Re: [mailop] About to blacklist Marketo - has anyone received non-spam from them?

In article <9079c83f-98a4-4cb0-8ff0-acd354cf4...@isipp.com> you write: >I'm pretty much giving up on Marketo - and about to BL them and also recommend >to others that they do so - as I have *never* received anything other than spam >from them, and while they may still have a few good people

Re: [mailop] Microsoft blacklisting a /16

In article <139ccd39-d392-7000-25d0-5428e7a57...@hetzner.com> you write: >that send spam to Microsoft. Now, all of a sudden and without warning, >Microsoft has blacklisted the entire range 5.9.0.0/16. If the mail that range is sending Microsoft is anything like the mail it's sending my much

Re: [mailop] Orange.fr: your certificate is expired.

In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Connecting to smtp-in.orange.fr... > ... Verify return code: 10 (certificate has expired) I get a valid cert good through 24 March 2020. >Also, it appears the highest level of TLS you support is TLS1 Yup. -- Regards, John Levine,

Re: [mailop] Orange.fr: your certificate is expired.

In article you write: >I also get one valid until March 25th 2019 (so expired). > >I'll poke them I was getting the expired one yesterday but now I'm getting a good one again. Perhaps there's a load balancer and they forgot to update some of the servers behind it. R's, John - $

Re: [mailop] DigitalOcean calling for social media s* storm? (Re: Why is it so hard to have takedown's performed..)

In article <20190509145346.gd8...@gsp.org> you write: >It would be far easier and much more effective if everyone on this >mailing list caused every mail server that they run to refuse all >mail from all Digital Ocean network space without warning, effective >immediately Don't waste your time,

Re: [mailop] Anyone on this List with Access to Amazon SES Maillogs?

In article you write: >> AFAIK he.net filter ingoing and outgoing port 25 *by >> default*: Odd, my main mail server is on an IPv6 HE tunnel and works fine. Maybe I'm silently grandfathered or something. >I verified this by trying to connect to the address John used for the

Re: [mailop] Anyone on this List with Access to Amazon SES Maillogs?

In article <4ef5b4df-ee83-4f85-bed1-7375869a7...@rub.de> you write: >>No, you're refusing the connections. When I connect via an IPv6 tunnel >> >>from HE you refuse the connection, when I connect from a VPS somewhere >>else, you accept it. Traceroutes show it's going to you, not anywhere

Re: [mailop] Anyone on this List with Access to Amazon SES Maillogs?

In article you write: >$ host -t mx leunet.ch >leunet.ch mail is handled by 10 rrmx.imp.ch. >$ nc -4 -vz rrmx.imp.ch. 25 >Connection to rrmx.imp.ch. 25 port [tcp/smtp] succeeded! >$ nc -6 -vz rrmx.imp.ch. 25 >nc: connect to rrmx.imp.ch. port 25 (tcp) failed: Network is unreachable >nc: connect

Re: [mailop] forwarding failure, Admin: Gmail users of mailop suspended due to bounces.

In article <563d8030167a0705e77e768e555ac...@ausics.net> you write: >I can show you all kinds of examples where the forwarding is rejected in >those cases because the new "sending IPs" are from our machines, not the >ones listed in the From's SPF record. I have the same issue. Personally I don't

Re: [mailop] Admin: Gmail users of mailop suspended due to bounces.

In article <231a8e51-7a1d-10ea-e777-f157156e7...@akxnet.de> you write: >The list server has no control over other's SPF records, so the SPF >check will fail if the FROM of the original message is retained and an >SPF record exists for that domain. Mailing lists put their own address as the bounce

Re: [mailop] AOL IMAP down?

In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Hi, one of my users has a personal account, and she can't access imap.aol.com >on port 993 today. I just checked and I can log into their IMAP server with my personal account without trouble. ___ mailop

Re: [mailop] No MX record on domain is a bounce by Gmail

In article <299e05de-bc63-4beb-b317-c5c9c1158...@1pointmail.com> you write: >In over 25+ years of working in the industry I have yet to see a valid, >legitimate email system that runs on A >records alone. You must have a very limited sent of correspondents, because I've seen plenty of them,

Re: [mailop] Admin: Gmail users of mailop suspended due to bounces.

In article , Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: >On 4/27/19 1:09 PM, Bill Cole wrote: >> Yes, because the signature included the Sender and List-* headers, >> probably non-existent originally, which mailing lists typically >> (including this one) add to messages they relay. > >Thus the Sender and

Re: [mailop] Admin: Gmail users of mailop suspended due to bounces.

In article you write: >On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote: >> Well since that email just triggered another round of bounces I've just >> updated mailop's mailman config to mung all email addresses (hopefully, >> this email is a test). > >Well the good news is that worked. The bad

Re: [mailop] Admin: Gmail users of mailop suspended due to bounces.

In article <20190428183815.ga30...@cmadams.net>, Chris Adams via mailop wrote: >Once upon a time, Grant Taylor via mailop said: >> On 4/28/19 11:35 AM, John Levine via mailop wrote: >> >Oversigning those headers is silly. >> >> Oversigning may be /silly/

Re: [mailop] Admin: Gmail users of mailop suspended due to bounces.

Just to be clear, we all understand that these funky DKIM signatures have nothing to do with the reason that Google is rejecting mailop messages, right? R's, John >On 4/28/19 12:38 PM, Chris Adams via mailop wrote: >> So should mailing lists reject such messages? > >No. Absolutely not. > >The

Re: [mailop] Admin: Gmail users of mailop suspended due to bounces.

In article <69632fdf-2440-4480-8afe-5cbf36aa0...@billmail.scconsult.com> you write: >HOWEVER: if I understand Simon's description of the rejection events >correctly, the trigger was specifically a message with a broken DKIM >signature which had not had its From munged (because the DMARC record

Re: [mailop] Problems with freenet mails

In article <5cfdca56-4974-1408-e4c8-73ae0bc6a...@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> you write: >It looks like Freenet has instituted a policy that all email to @freenet >email addresses purportedly from @freenet must go through their MSA and >reject any such email that doesn't go through the MSA.

Re: [mailop] Problems with freenet mails

In article <0bb4f8da-c245-cd70-0dee-60801aa3c...@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> you write: >On 6/26/19 9:15 AM, John Levine via mailop wrote: >> Once again, with free services, sometimes you get what you pay for. > ... >The organization in this context /seems/ /to/ /hav

Re: [mailop] DANE validation

In article you write: >However, the mail server I'm using (Mailcow) suggests I add TLSA records >for ports that serve SMTP, POP3, and IMAP (as well as HTTPS). I'm curious, >do any major mail services actually validate these records when receiving >mail? Do any major mail clients? Comcast does

Re: [mailop] Congratulations to the authors of ARC - RFC 8617

In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Hi, > >I just want to congratulate the authors of RFC 8617 >(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8617) - for making this >far with a new standard in such a short time. It's a nice spec but it is not a standard. Look at the top of

[mailop] Advanced Solutions International or golightly.com

One of my users is or was on an active discussion list at nacacnet.org. I can see in my logs he was getting several messages a day until May 30, at which point the mail stopped. He says he's still subscribed, and the list remains active. I'm not blocking it, if I were I'd see it in the logs

Re: [mailop] HEADER LENGTH as per RFC2822

In article you write: > There are two limits that this standard places on the number of >   characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than >   998 characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding >   the CRLF. > >This length tends to break and wrap certain lines

Re: [mailop] HEADER LENGTH as per RFC2822

In article <711d8022-2df9-f54b-fa3a-eb520059c...@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> you write: >Check the current Internet Message Format RFC, 5322. > >>  There are two limits that this standard places on the number of >>    characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than >>    

Re: [mailop] Return Path / Sender Score

In article <62354c038b62d2068d62284bf0888...@nettrust.nz> you write: >A well known Australian electronics retailer has recently started >spamming me. It's plainly obvious where they - or someone who provided >it to them - got the email address from the WHOIS because that is the >only place that

Re: [mailop] HEADER LENGTH as per RFC2822

In article <75f5a58a-f53f-5222-9e3a-791f21594...@linuxmagic.com> you write: >>> "An unfolded header field has no length restriction and >>>therefore may be indeterminately long." >> >> You're right. I missed that. >> >> But I suspect I'm not the only one who missed it, so I would try to

Re: [mailop] HEADER LENGTH as per RFC2822

In article <530230574.3626402.1566296780...@ss002889.tauri.ch> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- >Not quite, RFC5322 section 2.2.3 explicitly states at the end of the paragraph: >"An unfolded header field has no length restriction and > therefore may be indeterminately long." You're right.

Re: [mailop] live.fr admin required

In article <901d933b-7da0-abf1-68df-ab4c20883...@l-w.ca> you write: >Yeah. I did try that for a while on the same hope. Nothing changed, >likely for many reasonable reasons. The messages in question haven't >been particularly spammy, either, (mostly transactional and account >recovery notices)

Re: [mailop] Change at Microsoft on September 4th

In article you write: >Yes, I think we're seeing a higher than usual number of Microsoft >deliverability issues since then. It's so up and down throughout the >year, though. So I'm not entirely sure that I have the firmest idea of >whether or not a new global phenomenon is upon us. Many (all?)

[mailop] Must be a lot of abuse at Microsoft these days

All my spam reports to ab...@microsoft.com are bouncing back as mailbox full. -- Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly ___

[mailop] How unsubscribes work

Don't miss this amazing story about why unsubscribes take four days: https://twitter.com/Joe8Bit/status/1156312965265707013 R's, John ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] Suggestions for VPS providers in Europe?

I warned a guy away from Hetzner and OVH if he wants to send mail so he reasonably asked what VPS provider in Europe is better for sending mail. Any suggestions? Also, how different is it if at OVH and Hetzner if you use their outbound mail servers rather than trying to send directly? R's, John

Re: [mailop] Suggestions for VPS providers in Europe?

In article you write: >Funny as well, almost 100% of the phishing emails sent against our Mailjet >customers are coming from Linode everyday, dmarc says. I find linode very cooperative when I report spam to them, but they appear to do nothing until someone outside complains. They also by

Re: [mailop] BIMI

In article you write: >I'm not sure it about the "can't scale" thing, probably the most similar is >EV certificates... without quite as much security theater. That was >certainly available to anyone with the money, looks like $1k year. Is that >too much? Honestly, that sounds pretty close to

Re: [mailop] MUA archaeology

In article <20191211133900.ga8...@rafa.eu.org> you write: >Dnia 11.12.2019 o godz. 14:02:59 Sidsel Jensen via mailop pisze: >> >> Yeah - alpine rocks - simple terminal-based mail-reading - can I join the >> club? :-) > >Back in the old days, elm always looked more convenient and friendly to me

Re: [mailop] BIMI

In article <6faf3f49-918a-4469-a3bb-04153d8d2...@wordtothewise.com> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Or this spam header that just landed in my inbox coming from a domain >registered yesterday. Does have SPF, bounce and >5322.from are aligned. Everything is there to use BIMI, once the

Re: [mailop] Can someone write me a prescription for a sane MTA? I'm allergic to Postfix.

In article <22015da3-552b-2320-c86e-d16d1d13b...@mgm51.com> you write: >Perhaps is the need for UUCP support had been mentioned in the email's >subject and not a couple emails later... Twenty years ago all the MTAs supported uucp, but these days I would be surprised if any remaining uucp code was

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

In article <20191014214835.gb19...@rafa.eu.org> you write: >What does *not* define spam is from what domain or from what IP it is sent. > >Neither a) nor b) above is true in my case. So my messages are *not* spam. I guess we've looped around to the beginning so we're done. Nobody has said your

Re: [mailop] Diversity in Mail Providers

In article <296392679.7751.1572368319664.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >I'm reading the thread, but there was an actual article, proceeding, >presentation, etc. on the matter with less feels and >more polish. Something you could show to someone else and

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

In article <1570757713.1030.53.ca...@16bits.net> you write: >Count me too as someone with a tiny server that Gmail automatically >files in spam with apparently no reason. >There are so few mails sent there (at most, 7 mails *per month*, often I took a look at the logs to see what mail comes to my

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

In article <20191008101859.ga12...@rafa.eu.org> you write: >Dnia 8.10.2019 o godz. 13:42:32 Matt Palmer via mailop pisze: >> >> The other commonality is that AWS EC2 is at least as much of a pit of spam >> and abuse as OVH is, and I'm not surprised that you don't get treated better >> by GMail

Re: [mailop] Certified Senders Alliance

In article <3827efcb-337f-4456-9fb8-6eff4a5d9...@isipp.com> you write: >The CSA has, to the best of my knowledge, never been about best practices You're mistaken. Their criteria are here: https://certified-senders.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CSA_Admission_Criteria.pdf I've sent complaints

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

In article <20191014003325.gb21...@rafa.eu.org> you write: >Dnia 10.10.2019 o godz. 09:55:58 Brielle via mailop pisze: >> >> Let me ask you something very straight forward. >> >> How much do you pay Google so that you can e-mail their users? > >Don't you see the absurdity of that question?

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

>It's unclear whether the support consideration applies to Google. >There is no formal support who can be contacted, is there? (A result >from my web search said "if you’re lucky, a Google volunteer may >assist you further" on their web forum). You're not their customer, or even their user.

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

In article <20191014135812.gh2...@acrasis.net> you write: >My question remains unanswered. Why not treat each ip address on its >own merits? Is it technically infeasible, too expensive, less >convenient, or what? Remember that our goal is to make our users happy, not necessarily to deliver your

Re: [mailop] Gmail doesn't like my IPv6 address, why?

In article <6b3de7584a85d36e3d912d75f1616...@webmail.greengecko.co.nz> you write: >Anecdotal, but last time I delved deep into this, apparently the majority of >spam was sent via IPv6 I don't see that at all. I get mountains of bot spam on v4, still close to none on v6. -- Regards, John

Re: [mailop] Is Spectrum trying to sunset rr.com and twc.com emails?

In article <1692699245.1838651.1581216535504.javamail.zim...@baylink.com>, Jay R. Ashworth via mailop wrote: >Does anyone on the list know if there's such a sunset policy in process? I doubt it. My twcny.rr.com address still works even though I haven't been a Spectrum customer for quite a

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid strikes again; zendesk, actually

In article <545fde17-9db1-4f90-a253-0eed52057...@graemef.net> you write: >That looks remarkably like Sendgrid use ZenDesk for their abuse desk platform, >and they’re replying to or otherwise acknowledging your >ticket. That they include the original email body isn’t that surprising for an >abuse

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: [FEEDBACK] whose address, was Approach to dealing with List Washing services, industry feedback..

In article <157565.913.73.ca...@16bits.net> you write: >The main offender here is probably Microsoft Outlook, which >a) Seem prevalent in the corporate world >b) Does not show the email address when reading the mail in the preview >panel (which is the more convenient way to read the inbox,

Re: [mailop] [FEEDBACK] whose address, was Approach to dealing with List Washing services, industry feedback..

In article <1580084583.939.2.ca...@16bits.net>, Ángel via mailop wrote: >> I like TOTP codes because you can install the keys into multiple apps ... >Not supported by Google, though. The gmail app on my phone would be surprised to hear that, since I've been logging in with TOTP codes for years.

Re: [mailop] [FEEDBACK] whose address, was Approach to dealing with List Washing services, industry feedback..

In article you write: >This type of thing is depressingly common for addresses that are common >names and such at the major providers. ... No kidding. You would not believe (well, you, Brandom sure would) how many people with names similar to mine believe that my address john.lev...@gmail.com

Re: [mailop] [FEEDBACK] whose address, was Approach to dealing with List Washing services, industry feedback..

In article , Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: >I have lost enough physical keys over the years to worry about what >happens if I lose my phone (which does not have a finger print reader) ... I like TOTP codes because you can install the keys into multiple apps on multiple devices, and since

Re: [mailop] not certs, please was whose address

In article <20200127101751.ga2...@rafa.eu.org>, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >If we are at this topic, I wonder since long time why none, literally none >publicly available Internet service where users' private data is stored and >needs to be protected, has implemented certificate-based login.

Re: [mailop] not certs, please was whose address

In article <20200127183244.ga5...@rafa.eu.org> you write: >Dnia 27.01.2020 o godz. 18:04:54 John Levine via mailop pisze: >> Because it's unusable unless you're a total nerd. I have provisioned my >> browser >> to use client certs and it wasn't pretty. > >I have

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Business justification to use noreply sender addresses?

In article , Philip Paeps via mailop wrote: >On 2020-02-07 08:34:13 (-0800), Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >> It would be best if autoresponders simply didn't reply to messages >> from mailing lists. > >That windmill is not going to budge no matter how much you try to tilt it... People who

Re: [mailop] A question ... who is optinx . org ???

In article you write: >"OLA Workplace Skills Training Centre" traces to 1655 Palm Beach Lakes >Blvd. Suite C-1005, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401 ... >I don't know anything about them personally but it sure seems like >senders with explicit opt-in permission generally don't need a third >party

Re: [mailop] Messages from small personal SMTP server being marked as junk by Google

In article you write: >There were 19 recipients on the To: line. >15 of the recipients were gmail addresses. Don't do that, smells like what a bot does. The usual way to send a group message is to put your own address on the To: line and everyone else as Bcc.

Re: [mailop] [FEEDBACK] whose address, was Approach to dealing with List Washing services, industry feedback..

In article <20200123185907.ga4...@rafa.eu.org> you write: >Dnia 22.01.2020 o godz. 23:31:13 John Levine via mailop pisze: >> At some point I give up and hit the spam button. > >And thus you are training Google's AI to treat completely legit (only >misdirected) message

Re: [mailop] Messages from small personal SMTP server being marked as junk by Google

In article <70d752f3-6aa3-cda0-28bd-6444e3d69...@allard.it> you write: >> As I and others said, given in particular the case of forwards and >> mailing lists, "-all" is seldom a good idea, and certainly not a good >> idea for a small personal server. >> > >In this day and age, mailing lists

Re: [mailop] How long to retry?

In article you write: >Brandon Long via mailop writes: > >> A 5-10 minute delay for us is already in the realm of the second retry >> and pretty unusual unless something's going on. > >OK, so maybe nowadays we ought to have that first NDR (the "for some >reason, I couldn't deliver this right

Re: [mailop] Is Spectrum trying to sunset rr.com and twc.com emails?

In article , Russell Clemings via mailop wrote: >Tell that to Comcast, which bought attbi.com and made all of their users >change their email addresses to comcast.net, just as attbi.com had done a >few years earlier when it bought mediaone.net. Quite a few years ago, but >it was a colossal pain.

Re: [mailop] Contact at networksolutions.com

In article <17b9169c-f47b-82c7-eb99-788b8946c...@linuxmagic.com> you write: >And if anyone knows anyone at Hover, can they send the notices out an IP >with a PTR that is hover, instead of a generic bulk mail server? > >I am sure that they can afford a dedicated server(s) for notifications..

Re: [mailop] mx abuse listed in spamhaus?

In article <083b022641fd49f3ec6e56e190f21663737f4294.ca...@wemonitoremail.com> you write: >On Tue, 2020-01-14 at 10:44 +, J Orlando Letra via mailop wrote: >> does any one have this problem? >> > >As per https://www.abuseat.org/lookup.cgi?ip=64.57.183.53 the IP was >detected sending or

Re: [mailop] mx abuse listed in spamhaus by mistake

In article <083b022641fd49f3ec6e56e190f21663737f4294.ca...@wemonitoremail.com> you write: >Something is infected. I see what's going on. Nothing is infected. I am doing a random survey of .org domain web pages to collect some statistics. Purely by chance it hit a domain which is a C sinkhole,

[mailop] Strange MIME headers from Microsoft

Take a look at this archived message sent from an Outlook hosted user: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/xTEWTOyy4HOX-wyvFVaOicn2P-I/# The Message-ID, ARC-Seal and some private headers are MIME encoded, like this: Message-ID:

Re: [mailop] contact at google

In article , Andrew Barrett via mailop wrote: >Do Gmail/Google consume data from any other RBL, even where G/G might >periodically create a local copy to query? At least one claims G/G does, >but I remain skeptical. I am reasonably sure they do but I am quite sure they do it by a private bulk

Re: [mailop] Contact for BSB RHSBL ?

In article you write: >How much weight does BSB carry in RHSBL ranking ? A false positive once in a >while can happen, but will many >receivers be consulting this and scoring it high ? I've never heard of it and would be pretty surprised if it made any practical difference. My DNS server

Re: [mailop] bogus DNSBL queries, was contact at google

In article <2aeca2a6-dbf3-419b-bb62-929aa6877...@billmail.scconsult.com> you write: >For 15+ years I've tried every form of complaint and DNS trickery I can >think up to make bogus DNSBL queries stop. The only success I've ever >had has been with a couple of dumb cargo-culting "check all the

Re: [mailop] contact at google

In article <20200411183502.ga31...@hesketh.com> you write: >And yet, for years, Google has been doing reverse-octet lookups against >it. ... Can you provide a list of IPs that are sending the queries? I'd think that would be a lot more likely to identify the culprint than "Google". Remember

Re: [mailop] Horrible week for email deliverability - Looking for help with RackSpace/Emailsrvr

In article <62e55123-d1d0-f67b-9d03-191c8caaa...@pccc.com> you write: >We're a small ESP but respected and vigilant anti-spam community >members.  However, our mail volume is through the roof because of the >pandemic and we're seeing false positive issues with deliverability.  Do you know what

Re: [mailop] [External] Re: Horrible week for email deliverability - Looking for help with RackSpace/Emailsrvr

In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On 3/26/20 11:20 AM, John R Levine via mailop wrote: >> As I'm sure you're aware, we've seen way too much spam from people who >> imagine that COVID is an excuse to reanimate zombie lists. > >Is there any precedent on how fresh / recent the

Re: [mailop] FW: [dns-operations] weird queries for mx1.mx2.mx1.mx2...

In article you write: > > truckinsurancekentucky.com is unreachable, so it's hard to say, but >it's more like some sort of CNAME loop. E.g. request to ... I got some names of other domains seeing this query behavior and here's what they have in common: - They have a wildcard web server, e.g. *.

Re: [mailop] Mail.com Contact?

In article you write: >Anyone here on list have a good contact or can figure out an RBL with >38.124.232.14 on it?  I know about backscatterer but don't consider them >very legit because they are pay for delist. GMX aka 1&1 is a very large mail provider, so they probably have their own internal

Re: [mailop] Unable to receive email from WeTransfer and Facebook (only for a specific domain)

In article you write: >What can I investigate? If you want our help, you need to give us enough info that we can help. Without knowing the domain name, we can only guess and we'll probably guess wrong. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org

[mailop] Who runs the mailspike BL and why are they blocking Yahoo?

One of my users reported that I was rejecting mail from Yahoo, and I found it was because at least one of Yahoo's outbound addresses 74.6.128.32 is listed at bl.mailspike.net. I realize that Yahoo's mail is hardly pristine but surely we agree that they're in the too big to block category. R's,

Re: [mailop] Who runs the mailspike BL and why are they blocking Yahoo?

In article <20200319185924.gb20...@dm7.infinitemho.fi> you write: >On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 02:40:23PM -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >> One of my users reported that I was rejecting mail from Yahoo, and I found it >> was because at least one of Yahoo's outbound

Re: [mailop] DMARC policy application

In article <20200507110617.ga25...@acrasis.net> you write: >On 2020-05-07 11:04 BST, Evan Booyens via mailop wrote: >> Often the hacked account is used to send mail from a spoofed domain. > >Why would an email provider permit its users to spoof either the >mail-from or the header-form? My users

Re: [mailop] DMARC policy application

In article <20200507171907.gc25...@acrasis.net> you write: >On 2020-05-07 18:07 BST, John Levine via mailop wrote: >> My users have lots of addresses and my mail system lets them use >> whatever From: address they want. > >Interesting. That seems liberal, and a

Re: [mailop] [External] dcc down / dead?

In article <6adf5a5a-2e23-f409-8792-4de5817de...@pccc.com> you write: >Vernon has emailed me that everything is renewed.  Can you confirm it >looks good now? Looks fine from dcc.iecc.com R's, John ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org

Re: [mailop] no, target.com contact ?

In article , vom513 via mailop wrote: >PS: I’m just trying to persuade them to not send out DMARC agg reports for >mail sent to their rua address in the >first place (loop). Not the biggest deal in the world but annoying. Please don't. DMARC reports are designed to be sent and consumed

Re: [mailop] no, target.com contact ?

In article <4481897b-653c-434a-9a80-2c8f02c36...@gmail.com> you write: >Yep, I’m already using parsedmarc/elasticsearck/kibana. So as I said it’s not >a huge deal - but I would have >thought that it was best practice to NOT send an agg report for emails sent TO >your own RUA. This can be one

Re: [mailop] no, target.com contact ?

In article <0aec348a-e629-4837-a58a-154c48b43...@gmail.com>, vom513 via mailop wrote: >> Yes. So what? The cost of sending and and processing the reports is >> trivial. > >Agreed - I’m not concerned about the costs of sending or processing. These >“backscatter” reports skew my >data.

Re: [mailop] no, target.com contact ?

In article you write: >> target.com is the only org I get these from based on the aggs I >> send them. I send plenty of agg reports to other orgs and they are >> quietly consumed/dropped/bounced etc. For most corporate domains the rua= recipient domain is not the same as the domain they're

[mailop] Fake fax spam from sendgrid

I'm getting a steady stream of spam from Sendgrid purporting to be Efax messages, with what appears to be an XLS spreadsheet attached. The return addresses are all over the place but they all come through Sendgrid, e.g., Subject: E-FAX - 963554 DNW You have a new fax! Click the attachment to

Re: [mailop] Protection.outlook.com SPF hoops to jump for IPv6

In article you write: >When sending messages to a *.mail.protection.outlook.com host via IPv6, >our mail host gets the following email status: > >#4.7.26 SMTP; 450 4.7.26 Service does not accept messages sent over IPv6 >[2001:708:10:6004::22] unless they pass either SPF or DKIM validation

Re: [mailop] Maximum message size

In article <20201024112039.ga5...@rafa.eu.org>, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >Dnia 24.10.2020 o godz. 01:36:08 Kenneth Porter via mailop pisze: >> >> The biggest problem with getting business partners to use FTP is >> that they're often not allowed to use 3rd party software (like > >In my

Re: [mailop] Rolling DKIM Key Disclosure

In article <021c736c-4194-4339-9d22-72f7b0707...@as397444.net> you write: >Ah, I didn’t know l= existed, thanks for that! Do most hosts treat l=0 as >DKIM-valid the same way as l=, or are they likely to >ignore the DKIM signatures? It varies buy my impression is that there isn't a lot of mail

Re: [mailop] Bellsouth.net contact?

In article <8d8fe8d8-afa4-73f6-91af-f34af167c...@lcrcomputer.net> you write: > >ATT doesn't like Linode.  I know I have a server there and have not been >able to get ATT to clear their inhouse rbl entry. I can't blame them. Linode responds to spam reports but is hopeless at keeping spammers off

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

In article <28453035-f078-4311-8472-1aa190c45...@isipp.com> you write: > > >> Did you not read what I quoted from the Spamhaus website? They are based >> in Switzerland and Andorra, not the UK. My assumption is that there is >> basically no chance of any U.S. ruling being enforced in either of

Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project

In article you write: >Right...the thing is that a default judgement is still a judgement. And >because they are in the UK doesn't mean that it can't be enforced against >them.. in the UK. They're not in the UK. They're in Andorra: https://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Organization#92 I

Re: [mailop] Challenges delivering to cox.net

In article <20200805132959.gd12...@tamriel.snowman.net> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Greetings, > >I'm part of the group that runs the postgresql.org mailing lists and >we've been having some challenges getting email delivered to cox.net due >to their... rather aggressive

[mailop] Gmail IMAP xyzzy ?

When I connect to Gmail's IMAP server, one of the capbilities it advertises is "xyzzy". Anyone know what that is? I know the etymology (same place as plugh) but what's it supposed to do? Signed, Wondering ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org

Re: [mailop] Is DNS-over-HTTPS bad? Sure. (was: Happy Holidays Everyone!)

In article you write: >>Not to mention DNS over HTTPS breaks or renders ineffective most types of >>content filtering. >That's a secondary concern perhaps. I'm betting 99% of users don't have >content filtering and don't want it. When the content being filtered is phish and malware, you bet

Re: [mailop] Rolling DKIM Key Disclosure

In article <48a3bfbe-5109-ebbb-3631-1bb604cd1...@bluematt.me> you write: >> TL;DR: The customer is always right, and the customer sees DKIM being >> used regularly to authenticate leaked >emails - if >> old not-in-use keys are public, anyone can sign anything they want, and >> suddenly

Re: [mailop] Rolling DKIM Key Disclosure

In article <22b8aa44-cab8-4467-a18b-ee463997c...@as397444.net> you write: >As for use-case, I don’t find it strange that folks may not want to >cryptographically sign all >their mail without any option to turn that off. They put up with it on their web sites. This still impresses me as a

Re: [mailop] Rolling DKIM Key Disclosure

In article <4ac6b77b-375b-4cc0-b2f5-84f769683...@as397444.net> you write: >More like “customer sees that DKIM is used to authenticate DNC leaks, decides >that DKIM is a >terrible idea for a political entity to have on, let alone any random >business”. Sounds like a customer deep into cypherpunk

Re: [mailop] SPF strict / DMARC interaction / "big" provider behavior...

In article <3e229a32-88db-4fdb-b67a-c68d0b65e...@gmail.com> you write: >SPF. Insofar as I reject at the “front door” (SMTP connection) if SPF fails >(example is a domain using >“-all”). I would imagine this is pretty vanilla so far compared to other >folks. To be blunt, it is among hobby mail

Re: [mailop] SPF strict / DMARC interaction / "big" provider behavior...

In article <2e5fef36-789f-61c2-41d6-dba139fc8...@heeg.de> you write: >I'm pretty wary of SPF, especially since it just breaks mail forwarding which >some of our users like to do to >consolidate all mail in one mailbox. I know they should not do this, ... People have been forwarding mail about as

[mailop] Fake documents from Microsoft and fake voice mail from Exacttarget

Dunno if other people are seeing this, but I got a bunch of spam from Sharepoint, which is Microsoft, inviting me to look at more or less pornographic Sharepoint documnents. Here's a couple of them: http://spample.iecc.com/sdq/23641583 http://spample.iecc.com/ung/23641588 I'm also getting

Re: [mailop] Fake documents from dropbox too

In the interest of fairness to the cruddy, I'm getting fake documents from Dropbox, too: http://abuseinfo.iecc.com/eok/23641705 -- Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >