Sébastien RICCIO
SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR
P +41 840 888 888
F +41 840 888 000
M sric...@swisscenter.com
> Nobody ever said it was fair. But I would suggest that if you want to run a
> mail system, you'll have to figure out how to deal with all of the other msil
> > systems who you hope will
On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 4:03 AM Thomas Walter wrote:
> Hey Brandon,
>
> On 19.04.19 23:31, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> > For one, when you're only solution is to reject, the only way to get a
> > signal that you're rejecting the mail wrong is manual review, which is
> > impractical at best,
On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:47 PM Bill Cole <
mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2019, at 17:31, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
>
> > I just don't think this is practical.
>
> It could be, were it not for the tragic conceptual cancer of "email is
> free like beer."
>
> >
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 4:22 PM Jay Hennigan
wrote:
> On 4/19/19 2:31 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> > I just don't think this is practical.
> >
> > For one, when you're only solution is to reject, the only way to get a
> > signal that you're rejecting the mail wrong is manual review,
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:19:09 -0600, Dave Warren wrote:
>I strongly disagree here, the freemail providers have a product (your
>eyeballs) to sell to their customers (the advertisers). Their customers
>aren't particularly interested in advertising on a service without users.
Indeed. However
On 4/22/19 2:00 AM, Sébastien Riccio wrote:
>
> They also come back with the argument that they've sent the same mail from
> their "free-but-user-is-the-product" mail account and that it reached his
> customers inbox without problem.
> So then it is our fault if he loses business, because he
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:41 AM John Capo via mailop
wrote:
> On Mon, April 22, 2019 11:31, John Leslie wrote:
> > I got a surprise trying to confirm a dental appointment
> >
> >
> > status=SOFTBOUNCE (host alt2.aspmx.l.google.com[172.217.192.26] said:
> 550-5.7.1 This message does
> > not have
On 2019-04-22 08:11, Michael Rathbun wrote:
Neither you nor your customer are customers of the freemail provider.
Agreed.
The provider has close to zero economic incentive to pay attention to your needs
and desires.
I strongly disagree here, the freemail providers have a product (your
In article <20190422153124.GA16895@verdi> you write:
> I got a surprise trying to confirm a dental appointment
>
>status=SOFTBOUNCE (host alt2.aspmx.l.google.com[172.217.192.26] said:
>550-5.7.1 This message does not have
>authentication information or fails to pass 550-5.7.1 authentication
In article <14fa4dfed24c46f398666a0efddca...@ex1.obs.local> you write:
>> No, it means that Gmail sends vast amounts of mail and most of it is not
>> spam. A one message test from a
>system that sends billions of messages a day is hardly statistically
>significant.
>
>Yes okay. But I still
I'd prefer if the domain name being safelisted would match in the From: header,
just as long as the SPF or DKIM validated.
Or words to that affect.
If the From: header had one thing, but the MAIL FROM, SPF, DKIM, etc had
something else, that would not be kosher.
IMHO.
But I'm not in
On Mon, April 22, 2019 11:31, John Leslie wrote:
> I got a surprise trying to confirm a dental appointment
>
>
> status=SOFTBOUNCE (host alt2.aspmx.l.google.com[172.217.192.26] said:
> 550-5.7.1 This message does
> not have authentication information or fails to pass 550-5.7.1 authentication
>
I could be wrong, but it looks like Gmail may be 'enforcing' SPF or other
authentication methods?
Was your email sent from the domain you are sending from here?
Brad
On Mon, 22 Apr. 2019, 22:34 John Leslie, wrote:
>I got a surprise trying to confirm a dental appointment
>
>
Yes, it was mentioned to powers that be over there that the error
message is NOT very clear, and doesn't accurately represent the problem.
Basically, once they find a reason to be more 'suspicious' of the
messages that are being sent (And don't ask me about their black magic
to decide that,
I got a surprise trying to confirm a dental appointment
status=SOFTBOUNCE (host alt2.aspmx.l.google.com[172.217.192.26] said: 550-5.7.1
This message does not have authentication information or fails to pass
550-5.7.1 authentication checks. To best protect our users from spam, the
550-5.7.1
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 09:02:19 -0400, Bryan Blackwell
wrote:
>I'd just like to point out that there are some - perhaps not many, but some -
>of us who deliver mail where the subscriber most certainly is the customer.
>My list server at corvair.org was paid for entirely by individual
On Apr 21, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Michael Rathbun wrote:
>
> o your customers (the advertisers) pay you to have warm bodies look at their
> adverts. Folks who never log in don't look at diddly.
>
> o The vast majority of accounts that have not engaged in the past 180 days
> are abandoned, and
On 21/4/2019 22:39, Thomas Walter wrote:
And force people like me to resubscribe every 90 to 180 days, because I
don't allow tracking nonsense in emails?
Lists should send a warning "You have been inactive for 90 days, you
will be unsubscribed when you reach 180 days" message. I get those
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 20:06:41 + Michael Wise wrote:
> The one guaranteed way to get traffic delivered to the INBOX is for
> the recipient to SafeSender the domains.
Just to clarify, does this have to be the domain in the RFC822-From
address? Or can it be another header such as
> No, it means that Gmail sends vast amounts of mail and most of it is not
> spam. A one message test from a system that sends billions of messages a day
> is hardly statistically significant.
Yes okay. But I still don't get how it can be fair. Our systems sends quite
some volume of mails
20 matches
Mail list logo
