And even when it's possible it's not always desirable. An organization
I'm involved with has many @ email aliases which
forward to the person(s) responsible for those functions. This is
convenient for people who need to communicate with us since they don't
have to hunt for the responsible
On 2022-11-25 07:28:03 (+0800), Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
Of course, one thing not mentioned on this thread..
Simply stop allowing remote forwarding..
Every modern email client can check multiple email accounts.
The day when remote forwarding was a necessity has now passed, and now
Of course, one thing not mentioned on this thread..
Simply stop allowing remote forwarding..
Every modern email client can check multiple email accounts.
The day when remote forwarding was a necessity has now passed, and now
with things like SPF and other email tests, forwarding simply
Hey Martin,
Just my two cents from running a service dedicated to email forwarding;
We've been getting a lot of help from the community recently, so I thought
I'd contribute as well.
We're often seeing this type of error, and I agree with what Jarland has
said previously. Gmail only flags the
Am 24.11.22 um 17:20 schrieb Martin Flygenring via mailop:
... [Google says] Our system has detected an unusual rate of unsolicited mail
originating from your IP address.
...
Now, the interesting part is that for almost 98% of the mails currently in queue, Google is the original sender of the
I have noticed that one of the most consistently rejected emails when
forwarded to Gmail, is an email from Google. I just rotate outbound IPs
on that message using ZoneMTA and it'll get through. Waiting for an IP
to clear a rate limit with Gmail just seems like bad business at this
point.
On
Hello all
For the past few weeks, we've noticed increasing queues on our
MX-servers when forwarding some emails to our users alternate addresses,
if that forwarding address is a gmail.com address. Most of the mails go
through without issues, but some end up getting deferred with the error
When I first tested the IPXO network they required me to pay them a
custom fee to exclude my services from their internal mail scanner. They
would otherwise downgrade connections from SSL and intercept the SMTP
traffic, then scan the contents of emails for spam. I can't imagine that
still
I don't think all these companies are operating on this network..
Eg..
host -t TXT hostedexchange.co.il
hostedexchange.co.il descriptive text "v=spf1 ip4:212.143.142.84
ip4:194.90.28.61 -all"
Obvious attempts to hide activity using legitimate companies?
# 84.32.92.4
On 2022-11-24 14:01, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote:
And to circle back to on-topic: The result of that is what then pops up in
/var/log/maillog.
So it isn't about 'should VT change [something]'; It is more 'shouldn't society
change the incentive structure and general setup around academia as
Hello Andrew
> If VT PhD students don't have the experience needed in the topics they study,
> then shouldn't VT change either the students or the topics ?
As I said, this is not about specific instances, people, or VT in particular.
It is more of an observation that while in 1988, you could go
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote:
We can have an awful lot of discussions about this, and there is
a lot going on; Besides the obvious 'is it good or not' and 'is
this really science?', we essentially deal with 'science' with
all its incentives (publish or perish); This means
24. November 2022 08:48, "Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop" mailto:mailop@mailop.org?to=%22Cyril%20-%20ImprovMX%20via%20mailop%22%20)>
schrieb:
I'd love to be able to drop them, but the situation is made in a way
that we can not do anything:
That user configured their bounce domain to pass
13 matches
Mail list logo
