Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

On 2023-05-22 at 16:03:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 22 May 2023 21:03:32 +0100) John Devine via mailop is rumored to have said: Hmmm I started using dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net a few months ago, should I desist? Only if you want to receive all of your legitimate mail. If

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

I'm afraid what I have around it is anecdotal. However, if the topic is of interest I would highly recommend setting it up in SpamAssassin or something like that, with a 0 score. Use that to gather data on it. I don't think you'd find any false positives from doing so. I initially imported

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

Dňa 22. mája 2023 19:15:00 UTC používateľ Jay Hennigan via mailop napísal: >On 5/14/23 03:47, Slavko via mailop wrote: >> Today UCEPROTECT reports 32 incidents for /22 net. We can >> discuss if 32 is enough for blocking whole network block or >> not, but OK -- 32 incidents is over their

Re: [mailop] Mailing lists, Apple and failing DKIM signatures

Jim Popovitch via mailop skrev den 2023-05-22 23:12: You are the sole carrier of that "debate", and, despite many many previous attempts at correcting you, your assertions that the way Mailman replaces the From address somehow breaks *your* DKIM setup, is a hill that we all know you will die

Re: [mailop] Mailing lists, Apple and failing DKIM signatures

On Mon, 2023-05-22 at 22:18 +0200, Benny Pedersen via mailop wrote: > Jim Popovitch via mailop skrev den 2023-05-22 20:49: > > > DO use Mailman's built-in DMARC mitigations for re-writing From > > for DMARC identified domains, including p=none. > > fine tool to break dkim, it would not help

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

On 22 May 2023 21:50:54 Graeme Fowler via mailop wrote: Moderation note: We have a permanent hold Amusingly I got bitten by my own hold rule :) Graeme ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

uceprotect is (or was?) quite common around german municipalities and other governement agencies. maybe some appliance they are/were using included this list by default? Regards Andreas Slavko via mailop wrote on 14.05.23 12:47: Hi, i read multiple times, from multiple sources about

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

Definitely. They'll even tell you up front that this isn't your average list and will block legitimate email: https://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3=5 On 2023-05-22 15:02, John Devine wrote: Hmmm I started using dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net a few months ago, should I desist? JD On 22

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

Hmmm I started using dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net a few months ago, should I desist? JD > On 22 May 2023, at 17:01, Jarland Donnell via mailop > wrote: > > I have not personally run into anyone using L3 or L2 in my experiences thus > far. Their L1 list is what

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

and charges for delists... This is a very commonly cited misconception. Delisting from their BL is automated. If you are impatient and demand immediate intervention, you can pay them to circumvent their automation and delist you early. This is only beneficial if you have actually fixed

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

On 2023-05-22 at 12:01:52 UTC-0400 (Mon, 22 May 2023 11:01:52 -0500) Jarland Donnell via mailop is rumored to have said: I have not personally run into anyone using L3 or L2 in my experiences thus far. Their L1 list is what most, if anyone, would be subscribing to I would think. Their L1 list

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

On 5/14/23 03:47, Slavko via mailop wrote: Hi, Today UCEPROTECT reports 32 incidents for /22 net. We can discuss if 32 is enough for blocking whole network block or not, but OK -- 32 incidents is over their policy... But all these 32 incidents was generated by 1 (one) IP! In other words, one

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

Moderation note: We have a permanent hold on any messages that mention this DNSBL, for reasons which are reasonably well known but just in case you're new here: Whilst not exactly "the list of which nobody should speak", over the years the tone of threads discussing them has often fallen

Re: [mailop] Mailing lists, Apple and failing DKIM signatures

Simon Arlott via mailop skrev den 2023-05-22 20:20: If you're running a mailing list that retains the original DKIM signatures [that will fail because the message subject and body have been modified] you might want to strip/hide them because it can cause Apple iCloud Mail to increment the spam

Re: [mailop] Mailing lists, Apple and failing DKIM signatures

Jim Popovitch via mailop skrev den 2023-05-22 20:49: DO use Mailman's built-in DMARC mitigations for re-writing From for DMARC identified domains, including p=none. fine tool to break dkim, it would not help repeat why not break dkim, there would be endless debate why keep the problem, old

Re: [mailop] Mailing lists, Apple and failing DKIM signatures

It appears that Simon Arlott via mailop said: >On 22/05/2023 19:49, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: >> DO use Mailman's built-in DMARC mitigations for re-writing From for >> DMARC identified domains, including p=none. > >For a DMARC (p=reject) domain, if the From: header is rewritten, the

Re: [mailop] Mailing lists, Apple and failing DKIM signatures

On 22/05/2023 19:49, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > DO use Mailman's built-in DMARC mitigations for re-writing From for > DMARC identified domains, including p=none. For a DMARC (p=reject) domain, if the From: header is rewritten, the presence of a failing DKIM signature still causes Apple to

Re: [mailop] Mailing lists, Apple and failing DKIM signatures

On Mon, 2023-05-22 at 19:20 +0100, Simon Arlott via mailop wrote: > If you're running a mailing list that retains the original DKIM > signatures [that will fail because the message subject and body > have been modified] you might want to strip/hide them because... DON'T remove standard

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

I have not personally run into anyone using L3 or L2 in my experiences thus far. Their L1 list is what most, if anyone, would be subscribing to I would think. Their L1 list is actually really, really good. On 2023-05-14 05:47, Slavko via mailop wrote: Hi, i read multiple times, from

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

Hi Slavko The UCEPROTECT list has a large bark, but very little bite. We have never seen serious problems relating to a listing on their service. It is, however, widely seen as having major significance by ISPs, particularly those located in Asia. I have no idea why this is the case. Regards Ken

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

Don't get me started on this one. I'm not aware of anyone other than zealots that use it. I can't imagine that it's useful for anything other than scoring a very small amount in something like SA/rspamd or for use in some meta/composite rules, but IMHO it's a waste of DNS lookups. It's so

[mailop] Mailing lists, Apple and failing DKIM signatures

If you're running a mailing list that retains the original DKIM signatures [that will fail because the message subject and body have been modified] you might want to strip/hide them because it can cause Apple iCloud Mail to increment the spam score by 1 which can cause it to be delivered to Junk

[mailop] UCEPROTECT L2 fact

Hi, i read multiple times, from multiple sources about UCEPROTECT BL, how it is suspicious, etc... Recently i got notification from ShadowServer, that i am on blacklist, in particular on UCEPROTECT-L2 BL, which AFAIK blocks whole networks as anounced by ASN. Thus i was curious, what happens