So, the problem isn't strictly the CNAMEs, its the fact that the same page
with the same path is served on all of the domains on that server.
If you restricted serving of the link-tracking link to the domain it was
supposed to be for, it would only have affected that domain.
I've submitted your
If you send me a list of affected domains, I can raise an internal
escalation to the safe browsing team so they can see if the rules are
working as expected or not.
Brandon
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:48 AM Tim Starr wrote:
> We have a case of many clients' link-tracking domains being all
We have a case of many clients' link-tracking domains being all flagged for
"social engineering content." I see that there's a case-by-case security
review request process, but is there any way to handle it for many at once?
This seems to have been due to many different domains all being CNAMEd to
I didn't find shorter than "List of domain names formerly used to receive
massive amounts of emails" for the title of the page, if someone has a better
idea, please sho[o|u]t ...
--
Benjamin
-Original Message-
From: mailop On Behalf Of Benjamin BILLON
Sent: mardi 8 janvier 2019 20:19
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
10 matches
Mail list logo