 
That statement bothered me a lot, because it’s a plain lie. Maybe because 
important information was lost in some communication between more than two 
parties, I don’t want to assume ill intent by anybody. In fact from every 
sender who wants to get certified and be whitelisted only about 10% make it 
through the whole process and are approved. Btw: the certification needs to be 
confirmed by the certification committee in which 2 seats out of 4 are major 
ISP partners. 
I totally agree that if you have delivery issues it shouldn’t be the first step 
to reach out any certification program to fix it. And this is not how CSA 
works. If a sender has delivery issues, in 99% these problems are justified and 
self made. So what the CSA does is, that in the process we find potential 
issues and help senders to align with current best practices aka. the CSA 
admission criteria.  This whole process can take weeks and months and still 
many senders don’t achieve a certification in the end, because we take that 
very serious. 
Anybody on this mailing list, please feel free to have a look at our criteria 
and see for yourself if they are reasonable or not. As everything we do is 
completely transparent, you can find them on 
https://certified-senders.org/library either at the end, or you can select the 
type “CSA specific” to filter. 

Sorry about this rant-ish post, but we try our best to improve overall quality 
of senders, so the initial post kind of annoyed me. 

Anyway. I am open for discussion either here, direct with me or for example on 
the next M3AAWG meeting in person. 

Best
Alex

-- 
Best regards

Alexander Zeh

Engineering Manager

---

eco - Association of the Internet Industry
Certified Senders Alliance

Lichtstrasse 43h
50825 Cologne
Germany

phone: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 171
fax: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 111
mobile: +49 (0) 171 - 657 2628
e-mail: alexander@eco.de
web: http://www.eco.de

---

eco - Association of the Internet Industry
CEO: Harald A. Summa
Executive board: Prof. Michael Rotert (Chairman), Oliver Süme (Deputy
Chairman), Klaus Landefeld, Felix Höger, Prof. Dr. Norbert Pohlmann
Register of Associations: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, VR 14478
Registered office: Cologne

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Certified Senders Alliance

[Steve Atkins]

> On Nov 1, 2017, at 6:28 AM, Alexander Burch  wrote:
> 
> What is the general opinion of the Certified Senders Alliance? Does anyone 
> find it impactful for delivery? They offered to let us join without any 
> vetting, just sent us a bill for $___ without any questions. If there is no 
> vetting process I have a hard time seeing how it would validate any sender as 
> trustworthy. 

The advice they offer is good, and if you follow it it will likely improve your 
delivery[1], regardless of whether you pay them or are added to their 
whitelist. Just like the other certification programs.

If your mail is marginal / borderline enough that it's getting blocked, but 
also marginal / borderline enough that it's stats aren't so bad and you can 
contact the ISP to have them have a postmaster put eyeballs on your mailstream, 
and they're an ISP that uses CSA data, then your being listed there might, if 
the stats are otherwise 50/50, persuade the postmaster to give you the benefit 
of the doubt. 

e.g. 
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/tzink/2017/07/06/how-we-use-the-certified-senders-alliance-ip-reputation-list/

There are lots of other things you can do to signal the virtue of your policies 
and procedures, and buying your way into certification should be nearer the end 
of that list than the beginning.

Cheers,
  Steve

[1] You can get advice just as good, and sometimes better, from places that 
aren't asking you to buy your way into a certification program.

-- 
-- Steve Atkins -- https://wordtothewise.com/
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Certified Senders Alliance

[Laura Atkins]

They’re useful / important if you’re mailing into certain EU-centric consumer 
email providers - .de being the big one. But if your market is primarily US or 
webmail providers it’s not a huge priority.

laura 


> On Nov 1, 2017, at 6:28 AM, Alexander Burch  wrote:
> 
> What is the general opinion of the Certified Senders Alliance? Does anyone 
> find it impactful for delivery? They offered to let us join without any 
> vetting, just sent us a bill for $___ without any questions. If there is no 
> vetting process I have a hard time seeing how it would validate any sender as 
> trustworthy. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex
> 
> 
>   
> Alex Burch
> ActiveCampaign / Deliverability Lead
> (800) 357-0402
> abu...@activecampaign.com 
> 1 N. Dearborn St., Chicago , Il 60602, United States
>    
>   
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

-- 
Having an Email Crisis?  800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
la...@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741  

Email Delivery Blog: http://wordtothewise.com/blog  






___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Certified Senders Alliance

[Bill Cole]

On 1 Nov 2017, at 9:28 (-0400), Alexander Burch wrote:


What is the general opinion of the Certified Senders Alliance?


Never heard of them before today... They appear to be mostly oriented to 
the German and Deutschophone European markets.


(Note that I've run mail systems for German entities' subsidiaries in 
the US as well as for a Swiss email hosting operation.)



Does anyone
find it impactful for delivery?


As someone who has worked predominantly on the receiving side and on 
anti-spam tools, including work for receivers in their region of focus, 
the fact that I've never heard of them before may be an indicative data 
point. It may also be worth noting that I'm a pretty hardline 
anti-spammer, my boss in CH was even less forgiving to a degree that 
caused false positives, and yet we never had anyone ask us to 
participate in CSA or point to them as evidence of good intention.



They offered to let us join without any
vetting, just sent us a bill for $___ without any questions. If there 
is no
vetting process I have a hard time seeing how it would validate any 
sender

as trustworthy.


Having looked at their site, it appears that senders self-certify by 
asserting that they follow the CSA rules. So yes: CSA is certifying that 
senders' checks clear when paying for a positive reputation.


With that said, they DO solicit complaints all over their site, so it is 
certainly possible that they follow the model that has dominated the 
purchased reputation industry forever: trust until shown refuting 
evidence.



--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Currently Seeking Steady Work: https://linkedin.com/in/billcole

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] Message recipients column in SNDS

[Maarten Oelering]

Hi,

We have been tracking the numbers on SNDS for a few years. One of the metrics 
we monitor is the difference between “RCPT commands” and “Message recipients”. 
See also the section “Message Recipients” on the SNDS FAQ page:

"This is the number of recipients on messages actually transmitted by the IP. 
With well-behaved mailers, there is often a small difference (a few percent) 
between the number of RCPT commands and this number, due to accounts becoming 
inactive and other such anomalies."

Previously we rarely detected a large difference between these numbers, and the 
difference was accounted for with 5XX errors. But since a few weeks we noticed 
that on multiple IPs from different senders the number of “Message recipients” 
has suddenly dropped to unexplainable low values. This would suggest a high 
rejection rate, but the number of bounces does not match up with the 
difference. And I don’t assume that Microsoft is now dropping messages on the 
floor in larger quantities. It looks like something has changed in SNDS.

Did anyone else notice a recent change in the “Message recipients” column? Or 
better yet, can someone explain how we should interpret this number now?

Thanks,
Maarten Oelering
Postmastery

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] Certified Senders Alliance

[Alexander Burch]

What is the general opinion of the Certified Senders Alliance? Does anyone
find it impactful for delivery? They offered to let us join without any
vetting, just sent us a bill for $___ without any questions. If there is no
vetting process I have a hard time seeing how it would validate any sender
as trustworthy.

Thanks,
Alex


Alex Burch
ActiveCampaign / Deliverability Lead
(800) 357-0402
abu...@activecampaign.com
1 N. Dearborn St., Chicago , Il 60602, United States



___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop