On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 20:30:36 -0500,
John Covici via mailop wrote:
>
> Sorry, this went privately so I am sending to the list.
>
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:10:57 -0500,
> Johann Klasek wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 06:33:26PM +0100, ml+mailop--- via mailop wrote:
> > > Us
This went privately, so I am resending to the list.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:10:57 -0500,
Johann Klasek wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 06:33:26PM +0100, ml+mailop--- via mailop wrote:
> > Usually I don't reply to top-posted mails...
> >
> > 1. Try with
> > openssl s_client -conne
Sorry, this went privately so I am sending to the list.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:10:57 -0500,
Johann Klasek wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 06:33:26PM +0100, ml+mailop--- via mailop wrote:
> > Usually I don't reply to top-posted mails...
> >
> > 1. Try with
> > openssl s_client -c
On 24 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?all" (or perhaps
"~all").
Using "-all" as the default in a SPF record does not have any readily
apparent effect on "Inbox" deliverability of SPF-authenticated mail
to GMail rela
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:27 PM Gregory Heytings via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> Brandon Long:
>
> >
> > sender in addressbook is definitely a whitelisting signal, as is
> > replying to a message the user sent or on the same thread. They used to
> > be much stronger whitelisting signal
Brandon Long:
sender in addressbook is definitely a whitelisting signal, as is
replying to a message the user sent or on the same thread. They used to
be much stronger whitelisting signals than they are now, but were abused
by spammers, so it's not a guarantee.
I stand corrected on tho
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 01:07:30PM -0500, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2020, at 12:09, John Covici via mailop wrote:
[..]
>>> On 23 Jan 2020, at 18:01, John Covici via mailop wrote:
Hi. I am using sendmail from my own server and using a virtual
machine in the cloud as a relay.
On 24 Jan 2020, at 3:33, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
Using +all is actually a giant, negative reputation hit according to
various folks I’ve talked to about filters. Using +all says “every
IP is valid” and this was (dunno about still is but definitely was)
used by spammers so they could h
> On 24 Jan 2020, at 20:42, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
>
>
> Troubles with SNDS is a Known Issue and is being worked on.
anything I can do in the meantime to have an IPv4 /22 delisted (after 10 days
of issues)?
thank you
—
antonio
___
mailop
Troubles with SNDS is a Known Issue and is being worked on.
Aloha,
Michael.
--
Michael J Wise
Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
"Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
Open a ticket for Hotmail ?
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Prado
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:38 AM
To: ma
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:42 AM Gregory Heytings via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> Laura Atkins:
>
> >
> > The OP asked for advice on delivery, not his SPF setup. His SPF setup is
> > fine and is absolutely not the problem here.
> >
>
> There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?
hi,
it seems that SNDS
https://sendersupport.olc.protection.outlook.com/snds/
is not sending authorization e-mail any longer so, currently, is not
possible to add resources there.
anyone can confirm?
thank you
--
antonio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:32 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
> Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 12:44:56 M. Omer GOLGELI via mailop pisze:
> > Google usually displays why it thinks an email is spam when an email
> marked as spam is opened.
>
> Yes, and it's usually always the same reason: "The message
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:48 AM Gregory Heytings via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >> There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?all" (or perhaps
> >> "~all").
> >
> > Using "-all" as the default in a SPF record does not have any readily
> > apparent effect on "Inbox" delive
On Fri 24/Jan/2020 04:24:31 +0100 John Gateley via mailop wrote:
Hello,
I have run my own mail server for about 20 years.
It is postfix, and has DNS, SPF and DKIM set up correctly.
DMARC?
The mail server is too small (much much less than 100 messages per day) so I
cannot check Gmail's tool
That is what I was thinking, but the first reply suggested it was the
far end. Very strange indeed.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:07:30 -0500,
Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
>
> [NOTE: There's no need to send me copies of messages off-list. I
> do read replies on-list]
>
> On 24 Jan 2020, at 12:09, John
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:51 AM Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 23.01.2020 o godz. 15:50:53 Brandon Long via mailop pisze:
> >
> > Expecting users to be trained to catch this is... wishful thinking,
> > perhaps? Maybe 1 in 100 will manage it, and even then, not all the time.
> >
> > I mean, it's ni
For SPF, the "all" keyword is only reached if processing the previous
policy rules did not result in a positive answer, which means
"interpret this a sign that the email is likely not spam, but use the
other filtering mechanisms before taking a decision" (it's a "+1").
At that point:
"?al
There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?all" (or perhaps
"~all").
Using "-all" as the default in a SPF record does not have any readily
apparent effect on "Inbox" deliverability of SPF-authenticated mail to
GMail relative to "~all" based on domains whose mail and SPF records
I
In article <70d752f3-6aa3-cda0-28bd-6444e3d69...@allard.it> you write:
>> As I and others said, given in particular the case of forwards and
>> mailing lists, "-all" is seldom a good idea, and certainly not a good
>> idea for a small personal server.
>>
>
>In this day and age, mailing lists have
In article <20200123185907.ga4...@rafa.eu.org> you write:
>Dnia 22.01.2020 o godz. 23:31:13 John Levine via mailop pisze:
>> At some point I give up and hit the spam button.
>
>And thus you are training Google's AI to treat completely legit (only
>misdirected) messages as spam.
If they keep sendin
In article you write:
>There were 19 recipients on the To: line.
>15 of the recipients were gmail addresses.
Don't do that, smells like what a bot does.
The usual way to send a group message is to put your own address on the To: line
and everyone else as Bcc.
__
[NOTE: There's no need to send me copies of messages off-list. I do read
replies on-list]
On 24 Jan 2020, at 12:09, John Covici via mailop wrote:
Yep, looks good. But does that help if its the far end that is the
problem?
Not if that message is your Sendmail/OpenSSL complaining about the fa
On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 14:02 +0100, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
>
> On 1/24/20 12:28 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> > In my opinion, "-all" is good only when it is the *only* entry in the SPF
> > record, ie. SPF record indicates that the domain does not send mail *at
> > all*.
> > In all
Usually I don't reply to top-posted mails...
1. Try with
openssl s_client -connect other.host:25 -state -debug -crlf -starttls smtp ...
and add parameters to match your sendmail setup.
2. See cf/README how to set the option in your mc file:
confCIPHER_LIST CipherList [undefined] Ciph
Hello John,
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 00:01, John Covici via mailop wrote:
>
> Hi. I am using sendmail from my own server and using a virtual
> machine in the cloud as a relay. That machine all of a sudden several
> days ago keeps getting a message saying
> Jan 23 17:51:33 debian-2 sm-mta[7625]: S
Yep, looks good. But does that help if its the far end that is the problem?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:47:12 -0500,
Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
>
> On 23 Jan 2020, at 18:01, John Covici via mailop wrote:
>
> > Hi. I am using sendmail from my own server and using a virtual
> > machine in the cloud a
On 23 Jan 2020, at 18:01, John Covici via mailop wrote:
Hi. I am using sendmail from my own server and using a virtual
machine in the cloud as a relay. That machine all of a sudden several
days ago keeps getting a message saying
Jan 23 17:51:33 debian-2 sm-mta[7625]: STARTTLS=client, error: co
I just checked and I have CipherString = DEFAULT@SECLEVEL=2
in my /etc/ssl/openssl.conf. I can't think of anything else right
now.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:55:36 -0500,
Johann Klasek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 07:00:04AM -0500, John Covici via mailop wrote:
> > Thanks a lot for responding.
On 24 Jan 2020, at 9:31, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
In my opinion, "-all" is good only when it is the *only* entry in
the SPF record, ie. SPF record indicates that the domain does not
send mail *at all*. In all other cases, I think that even if
original SPF record specifies "-all", t
Thanks for responding. I don't see a place in my .mc file to put the
ciphers, maybe I am missing something. I will see if changing the
openssl config helps any.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:55:36 -0500,
Johann Klasek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 07:00:04AM -0500, John Covici via mailop wrote:
>
On 24 Jan 2020, at 7:40, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?all" (or perhaps
"~all").
Using "-all" as the default in a SPF record does not have any readily
apparent effect on "Inbox" deliverability of SPF-authenticated mail to
GMail relativ
On 1/24/20 3:31 PM, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
"-all" means "interpret this a sign that the email is certainly spam, do
not use any other filtering mechanisms to take a decision" (it's a
"-infinity").
As I and others said, given in particular the case of forwards and
mailing lists,
On 24 Jan 2020, at 8:02, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
For me, only -all makes sense, all others are just as meaningful as
having no SPF records at all.
The first 2 words there are the most important in the sentence.
An affirmative SPF result is very helpful to mid-sized receiving systems
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 07:00:04AM -0500, John Covici via mailop wrote:
> Thanks a lot for responding.
> hmmm, I put the cipherlists you mentioned in my access database using
> tls_clt_features CipherList= ... and I even put tls_server_features
Better put it in the configuration file, .mc/.cf.
>
For example, I see that your email address is @jfoo.org, and that you
have:
jfoo.org. 6 IN MX 0 mx.oustrencats.com.
jfoo.org. 6 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:50.116.29.164 ip6:2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe6e:7287
-all"
This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all".
Hogwash.
If you sa
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:37:56AM +, Paul Smith via mailop wrote:
> On 24/01/2020 03:24, John Gateley via mailop wrote:
>>
>> She recently sent email to a group of students for a class she is
>> teaching, she had
>> e-mailed none of them before. Most of them had gmail addresses, and
>> mos
In my opinion, "-all" is good only when it is the *only* entry in the
SPF record, ie. SPF record indicates that the domain does not send mail
*at all*. In all other cases, I think that even if original SPF record
specifies "-all", the receiving server should override this and
interpret it a
On 24 Jan 2020, at 4:47, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
For example, I see that your email address is @jfoo.org, and that you
have:
jfoo.org. 6 IN MX 0 mx.oustrencats.com.
jfoo.org. 6 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:50.116.29.164
ip6:2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe6e:7287 -all"
This is not optimal, your SPF
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 12:44:56 M. Omer GOLGELI via mailop pisze:
> Google usually displays why it thinks an email is spam when an email marked
> as spam is opened.
Yes, and it's usually always the same reason: "The message is similar to
others identified by our filters as spam". I've never see
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 12:40:17 Gregory Heytings via mailop pisze:
>
> Sorry, but the OP experiences delivery issues with Gmail servers, so
> suggesting him to solve the issue by contacting the recipients of
> that particular email is just nonsense. It won't improve anything
> for the other emai
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 14:02:50 Renaud Allard via mailop pisze:
>
> I tend to disagree. If you allow every IP to send mail on your
> behalf, then why even bother putting an SPF record. For me, only
> -all makes sense, all others are just as meaningful as having no SPF
> records at all.
Well, I a
On 1/24/20 12:28 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
In my opinion, "-all" is good only when it is the *only* entry in the SPF
record, ie. SPF record indicates that the domain does not send mail *at
all*.
In all other cases, I think that even if original SPF record specifies
"-all", the receivi
Google usually displays why it thinks an email is spam when an email marked as
spam is opened.
As Laura says, that and possibly headers might be a better clue to identify it
rather than blindly arguing about SPF setup without actually even knowing the
domain and it's setup.
M. Omer GOLGELI
---
Laura Atkins:
The OP asked for advice on delivery, not his SPF setup. His SPF setup is
fine and is absolutely not the problem here.
There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?all" (or perhaps
"~all"). And by the way this wasn't the only advice I gave. I never
wrote "do this a
Thanks a lot for responding.
hmmm, I put the cipherlists you mentioned in my access database using
tls_clt_features CipherList= ... and I even put tls_server_features
with those ciphers but no joy. My openssl version is 1.1.1d-0+deb10u2
and has not been updated since October.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 12:24:56 Johann Klasek via mailop pisze:
> The worst is using +all in any case just to try to prevent forwarding and
> mainlinglist troubles. In such case it would be better not to use SPF at
> all.
The problem is, Google (and probably other big e-mail providers too, I hav
> On 24 Jan 2020, at 11:24, Johann Klasek via mailop wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:59:53AM +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
> [..]
>> That's your opinion. My opinion is that "-all" is almost never a good
>> idea, and is certainly not a good idea for a small personal server.
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 10:59:53 Gregory Heytings via mailop pisze:
>
> That's your opinion. My opinion is that "-all" is almost never a
> good idea, and is certainly not a good idea for a small personal
> server. It breaks forwards and mailing lists. "?all" does not mean
> "we're not sure what
> On 24 Jan 2020, at 10:59, Gregory Heytings via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
>>
>>> This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all".
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> "v=spf1 mx ..." requires a DNS lookup which their existing SPF record
>> doesn't. Lots of people telling you how to
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:59:53AM +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
[..]
> That's your opinion. My opinion is that "-all" is almost never a good
> idea, and is certainly not a good idea for a small personal server. It
> breaks forwards and mailing lists. "?all" does not mean "we're
Hi,
This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all".
I disagree.
"v=spf1 mx ..." requires a DNS lookup which their existing SPF record
doesn't. Lots of people telling you how to set up SPF will say 'use
v=spf1 mx' because they don't want to explain the entire SPF record
On 24/01/2020 09:47, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
jfoo.org. 6 IN MX 0 mx.oustrencats.com.
jfoo.org. 6 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:50.116.29.164
ip6:2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe6e:7287 -all"
This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all".
I disagree.
"v=spf1 mx ..." requires a DNS
On 1/24/20 11:14 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 09:37:56 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
The best thing is for the recipients to mark it as a good message.
That'll feedback to Gmail's systems that the sender is good.
The problem is, users almost never check their sp
On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 09:47 +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
> This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all".
This is incorrect advice. The original poster's existing SPF is fine.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
htt
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 09:37:56 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
> The best thing is for the recipients to mark it as a good message.
> That'll feedback to Gmail's systems that the sender is good.
The problem is, users almost never check their spam folder. So this won't
work as expected.
--
Regards,
On Thu, 2020-01-23 at 21:24 -0600, John Gateley via mailop wrote:
> There were 19 recipients on the To: line.
> 15 of the recipients were gmail addresses.
>
> Any ideas why? Or how I fix it?
> The mail server is too small (much much less than 100 messages per day)
> so I cannot check Gmail's tool
Hi,
It is postfix, and has DNS, SPF and DKIM set up correctly.
Are you sure about this? Did you check your configuration, for example
with check-a...@verifier.port25.com (mail-based) or mail-tester.com
(web-based)?
Another way to check what happens is to send an email to a Gmail addres
On 24/01/2020 03:24, John Gateley via mailop wrote:
She recently sent email to a group of students for a class she is
teaching, she had
e-mailed none of them before. Most of them had gmail addresses, and
most, if
not all, had my wife's e-mail sent to junk.
There were 19 recipients on the To:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:02:56AM +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> The only difference is I was sending messages to individual recipients, not
> to 19 persons at once :) But they ended up in recipients' spam folder
> anyway.
And it will even end up in the "Spam" folder if you actually rep
Dnia 23.01.2020 o godz. 21:24:31 John Gateley via mailop pisze:
> I have run my own mail server for about 20 years.
> It is postfix, and has DNS, SPF and DKIM set up correctly.
> It is very small, just serving mail for my wife and I.
>
> She recently sent email to a group of students for a class s
Dnia 23.01.2020 o godz. 15:50:53 Brandon Long via mailop pisze:
>
> Expecting users to be trained to catch this is... wishful thinking,
> perhaps? Maybe 1 in 100 will manage it, and even then, not all the time.
>
> I mean, it's nice if it's easier to tell, for those who know what they're
> doing
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
But it is helpful, whether sending or receiving, to see if the address is in
your contacts (known person) or not..
But we see a lot of changes coming on that front, just overheard some
Thunderbird developers working on, and I know our t
63 matches
Mail list logo
