Good morning everyone,
On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 13:37 +0900, Byunghee HWANG (황병희) via mailop
wrote:
> Hellow Jarland,
>
> 2-07 at 20:51 -0600, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote:
> > (...)
> > Is it time to throw in the towel on email forwarding? Nearly 100%
> > of
> > users who forward email do so
Remember when we had an SMTP status code 551?
551 User not local; please try
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
SCNR,
Thomas Walter
--
Thomas Walter
Datenverarbeitungszentrale
FH Münster
- University of Applied Sciences -
Corrensstr. 25, Raum B 112
48149 Münster
Tel: +49 251 83 64 908
Fax: +49
It appears that Hal Murray via mailop said:
>
>I expect that there would be a protocol to handle it. I can't be the only one
>who has thought of this. After a handshke to set things up, the sender adds a
>forwarding header and the receiver verifies that a forwarded message is coming
>from an
My suggestion is make sure you've got your ducks in a row then reach
out to Google via the bulk sender form.
1. Implement DKIM and SPF. Must have both. Don't let clients send
using any domain but a fully authenticated one.
2. Make sure you're not blindly sending, allowing to send, or
forwarding
>>To me this seems "fairer" than wrapping the message alone, because the
>>forwarding server now takes on the burden of the reputation hit for that
>>message. >>Eventually, enough viagra messages will be forwarded that the
>>forwarder can't get any mail delivered anywhere.
That’s on the
You have a good point in that the first and main problem is that the
forwarder cannot be trusted to not mangle or fake the original message.
Nothing else can be sorted out until this gets out of the way, including
OOB communication between originator and final receiver. Which is in
effect
If it helps...
1. We have trained our Zimbra users who want their email to be copied someplace
else to configure the someplace else to log in and collect their email from
Zimbra, after having educated them that Forwarding is problematic and can get
their domain blocklisted.
2. Periodically we
Le 10 février 2024 15:12:29 GMT+04:00, Hal Murray via mailop
a écrit :
>
>m...@dorfdsl.de said:
>> Bypassing spam checking would make spammers use exactly that way to send
>> spam.
>
>Sorry I wasn't clear enough.
>
>My "handshke to set things up" was meant to keep out spammers.
>
>The idea
m...@dorfdsl.de said:
> Bypassing spam checking would make spammers use exactly that way to send
> spam.
Sorry I wasn't clear enough.
My "handshke to set things up" was meant to keep out spammers.
The idea was that the final receiving MTA would know that it was expecting
forwarded mail for
Hello Sebastian,
On 10.02.24 05:02, Sebastian Nielsen via mailop wrote:
just because SPF and DMARC are so badly designed that they can't handle it doesnt make it
"forging" anything.
It isn't badly designed.
Forwarding a email, is the equvalient of, when you receive a signed envelope
from me
John Levine via mailop skrev den 2024-02-10 05:25:
PS: Perhaps this list needs a FAQ of Well Known Bad Ideas so we can
stop having this
argument over and over.
or make mailman patch that stops mailman from breaking dkim
___
mailop mailing list
John Levine via mailop skrev den 2024-02-10 05:22:
It appears that Sebastian Nielsen via mailop said:
just because SPF and DMARC are so badly designed that they can't
handle it doesnt make it "forging" anything.
It isn't badly designed.
Forwarding a email, is the equvalient of, when you
Sebastian Nielsen via mailop skrev den 2024-02-10 05:11:
And also as a side note, this list server (mailop) also does sender
rewriting to From: mailop@mailop.org to prevent SPF and DMARC from
tripping on list mail.
So its obvious it’s the right way to do it.
Same have the list "Exim-Users"
13 matches
Mail list logo
