On 08.06.20 11:54, Jakub Olexa via mailop wrote:
>
> Hi Laurent,
>
> we force DOI for subscribe forms and treat everything else as recipients
> without explicity consent. This means that the customer must have a
> different legal basis to use the address (usually legitimate interest
> based
Hi,
Related to the thread of a few days ago "Force double opt in for
marketing list companies per email address":
Which ESP does 100% (double/confirmed) opt in?
I am looking for an ESP that will, in every case, send a confirmation
link without ever trusting their clients about the consent
On 21/12/2021 02:37, Mary via mailop wrote:
> Does this look like a microsoft problem or is it me?
dig txt selector2._domainkey.messaging.microsoft.com
[...] status: NXDOMAIN [...]
dig txt selector2._domainkey.microsoft.com
[...] status: NOERROR [...]
Microsoft didn't create a DKIM key in
On 21.08.23 10:26, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
> This recommendation doesn’t make sense. For companies that actually
> reject due to SPF, they’re most likely going to do it after MAIL FROM:
> At this point in the transaction, they don’t know what the DMARC domain
> is. They can look up
On 21.08.23 12:26, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
>
> How do your users know to welcome list if the mail is rejected before it
> gets to the user? Do you notify them you rejected mail being sent to
> them or something?
No, we don't notify recipient on reject, but our interface shows rejects
Aloha hotmail,
It seems since you recently changed your SPF and switched from ~all to
-all. It would have been great if you didn't remove at the same time
your IPv6 ranges from it.
It seems the include:spf.protection.outlook.com was removed during the
change. You might want to include it
This spam wave started to my knowledge early september from other servers.
Starting around 2022-09-25 it also affected MS365 senders.
The URIs have some patterns that helps blocking them without too much
difficulty with no known FPs on our platform.
To their credit, they are good at avoiding
It seems Microsoft made very recently a change. Since then, we get a
whole bunch of reject with this message:
> 554 5.6.211 Invalid MIME Content: Single text value size (32820)
exceeded allowed maximum (32768) for the
'X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info-Original' header.
The company I work
I might have missed something, but wouldn't that be a phisher's wet dream?
Most spammers know very well how to do a mail with valid DMARC. So, now
they only need to send a valid mail from any throw away cheap domain and
in their BIMI add the logo of paypal?
I understand it's not great to have
On 11.01.24 14:59, Udeme via mailop wrote:
> There’s a trademark ownership vetting item that’s part of BIMI implementation.
> Not just *anyone* can get past that. #wink
>
The trademark verification is only for those that pay for it. Nothing
forbids a MUA from displaying an unverified BIMI. Most
On 22.04.24 10:39, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via mailop wrote:
> On 22.04.24 10:00, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
>> Google makes forwarding really hard. They want you to set up ARC.
>> https://support.google.com/a/answer/13198639?sjid=6036584522181943107-EU
>> I know this is nasty, but this are
11 matches
Mail list logo
