On 10/20/22 9:53 PM, Jyri J. Virkki via mailop wrote:
None of the three analogies is really comparable (phone call, postal
mail, taxi) because in each case the person doing the rejecting is the
intended recipient. Who certainly has the moral right to reject.
All three scenarios can be extended
Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop skrev den 2022-10-21 05:23:
Am 21.10.22 um 04:59 schrieb Hal Murray via mailop:
That's the industry standard: block after abuse. Instead, t-online.de
uses
block-and-maybe-unblock-after-contact. This is not how email is
supposed to
work.
I thought the standard
On 10/20/22 9:14 PM, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
But their "policy" does not adhere
Yes, T-Online /does/ adhere to T-Online's policy of only accepting email
from senders that T-Online considers to be blessed.
No. They 554 anyone, including me from any of my 1k+ v4 IPs except for 2
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 01:44:56PM -0600, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
>
> Try this: Does the taxi fail to take you to someone's house if the
> person opens their front door, sees it is you, and then slams the
> door in your face? -- Did the taxi fail to get you to the person's
> front door
Am 21.10.22 um 04:59 schrieb Hal Murray via mailop:
That's the industry standard: block after abuse. Instead, t-online.de uses
block-and-maybe-unblock-after-contact. This is not how email is supposed to
work.
I thought the standard was your server, your rules.
As long as the _default_
Am 21.10.22 um 02:23 schrieb Grant Taylor via mailop:
On 10/20/22 4:49 PM, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Another rule from an earlier era outlines one of the fundamental principles of
the Internet Agreement: I will accept your traffic, *subject* *to* /my/
*policies* and agreements,
> That's the industry standard: block after abuse. Instead, t-online.de uses
> block-and-maybe-unblock-after-contact. This is not how email is supposed to
> work.
I thought the standard was your server, your rules.
It's fine to whine and rant here, but that isn't going to change anything.
Am 21.10.22 um 00:33 schrieb Graeme Fowler via mailop:
No. There will be no changes to the Exim default configuration
So sad. It's up to the packagers then to fix the shit that hits the fan.
-kai
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
Am 20.10.22 um 23:07 schrieb Lena--- via mailop:
T-Online clearly states in their terms and conditions that they will
block servers who perform sender verfication towards them.
Well, that's why you separate your MXes from your Sending servers; the
MX can do anything from it's IP, any fingering
Am 20.10.22 um 21:44 schrieb Grant Taylor via mailop:
There's no problem with the phone line / connection. The pone line /
connection is working well enough for someone to rudely say something to you
and hang up.
Ah, you're saying I mustn't be as rude to a specific caller as it is to me?
On 10/20/22 4:49 PM, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Another rule from an earlier era outlines one of the fundamental
principles of the Internet Agreement: I will accept your traffic,
*subject* *to* /my/ *policies* and agreements, if you will accept mine,
*subject* *to* /your/
Am 20.10.22 um 21:29 schrieb Michael Rathbun via mailop:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:47:40 +0200 (CEST), Bernardo Reino via mailop
wrote:
However, I still find that Postel's law should apply, in any context, and
specifically in this one. You want to run an e-mail server and don't want to be
Just for completeness here, and wearing both my Exim and Mailop hats:
No. There will be no changes to the Exim default configuration, nor should
there be. If the suggestion was made of a commercial product with thousands
of people behind it, it would likely result in costly litigation.
To
> T-Online clearly states in their terms and conditions that they will
> block servers who perform sender verfication towards them.
Then a different check:
deny condition = ${if or{\
{eqi{$sender_address_domain}{t-online.de}}\
.ifdef _HAVE_LOOKUP_DNSDB
{forany{${lookup dnsdb{>:
On 10/20/22 1:22 PM, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Well, it's both at the SMTP layer:
Same level.
You are obviously as free to run your server(s) as you want as T-Online
is to run their servers as they want.
I don't get your point, as that is what t-online.de is effectively doing.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:47:40 +0200 (CEST), Bernardo Reino via mailop
wrote:
>However, I still find that Postel's law should apply, in any context, and
>specifically in this one. You want to run an e-mail server and don't want to
>be
>blocked, so you should (liberally) accept, instead of
On 20.10.22 18:50, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
On 10/20/22 10:32 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
I consider this being purely a connectivity thing.
Except that it's not a /connectivity/ thing. At least not on any OSI layer.
The rejection that you are advocating for is sent across /
W dniu czw, 20.10.2022 o godzinie 22∶01 +0300, użytkownik Lena--- via
mailop napisał:
> set acl_m_ton = checkdefer
> !verify = sender/callout=10s
> set acl_m_ton = $acl_verify_message
T-Online clearly states in their terms and conditions that they will
block servers who perform sender
Kai Siering wrote on [mailop]:
> how about starting internal discussions within that community
> to include a default rejection of any mail from @t-online.de
> in Exim's default configuration?
> As nearly no-one who is deploying Exim
> (or Postfix, Sendmail for that matter)
> will be able to
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
[...]
Basically "Max" states that he needed to put an "simple imprint" at
http://his.do.main/index.html, which made t...@rx.t-online.de whitelist his
mailserver's IP. Thus, even in December 2020 they were keen on this imprint
On 20.10.22 17:31, Bernardo Reino via mailop wrote:
And maybe to add to what Kai Siering wrote "Deutsche Telekom's policy for accessing
the MXes for t-online.de hasn't changed for 10+ years". Maybe the /written/ policy
has not changed, but the enforcement of the legal notice (Impressum)
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 19.10.2022 o godz. 18:55:29 Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop pisze:
It would be less of an issue if t-online.de would take care _not_ to send
to domains they don't take the replies from; but they happily sent emails
to any MX in the
Dňa 20. októbra 2022 16:50:56 UTC používateľ Grant Taylor via mailop
napísal:
>On 10/20/22 10:32 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
>> I consider this being purely a connectivity thing.
>
>Except that it's not a /connectivity/ thing. At least not on any OSI layer.
>The rejection that you are
On 10/20/22 10:32 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
I consider this being purely a connectivity thing.
Except that it's not a /connectivity/ thing. At least not on any OSI
layer. The rejection that you are advocating for is sent across / over
/ through the established connection. So,
Dnia 20.10.2022 o godz. 09:32:15 Grant Taylor via mailop pisze:
>
> Aside: I wonder if having a provider blocked by default is a form of
> defamation.
I consider this being purely a connectivity thing.
T-Online customers can send mail to any mailserver and they aren't aware of
the fact that
On 10/20/22 9:17 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
+1
Could you please repost this to appropriate Exim and Postfix mailing lists?
-1
I believe providing a config which is enabled by default that rejects
email from a provider is a disservice to the industry at large and will
only promote
On 2022-10-20 14:51, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 19.10.2022 o godz. 20:08:30 Bernardo Reino via mailop pisze:
> That seems really "interesting". How does that impressum look like, which
> has the magical power of transforming a private server into a "commercial"
> one? What should it
Dnia 20.10.2022 o godz. 17:10:40 Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop pisze:
>
> But, as you ARE an Exim developer, how about starting internal discussions
> within that community to include a default rejection of any mail from
> @t-online.de in Exim's default configuration?
>
> As nearly no-one who
Dnia 20.10.2022 o godz. 15:51:13 Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop pisze:
> > such data online is perfectly valid for companies, for individuals it's
> > nothing more than an endorsement for criminal activity.
>
> Well, just use your ISP's submission service, problem solved.
By ISP you mean hosting
Moin,
trying to sum things up so far:
Am 19.10.22 um 13:33 schrieb Heiko Schlittermann via mailop:
A given mailhost (ran privately for smaller entities) can't send
messages to T-Online anymore.
554 IP=168.119.159.241 - A problem occurred. …
The sending IP belongs to a rented host (rented
Hello,
Grant Taylor via mailop wrote on 20.10.22 at 16:06:
Please forgive ~> humor my ignorance, but what does the imprint /
impressum (?) /need/ to have in it?
not sure what Telekom actually asks for - but (as you can imagine, it's
Germany :) things are quite regulated in the law. Depending
Hello,
Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote on 20.10.22 at 15:51:
As a German, you have to have an imprint on anything that is considered a
"service", yes, even on your personal, non-monetized blog. It the law ;)
And
also off-topic here.
I agree, this part of the discussion will likely
On 10/20/22 7:51 AM, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Well, just use your ISP's submission service, problem solved. Or pay
someone to MX you domain, problem solved.
I don't agree that the problem is /solved/. Rather I think using such
an external problem /changes/ or /moves/ the
Dňa 20. októbra 2022 12:51:42 UTC používateľ Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
napísal:
>So basically they require anybody who runs a mail server to put their street
>address and telephone number online to be publicly available???
Perhaps not really. How they can verify, that published phone number is
On 20.10.22 14:51, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
So basically they require anybody who runs a mail server to put their street
address and telephone number online to be publicly available???
Crazy idea. And this is the same country that banned Google Street View
(probably as a single country
• Kirill Miazine via mailop [2022-10-19 19:21]:
[...]
> I've sent t...@rx.t-online.de an email and asked to clarify why my fullu
> compliant mail server on TransIP network is being blocked and what kind
> of problem has occured.
And there I've received a response:
Thank you very much for your
On 10/20/22 14:51, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 19.10.2022 o godz. 20:08:30 Bernardo Reino via mailop pisze:
That seems really "interesting". How does that impressum look like, which
has the magical power of transforming a private server into a "commercial"
one? What should it
Dnia 19.10.2022 o godz. 20:08:30 Bernardo Reino via mailop pisze:
> > That seems really "interesting". How does that impressum look like, which
> > has the magical power of transforming a private server into a "commercial"
> > one? What should it contain? Could you provide a link to yours?
>
>
Hello,
Bernardo Reino via mailop wrote on 20.10.22 at 09:01:
I wasn't aware of the timing aspect, so thank you for this!
that's at least what I understood back in the days. :-) Whether there's
a more fine-grained approach, differentiation by ISP reputation and
other factors, I don't know.
On 2022-10-20 09:10, Dominique Rousseau via mailop wrote:
Le Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 01:33:04PM +0200, Heiko Schlittermann via
mailop [mailop@mailop.org] a écrit:
(...)
(translation by me):
Sorry, we only accept messages from proven
commercial or similiar servers. Please use the SMTP relay of
Le Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 01:33:04PM +0200, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop
[mailop@mailop.org] a écrit:
(...)
> (translation by me):
> Sorry, we only accept messages from proven
> commercial or similiar servers. Please use the SMTP relay of your hoster
> or your ISP.
How is "proven" defined
On 2022-10-20 01:40, Ángel via mailop wrote:
On 2022-10-19 at 21:28 +0200, Bernardo Reino via mailop wrote:
Yup. I have another server for which I have to request whitelisting..
but it's a bit more difficult because the front page of the domain is
the webmail (roundcube), so I have to figure
On 2022-10-20 08:48, Florian Effenberger via mailop wrote:
Hello,
I actually ran into a similar problem last year after a mail server
migration. Here's what I documented back then in my blog:
"Deutsche Telekom, respectively T-Online, by default blocks IP
addresses that haven’t been used for
Hello,
I actually ran into a similar problem last year after a mail server
migration. Here's what I documented back then in my blog:
"Deutsche Telekom, respectively T-Online, by default blocks IP addresses
that haven’t been used for sending e-mails to their servers for a
certain amount of
• Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop [2022-10-20 00:44]:
[...]
> > In the German Net Neutrality report 2020/2021, published by
> > Bundesnetzagentur, section 24, they say:
> >
> > In several cases end-users could not receive incoming emails. They
> > believed that internet access providers
On 10/19/22 23:19, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Am 19.10.22 um 21:28 schrieb Bernardo Reino via mailop:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
If you try deleting the impressum, please share your experience on
what happens with t-online.
Yup. I have another server
46 matches
Mail list logo
