Thank you all so much! Brandon, in this case, Gmail is marking it as spam,
as well as a couple more. I will take back the suggestions you provided and
have them look a little more closely at what they are sending. To your
point, it is one sender off the same domain. They tested by sending the
same
I'm tracking an issue where it looks like either AOL or Yahoo is
inserting an
extra line break in the middle of the headers and throwing off some
client parsing.
Has anyone else seen similar?
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
Dňa 25. júla 2022 20:25:37 UTC používateľ Matt Corallo via mailop
napísal:
>Given the general signal:noise ratio of the SBL lists, and that looking up
>relays in SBL does catch some nontrivl amount of spam, I'd argue its the other
>rules that triggered on this mail that are not properly
On 7/25/22 4:50 PM, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
On 2022-07-25 at 15:33:13 UTC-0400 (Mon, 25 Jul 2022 15:33:13 -0400)
There is no useful model for "authenticaton checks" on Received headers.
I believe we're on the same page here. No one is doing "authentication checks" on Received headers,
On 7/25/22 4:31 PM, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 3:25 PM Matt Corallo wrote:
On 7/25/22 3:58 PM, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 2:37 PM Matt Corallo via mailop
wrote:
I don't believe SA does authentication checks on all Received: lines, no,
On 2022-07-25 at 15:33:13 UTC-0400 (Mon, 25 Jul 2022 15:33:13 -0400)
Matt Corallo via mailop
is rumored to have said:
On 7/20/22 3:19 PM, Mark Milhollan via mailop wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022, Matt Corallo wrote:
Relevant headers below, but note that its actually the very first
Received
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 3:25 PM Matt Corallo wrote:
> On 7/25/22 3:58 PM, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 2:37 PM Matt Corallo via mailop
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I don't believe SA does authentication checks on all Received: lines, no,
> >> it only runs them through
> >>
On 7/25/22 3:58 PM, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 2:37 PM Matt Corallo via mailop
wrote:
I don't believe SA does authentication checks on all Received: lines, no, it
only runs them through
the various DNSBLs. I don't see why "you relayed mail from something in a
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 2:37 PM Matt Corallo via mailop
wrote:
> I don't believe SA does authentication checks on all Received: lines, no, it
> only runs them through
> the various DNSBLs. I don't see why "you relayed mail from something in a
> DNSBL" should be avoided
> as one of the many
On 25 Jul 2022, at 11:00, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
>> In the current state of affairs, ESPs presume they know more than the
>> receivers, so they keep trying to send. Since the ESPs essentially disregard
>> the 5xx codes using the line of reasoning that you described,
>
> The ESPs are not
On 7/20/22 3:19 PM, Mark Milhollan via mailop wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022, Matt Corallo wrote:
Relevant headers below, but note that its actually the very first Received header that matches
SBL-CSS.
You are via Spamassassin doing what Google does and I guess at least some other Spamassassin
Any paid workspace account should have access to customer support, either
directly or through their reseller.
That said, I agree, there probably isn't that much customer support can do
looking at the outbound
side... and investigating the inbound side of another customer is not
likely ... in
On 7/25/2022 1:46 PM, Jenny Nespola via mailop wrote:
I was approached today by a potential client asking why one account in
their Workspace is bulking, while none of the others are. Granted that
one user could be generating complaints, but (from what was shared
with me) it doesn't seem to be
Hi All,
I was approached today by a potential client asking why one account in
their Workspace is bulking, while none of the others are. Granted that one
user could be generating complaints, but (from what was shared with me) it
doesn't seem to be the case. In addition it seems that sporadically
> On 25 Jul 2022, at 15:49, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
>
> On 24 Jul 2022, at 4:38, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
>
>> We’re trying to pull ‘what to do with a completely different message that
>> might be sent in the future, possibly by a completely different sender' out
>> of a
On 23 Jul 2022, at 4:17, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
> I agree, it would have been nice if the authors of 821 and 822 had considered
> this use case and provided us with semantics. Unfortunately, the semantics
> described in those RFCs (and their successors) only talk about what to do
>
On 24 Jul 2022, at 4:38, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
> We’re trying to pull ‘what to do with a completely different message that
> might be sent in the future, possibly by a completely different sender' out
> of a signalling system that was never designed to convey that signal. And,
> yes,
On 24 Jul 2022, at 22:09, Ángel via mailop wrote:
> Now, if we instead have the hash bbbaa1af939a01d0e22286c63827d936
> If you can hash multiple emails until finding who that refers to, then
> it's equivalent to the email. But if it is also the hash of other email
> addresses
On 7/23/2022 1:17 AM, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
On 23 Jul 2022, at 05:18, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
On 2022-07-22 at 12:45:18 UTC-0400 (Fri, 22 Jul 2022 12:45:18 -0400)
Luis E. Muñoz via mailop
is rumored to have said:
On 22 Jul 2022, at 11:49, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
I
Dnia 25.07.2022 o godz. 04:09:14 Ángel via mailop pisze:
>
> Now, if we instead have the hash bbbaa1af939a01d0e22286c63827d936
> If you can hash multiple emails until finding who that refers to, then
> it's equivalent to the email.
IANAL as well, but if you want to hash multiple emails to find
20 matches
Mail list logo
