Re: [mailop] Contact at Barracuda?? re: IMPORTANT re: MSRBL.net & Barracuda Networks Opened Case #: 03269004

> On 13 Jun 2019, at 18:11, Kevin A. McGrail via mailop > wrote: > > On 6/13/2019 1:06 PM, Erwin via mailop wrote: >> That’s ESS, our hosted email filtering service which includes customer >> configured list of RBLs. > > Thanks Erwin. Anyway for you to alert users using msrbl to well, not

Re: [mailop] Barracuda IP listings

> > On 18 Jun 2019, at 12:57, Kieran Cooper via mailop wrote: > > A couple of our customers at SparkPost have started seeing widespread > listings of multiple IP addresses on Barracuda’s blacklist and someone > suggested that something might have gone wrong there overnight. > > Does anyone

Re: [mailop] Howto be a good mailop (best practice / insights wanted)

> On 9 May 2019, at 22:53, Rich Kulawiec via mailop wrote: > > On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:26:50AM -0400, Rob McEwen via mailop wrote: >> you should strongly encourage your customers to >> captcha-protect their signup forms to prevent bots from signing up spamtrap >> addresses. > > No, you

Re: [mailop] Howto be a good mailop (best practice / insights wanted)

Captchas aren’t a FUSSUP. They’re meant to address a specific problem - listbombing. COI contributes to the problem of listbombing. SMS challenge is going to make that worse. 1000 SMS messages in an hour is a problem. There are people who’ve been working on this issue for years and I’m sure

Re: [mailop] Howto be a good mailop (best practice / insights wanted)

> On 10 May 2019, at 11:40, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > > > The solution ... is to stop thinking that all decisions on the legitimacy of > an email can be resolved at the instant the machine is focusing on that one > email. > > We need to move beyond "Spam" filtering as a one-off, per

Re: [mailop] Howto be a good mailop (best practice / insights wanted)

> On 10 May 2019, at 14:11, Leo Gaspard via mailop wrote: > > Steve Atkins via mailop writes: >>> On May 10, 2019, at 10:50 AM, Leo Gaspard via mailop >>> wrote: >>> Laura Atkins via mailop writes: >>>> For victims of listbombing, COI isn

Re: [mailop] openspf.org down

I just did something similar. laura > On 2 May 2019, at 16:42, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: > > Linkedin suggests he works for Agari. I emailed a friend who works > there and asked her to pass a message along asking about openspf.org. > I'll share back what I hear. And I'll tell him about

Re: [mailop] Gmail Postmaster IP reputation shift on July 2nd

I’m seeing jumps on a couple of my clients, but no change on others. laura > On 5 Jul 2019, at 16:37, Scott Southard via mailop wrote: > > Seeing a jump in red IPs on our end as well over the past 2 days. Previously, > everything had been trending in a very positive manner. We're all kind

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

> On 22 Aug 2019, at 08:53, Mathieu Bourdin via mailop > wrote: > >> *** Shouldn't spam traps reject all mails after the END-OF-DATA? *** > > If they did, they would be easily identifiable, and thus would have no value. Not sure I understand this point of view. I think everyone should be

Re: [mailop] Weird blocking by outlook.com (S3150)

In my experience, when the bounce message says "Please contact your Internet service provider since part of their network is on our block list (S3150).” That means that Microsoft is seeing problems across a wide range of IPs in a space and they don’t have a clear picture of where the customer

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

> On 23 Aug 2019, at 18:35, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop > wrote: >> >> On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote: >> >>> In '1984' there's Newspeak. Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak. Clarity in >>> discussion is to be

Re: [mailop] Resolving issues for several yahoo domains?

; messages sent on a single connection in the past week is 414k, and I know > I've seen total number of connections from a single source over 10k), the > throttling is on a more esoteric collections of signals ... > > Brandon > >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:06 AM Laura Atkins

Re: [mailop] Resolving issues for several yahoo domains?

There was a point in time where if you didn’t limit the number of messages per session a few of the larger mailbox providers would simply cut you off. The issue was some spammers were making hundreds of connections and then holding them open for days (yes, really, more than 24 hours at a time).

Re: [mailop] Resolving issues for several yahoo domains?

of software > was so crude it had no connection timeouts and just sat there - haven't seen > that behaviour in a very long time :) > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 11:08, Laura Atkins via mailop <mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote: > There was a point in time where if you didn’t

Re: [mailop] Lawsuit to watch: Tulsi v. Google

CAN SPAM basically says that receivers are not obligated to deliver mail that complies with the law. It’s, IMO, a badly written, poorly argued lawsuit that sounds more like something I’d read on NANAE by someone with only passing familiarity with the law or how the courts work. I blogged

Re: [mailop] Best Re-engagement Email

> On 19 Sep 2019, at 16:47, Michael Peddemors via mailop > wrote: > > On 2019-09-19 8:35 a.m., Al Iverson via mailop wrote: >> Thus there are three categories of subscriber responses: >> - Clicked on unsub link or "no" button. Stop mailing. >> - Clicked on opt-in link or "yes" button. Continue

Re: [mailop] Barracuda contact required or any insights on a certain bounce type

It’s a user level block... evidenced by the fact other addresses at that domain receiving the mail. Whatever the recipient said, it is totally on them to figure out how to receive mail they want. Laura Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 20, 2019, at 8:20 PM, Erwin wrote: > > You won't get an

Re: [mailop] No response on DNS queries to NS for zen.spamhaus.org

> On 29 Oct 2019, at 19:59, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop > wrote: > > Eric, > > Eric Tykwinski (Di 29 Okt 2019 20:52:46 CET): >> Heiko, >> >> I do believe they just stop responding on over 300K queries. >> TOS Link: https://www.spamhaus.org/organization/dnsblusage/ > > Thank you, that

Re: [mailop] No response on DNS queries to NS for zen.spamhaus.org

> On 30 Oct 2019, at 12:05, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop > wrote: > > I really hope that someone from spamhaus will come in here and can teach > me the proper way to ask for de-blocking the query source IP. I really would not hold out much hope for that. I think you’re much better off

Re: [mailop] Reg. false positive bounces at Yahoo ISP

End of September there was a (now fixed) issue with some Verizon / Yahoo accounts due to a problem on their end. It’s likely safe to continue mailing those accounts. laura > On 13 Nov 2019, at 06:10, Vaibhav via mailop wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > Recently we observed we are getting

Re: [mailop] Hotmail delivery issues

When they say “do not meet outlook technical standards” they mean it. Go through Every Single Bit of your technical setup and compare it against their requirements. If, at any point you think “oh, no, that won’t matter that I’m doing it a little different than they say…” trust me, you’re wrong.

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Reasons ISPs (Microsoft) ignore DMARC policy?

to quote MJW: "And, of course, "Reject" only works if you are checking SPF/DKIM/DMARC at the edge, before sending the final 250 ok. "Afterwards, it's just another source of backscatter.” and to quote MDR: "If you administer a system that accepts orders of magnitude fewer than 150,000

Re: [mailop] BIMI

> On 6 Dec 2019, at 10:42, Vytis Marciulionis via mailop > wrote: > > Hi, > I am not a part of the BIMI working group but, I think it is cool in it's own > way. So I will try to add my 2 cents. > > > - It is said to increase security for mailbox owners because seeing the > companies logo

Re: [mailop] Junk filtering as a tool for unfair competition

One of the things I’ve deduced over the years from discussions (oh so many discussions) is that one of the major factors in SmartScreen filters is how recipients are interacting with the mail. It is a direct measure of how your users are interacting with the mail. This means a few things.

Re: [mailop] Barracuda contact required or any insights on a certain bounce type

If it’s just a couple recipients at the domain take the hint. More than likely those specific recipients have manually blocked the sender. They’re done with your mail. Stop mailing them. Laura Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 20, 2019, at 5:24 PM, Andy Onofrei via mailop > wrote: > > HI

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

> On 14 Oct 2019, at 10:50, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: > > On 14/10/2019 10:17, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >> >> When we closed down our colo and moved to a VPS I was slightly concerned >> about delivery of our mail, given the history of the last time we moved

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

> On 14 Oct 2019, at 09:27, Vittorio Bertola via mailop > wrote: > >> Il 12 ottobre 2019 01:31 Brandon Long via mailop ha >> scritto: >> >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:09 AM Chris Woods via mailop < mailop@mailop.org >> > wrote: >> Has the prevailing method of

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

> On 14 Oct 2019, at 14:01, Nick via mailop wrote: > > On 2019-10-14 13:32 BST, Steve Atkins via mailop wrote: >> Consider cloud providers, VPS providers, ESPs etc, and >> whether they enforce any sort of ToS forbidding abusive traffic >> from their customers. >> >> If a provider consistently

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

> On 14 Oct 2019, at 17:29, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote: > > as things stand today, i think we do > > technology has gotten very good but it's not perfect; sometimes spam > isn't detected, and sometimes real messages are detected as spam And, sometimes… What one recipient sees as spam

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT - AWS Block

> On 21 Dec 2019, at 00:51, Brad Slavin via mailop wrote: > > It seems that AWS has found their way onto the UCEPROTECT Level 3 list. > > Affected messages are being rejected with this banner: > > 550 Your ISP AMAZON-02 - Amazon.com >

Re: [mailop] AT Block - abuse_...@abuse-att.net still valid?

> On 11 Feb 2020, at 17:01, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: > > Well... I guess my thought is, if it takes them a week to weed through all of > their requests... maybe there's a better way to optimize this? Or maybe they > need more personnel manning these positions? > > Your statement is

Re: [mailop] AT Block - abuse_...@abuse-att.net still valid?

> On 12 Feb 2020, at 11:15, Johann Klasek via mailop wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:03:52AM +0000, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >>> On 11 Feb 2020, at 17:01, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: > [..] >>> Your statement is certainly valid, a

Re: [mailop] AT Block - abuse_...@abuse-att.net still valid?

> On 12 Feb 2020, at 16:47, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop > wrote: > Maybe other blacklists isn't a good indicator. But if the IP is not >> listed in Spamhaus, Spamcop, Sorbs, Proofpoint, Symantec (lately I'm >> having more issues with Symantec, so I'm not sure how reliable it is >> anymore),

Re: [mailop] Ideas for possible content for FAQ: "Best Practices for running a mail server"

> On 24 Feb 2020, at 13:02, Vytis Marciulionis via mailop > wrote: > > Hi, > > - Have proper FCrDNS records. Just having MX and PTR records doesn't cut it. > Add an A record that matches your PTR. > > Could someone please confirm whether this is a best common practice for > RFC.5321

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

> On 24 Jan 2020, at 10:59, Gregory Heytings via mailop > wrote: > > > Hi, > >> >>> This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all". >> >> I disagree. >> >> "v=spf1 mx ..." requires a DNS lookup which their existing SPF record >> doesn't. Lots of people telling you how to

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

> On 24 Jan 2020, at 11:24, Johann Klasek via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:59:53AM +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote: > [..] >> That's your opinion. My opinion is that "-all" is almost never a good >> idea, and is certainly not a good idea for a small personal server.

Re: [mailop] Proofpoint help

postmaster@proofpoint is monitored. You should really try mailing them first before using a mailing list as support. laura > On 2 Feb 2020, at 04:19, Marc Goldman via mailop wrote: > > Can an admin from Proofpoint mail me off list for some help delisting an IP. > > Thanks! > > Marc

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

> On 3 Feb 2020, at 10:16, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > > Dnia 3.02.2020 o godz. 09:27:26 Vittorio Bertola via mailop pisze: >> >> Well, there is a certain market share above which "my network my rules" >> becomes "anticompetitive business practices", > > +1 >> but I guess this is not a

Re: [mailop] viva.com.do postmaster

> On 4 Feb 2020, at 21:30, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: > > On 4 Feb 2020, at 15:48, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: > >> UCE-PROTECT-2 and UCE-PROTECT-3 to be more precise.. >> It might be that you have bad 'neighbours'. >> >> inetnum: 190.8.32/20 > [...] >> > On 2020-02-04 12:38

Re: [mailop] Opinions? Email Abuse over TOR Network? (spamtraps)

Totally your call, but there is a LOT of AUTH abuse going on. If folks are mad that their TOR nodes are getting reported for abuse, well… thems the breaks. I get it, TOR is useful and there are legitimate reasons to use TOR. Probing ports and attempting to crack passwords is not what I

Re: [mailop] mx abuse listed in spamhaus?

> On 14 Jan 2020, at 11:58, Stuart Henderson via mailop > wrote: > > On 2020/01/14 11:37, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote: >> On Tue, 2020-01-14 at 10:44 +, J Orlando Letra via mailop wrote: >>> does any one have this problem? >>> >> >> As per

Re: [mailop] Reg. false positive opens at Gmail ISP

> On 7 Jan 2020, at 03:04, Vaibhav via mailop wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > Recently we observed some false positive opens from Gmail users for few of > our customers. > > Lets say when we delivered 100 Emails we are getting 94-95 open hit on our > tracking pixel post delivery though user

Re: [mailop] Authentication at Office365

Was I really not that clear? I’ll go back and correct. Microsoft is attempting to authenticate the visible (5322) from address. So either the SPF domain or the DKIM domain needs to be aligned with the visible from. laura > On 16 Mar 2020, at 14:44, Brett Schenker via mailop wrote: > > I

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

> On 27 Mar 2020, at 09:05, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: > > On 27/03/2020 08:32, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >> You have folks using a bulk ESP to send friends and family email? Do you >> have a free package or something that makes it appealing for individuals

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

> On 26 Mar 2020, at 16:45, Kevin A. McGrail via mailop > wrote: > > > On 3/26/2020 12:37 PM, John Levine wrote: >> 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

Re: [mailop] Abusix Potentially Compromised Account Report

> On 25 Mar 2020, at 10:00, Alessandro Vesely via mailop > wrote: > > For a comparison, how'd you rate the signal to noise ratio of (accumulated) > DMARC aggregate reports? I don’t think there’s a valid comparison as DMARC reports are opt-in and the folks who are opting into them understand

Re: [mailop] MTA Server IP "Warm Up" Reputation Recommended Best Practices

> On 3 Sep 2020, at 14:07, L. Mark Stone via mailop wrote: > > Looking for current MTA IP "warm up" best practices please... > > We are a niche email hosting company for commercial/regulated corporate > entities with a strong anti-bulk-mail-sending AUP. Our existing MTA IPs have > very

Re: [mailop] MTA Server IP "Warm Up" Reputation Recommended Best Practices

; Mission Critical Email LLC > > - Original Message - > From: "mailop" > To: "mailop" > Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 1:31:03 PM > Subject: Re: [mailop] MTA Server IP "Warm Up" Reputation Recommended Best > Practices > > On

Re: [mailop] MTA Server IP "Warm Up" Reputation Recommended Best Practices

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 14:15, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 08:34:15 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop > wrote: > >> Microsoft doesn’t just block new IP addresses for being new. > > Actually, there was a mechanism in place when I worked there

Re: [mailop] MTA Server IP "Warm Up" Reputation Recommended Best Practices

these emails blocked, and; then deal with any > bounce messages etc., OK. That process seems... sub-optimal at best. > > If anyone has a better process for warming up sending MTA IPs, I would be > grateful. > > With best regards to all, > Mark > ___________

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] What's Microsoft's S3150 block list and where do I go to request removal?

> On 9 Sep 2020, at 01:10, Andy Smith via mailop wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Given that the recipient can't be bothered to either fix the problem > that's causing the alerts, nor hit the button that silences the > alerts, I'm guessing they won't take any action on their side. I'm > fine with

Re: [mailop] Email from a specific domain going to Yahoo spam folder

If it’s a specific domain, the issue is the domain has a bad reputation. The domain has a bad reputation because people have been reporting mail from and/or mentioning that domain as spam / phishing / whatever. It could be that their website is infected with something or being used as an abuse

Re: [mailop] Google: 'Low reputation of the sending domain'

Mail coming from IPv6 has higher requirements for delivery than mail from IPv4. The theory is that with IPv4 you may be in a situation where there’s legacy code or infrastructure that can’t be upgraded for operational reasons. For reasons of interoperability that is acceptable. Anyone sending

Re: [mailop] Is Gmails DMARC check broken?

Why is Google applying a strict reject when the policy is p=none? laura > On 2 Jun 2020, at 16:42, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-06-02 at 17:04 +0200, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: >> _DMARC.imp.ch descriptive text "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto: >>

Re: [mailop] Yahoo issue

PH01 is typically phishing. I’d check all the links and websites in the message to make sure there’s not a compromise somewhere. My experience is that if Yahoo is telling you PH01, there’s a compromise / virus being linked to from the message and you need to really dig into your website

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

> On 4 Aug 2020, at 03:29, John Levine via mailop wrote: > > 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

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

> On 4 Aug 2020, at 14:07, Chris via mailop wrote: > > On 2020-08-04 05:32, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: > >> It was Mr. Charles Benn who, according to the service of process affidavit, >> was authorized to receive process on their behalf. >> https://www.court

Re: [mailop] Is DNS-over-HTTPS bad? Sure.

> On 7 Jul 2020, at 23:35, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > > There seems to be a lot of mixing of the technical DOH vs the Mozilla > implementation (push everyone to > use certified providers). Ie, Chrome is defaulting to using DOH for the same > DNS provider you're already using (if they

Re: [mailop] Does anyone have experience with Gmail lockouts?

> On 9 Jul 2020, at 22:57, Nathan She via mailop wrote: > > Hey everyone, > > A client of ours is seeing their sales reps and account managers locked out > of their G-suite accounts. Upon trying to log in, they get the message “It > looks like this account was used in a way that violated

Re: [mailop] Rolling DKIM Key Disclosure

> On 11 Jul 2020, at 18:18, Matt Corallo via mailop wrote: > > Right, maybe I’ve missed something - in my (albeit limited) experience, mail > that gets forwarded a few times by various filters (most recent issue I’ve > seen is someone trying to forward Rackspace -> Gmail -> ZenDesk, which,

Re: [mailop] Intermittent slow email delivery

Hi, Job, I’ve seen 4 copies of this message this morning. Things are working here. laura > On 13 Jul 2020, at 23:36, Job Cacka via mailop wrote: > > > I am re-submitting thr because it doesn't seem to be showing in the > newsgroup. > > So I spoke a bit too soon on the firewall.This

Re: [mailop] harassment/death threat detection/filtering/prosecution

It’s both a tricky and a ongoing problem. Many of the folks doing the harassing have access to a host of tools that make it difficult, if not impossible, to block them. Blocking by content is fraught with false positives and often the targets are activists who have legitimate reasons to be

Re: [mailop] Rolling DKIM Key Disclosure

>>The goal is to actually publish the private key, no need to wait for >> someone to brute-force it :) >> >> Are you sure you're not better using S/MIME or GPG to produce /signed/ email >> payloads? > > The goal isn't to sign emails, in fact ideally we wouldn't have to at all. > The goal

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Block list (S3150)

On the advice of their lawyers Microsoft doesn’t share that information with senders. laura > On 29 Jun 2020, at 06:18, Esteban Fonseca via mailop > wrote: > > Hello all, > > Has anyone ever had success getting feedback from Microsoft ? Stuff like what > caused the block, and when,

Re: [mailop] [External] Microsoft Block list (S3150)

ly this year. > > Regards, > KAM > > On 6/29/2020 7:16 AM, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >> On the advice of their lawyers Microsoft doesn’t share that information with >> senders. >> >> laura >> >> >> >>> On 29 Jun 2

Re: [mailop] How to allow different domain in envelope and header from? (Is Gmails DMARC check broken?)

> On 4 Jun 2020, at 12:36, Benoît Panizzon wrote: > > Hi Laura > >> It is possible, if you are signing with a DKIM d= of the domain in >> the 5321.from address. > > We use only SPF at the moment. There are many systems which send emails > to 'external' recipients with the @imp.ch domain. It

Re: [mailop] Which ESP forces double opt in?

> On 8 Jun 2020, at 10:28, Laurent S. via mailop wrote: > My goal with this mail is not to debate the pros and cons of COI. I am > only looking for an ESP that enforces it strictly. I don’t think there is one. Rodney Joffe had one for a while, but it’s been so long I don’t remember the name

Re: [mailop] Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

> On 4 Jun 2020, at 16:55, Robert L Mathews via mailop > wrote: > > On 6/4/20 2:50 AM, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >> You do know that spammers run ESPs and consider themselves reputable, >> yes? How useful will the header be when they start putting it in eve

Re: [mailop] Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

> On 3 Jun 2020, at 16:59, Robert L Mathews via mailop > wrote: > > On 6/2/20 6:35 AM, Tim Bray via mailop wrote: >> Is there way I could force my email address to be double opt in? >> Like register with you, confirm my address, and then any of your >> customers who try to add me, I get a

Re: [mailop] How to allow different domain in envelope and header from? (Is Gmails DMARC check broken?)

> On 4 Jun 2020, at 11:06, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: > > Hi Gang > > Tanks for the various feedback, learning a log :-) I found one issue > caused by domain alignment in DMARC. > > We use two domains: > > imp.ch (our company) > breitband.ch (our service brand) > > Our Support Case

Re: [mailop] Multiple Bounces from domains who are hosted on Office365 plan from various registrars

Valid, not invalid. Why are you believing a third party over the domains owner? Laura Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 16, 2020, at 10:33 AM, Laura Atkins via mailop > wrote: > > Why are you trusting a third party’s word that the addresses are invalid > over the actu

Re: [mailop] Multiple Bounces from domains who are hosted on Office365 plan from various registrars

Why are you trusting a third party’s word that the addresses are invalid over the actual domain owner? Laura Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 16, 2020, at 9:14 AM, Hagop Khatchoian via mailop > wrote: > >  > Hi there, > > I've been dealing with some bounces from domains that are hosted on

Re: [mailop] Multiple Bounces from domains who are hosted on Office365 plan from various registrars

Valid, not invalid. Why are you believing a third party telling you an address exists over the domain owner telling you it doesn’t? Laura Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 16, 2020, at 10:33 AM, Laura Atkins via mailop > wrote: > > Why are you trusting a third party’s word that t

Re: [mailop] Microsoft errror message 4.7.1 Unable to relay ATTR37

This sounds like you’re connecting to the wrong MX for the domain you’re attempting to send to. Have you verified that the domains are still in use? Have you checked that you can mail to them from different IPs? If you can mail to those on different IPs then I’d open a ticket with MS. Laura

Re: [mailop] IP based reporting for Yahoo feedback loop gone?

> On 28 Dec 2020, at 18:03, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: > > There was once an IP based one? There was, primarily for hosting type companies. I don’t think it survived the VMG merger. laura > I only ever knew of the DKIM one. Which never made a lot of sense to me - > since with

Re: [mailop] Effeciveness (or not) of SPF

> On 8 Dec 2020, at 10:58, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: > > On 08/12/2020 10:27, Rich Kulawiec via mailop wrote: >> - It's no help with phishing: thanks to ICANN, registrars, and >> the proliferation of TLDs, phishers have their choice of hundreds of >> millions of typographically similar

Re: [mailop] GMail 550 5.1.1?

> On 15 Dec 2020, at 15:18, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: > > On 15 Dec 2020, at 6:14, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > >> But I assume the mailserver didn't get a *positive* reply "yes, it is >> confirmed that the user DOESN'T exist" but simply wasn't able to connect to >> the database and

Re: [mailop] Delivery problem on Microsoft e-mail (code 250 but does not receive)

> On 21 Oct 2020, at 09:41, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote: > > > > On 10/20/20 12:41 PM, Daniele Rossi via mailop wrote: >> Hi, >> we try to send to Microsoft Account and we receive this message: >> *Queued mail for delivery -> 250 2.1.5* >> The problem is that the mail does not arrive

Re: [mailop] Firefox Relay

It’s slightly different. Apple Private Relay is only allowing DMARC passing mail (even in the absence of an actual DMARC record, they’re requiring alignment between SPF/DKIM and the 5322.from) from sender registered email addresses. They’re also mediating the signup process and doing header

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid again...

> On 22 Jan 2021, at 14:38, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop > wrote: > > Am 22.01.21 um 15:22 schrieb Andrew C Aitchison via mailop: >> >> Are you sure that it was Sendgrid that blocked the message ? >> Looks to me as if ab...@sendgrid.com is hosted at gmail and >> it was *gmail* that objected

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid again...

> On 22 Jan 2021, at 14:08, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop > wrote: > > Well I'm not complaining about the spam from them - it's a steady flow, > nothing new. > > But it looks like they have filters on their abuse box now to reduce the > amount of abuse reports: > > The original message

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Sendgrid again...

> On 22 Jan 2021, at 16:16, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 7:11 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop > wrote: > > Strange that Sendgrid, being an email company, does not even self-host it's > company email, but resorts to Google for this. Doesn't

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Sendgrid again...

> On 22 Jan 2021, at 18:04, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:54 AM Gregory Heytings via mailop > wrote: > >> That's correct, but in that case what Sendgrid should do is to use a >> specific subdomain for abuse reports, e.g. use ab...@abuse.sendgrid.com >> instead

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Sendgrid again...

> On 23 Jan 2021, at 22:56, Ángel via mailop wrote: > > On 2021-01-22 at 18:24 +0000, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >> I think it’s a great idea. We’ve even discussed putting a RFC >> together listing this as best practice but have not found the time to >> do it. U

Re: [mailop] Does anyone have any contact for cloudmark.com?

postmas...@cloudmark.com or postmaster@ proofpoint.com is the appropriate channel to contact for information. At least one employee reads the list, but you can reach out directly. Laura Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 5, 2021, at 10:38 PM, Brian Reichert via mailop > wrote: > > I had mail

Re: [mailop] Gmail deliverability issues of domain after double sendings

> On 27 Jan 2021, at 11:56, Peter Nicolai Mathias Hansteen via mailop > wrote: > > > >> 27. jan. 2021 kl. 12:23 skrev Laura Atkins via mailop > <mailto:mailop@mailop.org>>: >> >>> I know it sounds like a chore, but I would start by ensuring

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

> On 11 May 2021, at 19:00, Stefano Bagnara via mailop > wrote: > > In my case there was nothing at all in SNDS (green , complaint <0.1%, > no trap hits for every day in the SNDS history), but still I got that > S3150. I've been mitigated when I opened the ticket but I have no clue > what

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

> On 12 May 2021, at 09:59, Michael Rathbun via mailop > wrote: > > On Wed, 12 May 2021 09:27:40 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop > wrote: > >> The things we normally recommend to folks don’t always work as expected. >> Sometimes they do and we can fix th

Re: [mailop] Recommendations for mail campaign services

> On 7 May 2021, at 09:33, Alessandro Vesely via mailop > wrote: > > On Wed 05/May/2021 21:14:08 +0200 Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: >> Then my personal recommendation would be Mailchimp or possibly Constant >> Contact if you're not comfortable with doing it in-house. > > > Thank you Jay

Re: [mailop] Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

Given you are the service provider, the best place to look is in your abuse queue. Look for complaints about mail from that IP (and surrounding IPs) going back for a while. Typically, the consumer ISPs will put mail in the bulk folder for a while before escalating to a block. When the mail is

Re: [mailop] protection.outlook.com refusing to accept mail with misleading temp error message

> On 2 Jun 2021, at 10:17, André Peters via mailop wrote: [snip] > They _DO_ block whole networks (not just subnets within an AS). > It might not be the case in the example above, but it does happen. I am reasonably familiar with Microsoft’s anti-spam systems and how they work. They do

Re: [mailop] protection.outlook.com refusing to accept mail with misleading temp error message

I know! I saw a bounce message JUST THIS MORNING from a client that blocked AS(201806271). How granular is that? > Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.4.1 All recipient addresses rejected : Access > denied. AS(201806271) [BN8NAM12FT022.eop-nam12.prod.protection.outlook.com >

Re: [mailop] Technical Contact to paddle.com mail platform operator?

Paddle needs to make the licenses available for download not just by email. This is a prime example of why. laura > On 5 Jul 2021, at 10:02, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: > > Dear Mailops! > > We have a customer who orders software licenses via paddle.com > > He should get keys via

Re: [mailop] Technical Contact to paddle.com mail platform operator?

There are a lot of reasons that ESPs will stop customers from being able to mail recipients - recipients who complain, and addresses that bounce, etc. It’s possible that it was a global domain block but those are typically rare. The other possibility is that the recipient gave the sender a bad

Re: [mailop] What does "Abaca" mean?

> On 26 Apr 2021, at 01:50, Russell Clemings via mailop > wrote: > > Here's a question that I don't think has been asked here before: > > What does it mean when you get a reply "451 Message temporarily deferred - > Abaca" on Yahoo/Verizon/AOL? > > I see this from time to time but I can't

Re: [mailop] Gmail deliverability issues of domain after double sendings

> On 27 Jan 2021, at 09:39, postmaster outspot via mailop > wrote: > > Dear all, > > I am the IT manager of a eCommerce company in Belgium. > Google postmaster reports a bad reputation for outspot.fr > already since April 2020. The other domains are fine. > The bad

Re: [mailop] Gmail deliverability issues of domain after double sendings

> On 27 Jan 2021, at 10:26, Peter N. M. Hansteen via mailop > wrote: > On 1/27/21 10:39 AM, postmaster outspot via mailop wrote: > >> Google postmaster reports a bad reputation for outspot.fr >> already since April 2020. The other domains are fine. > One oddity I notice

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid again...

I’m not assuming anything. I know their mail is read and responded to. Laura Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 24, 2021, at 6:24 PM, Jay Hennigan via mailop > wrote: > > On 1/22/21 06:38, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: > >> But forwarding an abuse address that is somewhat expected to

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Info - DMARC at WEB.DE, GMX, mail.com coming soon

> On 1 Apr 2021, at 15:36, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 12:43 AM Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop > mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote: > > One option that you should consider to mitigate the effects for recipients is > to allow per-recipient DMARC exceptions,

Re: [mailop] DKIM+DMARC at t-online.de (Deutsche Telekom's ISP branche)

> On 6 Apr 2021, at 10:36, Florian.Kunkel--- via mailop > wrote: > > ! > * to all those sending email without their very own static IP-Address, > * and all newly set up MTA infrastructure > ... especially ESPs using IP pools professionally for their numerous > customers' mail. > ! > > As

  1   2   3   >