On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 13:11:31 +1100, Michelle Sullivan via mailop
wrote:
>Worse when they (the receiver) silently discards them... user checks the
>spamfolder and their inbox and the sender thinks it all went through and
>the email is never seen despite people looking for it and wanting it.
Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
On 14 Oct 2019, at 9:29, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote:
as things stand today, i think we do
technology has gotten very good but it's not perfect; sometimes spam
isn't detected, and sometimes real messages are detected as spam
I would rather have
Or the "power" users who go through their spam folder and forward every
message in it to 20 abuse/postmaster addresses plus the FBI? Messages that
were automatically determined to be spam.
User's are weird.
Brandon
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:19 AM Alexander Zeh via mailop
wrote:
> The thing
> If we want to try and respect MTA-STS, when doing STARTTLS, the sender
> needs to send the right information in the TLS SNI (Server Name
> Inidication) extension. An MTA-STS-honoring SMTP client expects to
> validate the X.509 certificate of the receiving MTA, but that MTA might
> be known by a
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:39:21 +0100, Mark | Uniform Benefits via mailop
wrote:
>A comment on Microsoft escalation would be that it seems (to me at least) to
>be separate for outlook/Hotmail/live etc whereas if we have an issue it
>tends to be across all Microsoft domains in one go. We send from
I think Microsoft is able to distribute the CS load across a wider group of
agents as I have had replies in the past from people not on the
deliverability teams. That said I would have thought Google could offer some
form of escalation beyond the webform. Just used the google postmaster form
as
On Tue 15/Oct/2019 06:42:30 +0200 Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2019, at 18:59, Hal Murray via mailop wrote:
>
>>> What one recipient sees as spam another recipient not only wants, they’ve
>>> actually gone through a COI process to confirm they want it.
>>
>> Has anybody investigated
Dnia 16.10.2019 o godz. 16:17:03 Alexander Zeh via mailop pisze:
> Why? Because most people are kind of lazy. They don’t want to move spam
> away, even if it’s only one click.
But it's one click only once. Not everytime you open your mailbox. I think
about it as working as follows: when you
If we want to try and respect MTA-STS, when doing STARTTLS, the sender
needs to send the right information in the TLS SNI (Server Name
Inidication) extension. An MTA-STS-honoring SMTP client expects to
validate the X.509 certificate of the receiving MTA, but that MTA might
be known by a dozen
The thing is.. maybe technically savvy users don’t need spam folders. But
having „normies“ in mind, like I’m thinking of my parents or friends who work
in a totally different industry, I’m sure we need spam folders.
Why? Because most people are kind of lazy. They don’t want to move spam away,
Dnia 16.10.2019 o godz. 13:01:49 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
> On 16/10/2019 12:30, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> >Second case is when you want to*send* mail to someone. Someone is selling
> >something on the Internet, you want to buy it, but in order to do it, you
> >have to send e-mail to
Dnia 16.10.2019 o godz. 13:01:49 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
> In your first situation, rejecting the messages is very bad. In the
> second situation, rejecting the messages *may* be better than
> accepting and semi-hiding - but only if you have another viable way
> of contacting the recipient.
On 16/10/2019 12:30, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Second case is when you want to*send* mail to someone. Someone is selling
something on the Internet, you want to buy it, but in order to do it, you
have to send e-mail to the seller's address provided in the ad.
If the person is wanting to
Dnia 16.10.2019 o godz. 03:43:10 Ángel via mailop pisze:
>
> Suppose you bought service/product X, but didn't receive the
> confirmation email.
> Note: You are an end user, and don't have access to the server logs. ;)
>
> Did the have an issue sending you the mail? Was it rejected locally as
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
