Re: [mailop] Mail accepted by outlook.com/hotmail.com disappears.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:41:44 -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: >Yes, but... > >If you can run a mail system *properly* for 50,000 people, then you can >run it properly for 500 million. It's not really all that different >or difficult. You apparently have yet to run up against the

Re: [mailop] Looking for someone to set up DKIM on a Windows server

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:58:23 -0500, Al Iverson wrote: >To elaborate, it's like saying you're looking for somebody who works >on cars. It's not descriptive enough. Foreign? Domestic? Specializes >in VW? Aye. For instance, in the server I use (MDaemon) it is a matter

[mailop] Apparent att.net oddity causes AUP violation complaints?

Howdy, We have seen a trickle of complaints to our upstream naming one of our hosted customer's IPs as a culprit. The spamcomplain software used by the complainant (always the same complainant) fixes on a header line like this: >Received: from (customer's IP) (EHLO fgateway13.ISP.att.net)

Re: [mailop] Looking for someone to set up DKIM on a Windows server

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:02:50 +0100, Paul Smith wrote: >It really depends on what mail server software is running on the Windows >server, so can you give that information? There are many different mail >servers for Windows. My question as well. There are several well-done

Re: [mailop] Multiple DKIM signatures -- any benefit or detriment?

On Fri, 20 May 2016 16:36:48 -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote: >> Anyone flagging multiple signatures as problematic is probably clueless. > > >It's not problematic, but since only 1 signature at a time can be >validated any remaining sigs become basically untrusted ascii data.

Re: [mailop] LashBack in the house? Have a question or two...

On Fri, 20 May 2016 14:27:57 -0600, David wrote: >Since they want $ to delist I would imagine most people are simply >ignoring them. They are on our "Don't Bother" list. Not much evidence that they measure useful things and are used by anybody of significance. mdr --

Re: [mailop] Multiple DKIM signatures -- any benefit or detriment?

On Fri, 20 May 2016 17:00:37 -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote: >Give me a (real world) example of how 2 DKIM sigs will be in the same >email msg and both sigs will verify. Here are two: >Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; > dkim=pass (test mode)

[mailop] Spamcop blows a fuse.

This server sends a spam feed to Spamcop (it's Nadine, in fact). So, of course, the IP is now listed on Spamcop. Every day, it's something new. mdr -- Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right. -- Laurens Van Der

Re: [mailop] Spamcop blows a fuse.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 18:22:55 -0500, Michael Rathbun <m...@honet.com> wrote: >Every day, it's something new. Thanks for the prompt and effective off-line assistance. There were a couple of messages I could not answer because the server currently has a "generic static reverse DNS

Re: [mailop] Mails to microsoft

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 03:24:09 +0100, Andreas Ziegler wrote: >btw, does anyone know if the big providers take into account that some >spam is only forwarded, not originating? I know of at least one very large provider that makes no attempt to identify spam as forwarded,

Re: [mailop] Mails to microsoft

On 9 Feb 2017 04:30:21 -, "John Levine" wrote: > For some of my users, I run >the forwarded mailt through spamassassin, send it with SMTP if the >score is low, put it in a folder for later POP pickup if the score is >high. I will set

[mailop] Next step Hotmail escalation?

Howdy all (and especially Mr Wise), I have a client, that rare job opportunity aggregator that delivers what was asked for and stops delivering appropriately. They enjoy excellent reception (and open rates at Gmail that vary from 28% to 45%) except at Hotmail, where we find in Ticket

Re: [mailop] Next step Hotmail escalation?

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:39:33 -0600, Jaren Angerbauer wrote: >Might also help, if using ceremonial smoke, to make sure and use the four >representative smoke colors in the Microsoft logo. A profound observation. I confess that I never considered that aspect. A

Re: [mailop] Next step Hotmail escalation?

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 23:43:13 +, Eric Henson wrote: >Rathbun posted ticket# SRX1354825893ID in his original email, so…not directed >at him, I’m guessing. Goodness, yes. The participants have been co-belligerents for way far too long. mdr -- Fail-safe systems fail by

Re: [mailop] Breathe....

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 20:44:18 +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote: >+1 to that Steve, no idea where it came from as it seems quite polite >and considered... Those of us with long memories still have their >killfiles and still use them with maximum prejudice, but that just

Re: [mailop] AOL , Yahoo or Comcast people ?

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 10:18:24 -0400, Vick Khera wrote: >You might get some relief contacting AOL directly (open a postmaster >ticket), but I wouldn't count on anything from Yahoo even if they say >they're doing something about it. I don't know about comcast as I've >never had

Re: [mailop] Admin: Thread end - SORBS help

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:35:02 -0500, D'Arcy Cain wrote: >On 2017-01-10 01:52 AM, Simon Lyall wrote: >> http://sunsite.uakom.sk/sunworldonline/swol-12-1997/swol-12-vixie.html > >"He says about half of today's Internet mail traffic is spam". Ah, the >good old days. Good old,

[mailop] Another AOL outage?

Clients are reporting massive unsubscribes due to bounces, where accounts are known to be valid and active. mdr -- There's a funny thing that happens when you know the correct answer. It throws you when you get a different answer that is not wrong.-- Dr Bowman (Freefall)

Re: [mailop] Penetration testing phishing emails

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:37:55 -0500, David Harris wrote: >Thoughts? Are there best practices for something like this? I will note that, when Microsoft Global Security tried their own version of this a few years back, intending to gauge the degree to which the employee population

Re: [mailop] DKIM for Exchange - experiences?

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 10:24:40 -0700, Steve Atkins wrote: >Another vote for this. Mostly because Exchange has[1] a bad habit >of occasionally modifying email as it's sent... And as it is received. If you are looking at mail as received by an Exchange server, be aware that

Re: [mailop] Properly vetting an hosting provider before buying/moving

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 11:35:51 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >Well, we are back talking about OVH ;-( [snip] >At the end of 2015 they set up port-25 sniffing on all customers. Several of my clients who established new service at OVH reported that, at that time, no new customers

Re: [mailop] Properly vetting an hosting provider before buying/moving

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:01:43 +0200, Philip Paeps wrote: >Unfortunately, rejecting all mail from OVH would result in rather more >than one or two false positives. They (inexplicably?) have quite a lot >of legitimate customers too. :/ Surprising, but true. One or two of

Re: [mailop] spam report: ccm167.constantcontact.com [208.75.123.167]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 10:36:37 -0500, Bryan Bradsby wrote: >postmas...@texas.gov, >Bryan Bradsby I'm assuming you are not associated with the regular spam from "Office of the Governor" ? mdr -- "There are no laws here,

Re: [mailop] Google Postmaster Tools

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:27:48 -0500, Nick Schafer wrote: >Anyone else not getting recent data back from Google Postmaster Tools? I >know there is the usual lag of a day or two but I'm not seeing anything >since the 2nd. Widely reported. Same here. mdr -- "There are

Re: [mailop] Google email hosting and abuse handling?

On Wed, 3 May 2017 11:31:20 -0400, Al Iverson wrote: >(Also wasn't emailing zip files filled with malware a fun exercise for >some bad actors in recent history?) As in "several hundred samples per day", that would be a "yes". mdr -- "There will be more spam."

Re: [mailop] Properly vetting an hosting provider before buying/moving

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:20:47 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >Hi all, > >on another topic I was talking about a MIPSPACE-POOR listing a /16 >including my /25 on OVH and everyone here told that OVH is "the worst >of the worst" one can choose as hosting. OVH recently instituted

Re: [mailop] Truncate listing

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 08:46:42 +, Alexander Teklenburg wrote: >Good morning All, > >Anyone from ARM Research Labs or GBUdb.com on the list? >We are having trouble with some of our IPs being listed on the service >incorrectly. We’d like to find out more information on

Re: [mailop] TWC refusing mail

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:28:21 -0700, Scott Undercofler wrote: >Yes. We are much smarter than that. Issue appears to be resolved. Thanks much. mdr -- "Honest folk do not wear masks when they enter a bank." -- Unspiek, Baron Bodissey

Re: [mailop] TWC refusing mail

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:38:22 -0500, Charles McKean wrote: >Or, perhaps TWC has made the very questionable choice to implement >SORBS on a real ISP mail server. That would be one way to hold down >load. Just randomly block a whole bunch of IP addresses that aren't

Re: [mailop] TWC refusing mail

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:57:34 +1100, Mark Dale wrote: >Is it just us or are others experiencing this? > >Any clues as to why would be greatly appreciated. We're seeing it, with a sudden onset on the 14th. The IPs send requested and/or transactional email, have excellent

Re: [mailop] Hotmail and 4.5.1 4.7.500 Server Busy with some

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 09:03:43 -0500, Andrew Barrett wrote: >I think it's pretty cool that Michael is willing to provide any kind of >guidance at all - it's not really his job. It would be a shame to see him >walk away from forums like these because other participants

Re: [mailop] HELO *.*

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:27:34 -0600, Brielle Bruns wrote: >Been seeing an awful lot of these lately on one of my email servers >(exim based): > > >2018-06-11 14:15:44 no host name found for IP address 157.25.104.90 >2018-06-11 14:15:47 rejected HELO from [157.25.104.90]: syntactically >invalid

Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:46:12 +0200, Thomas Walter wrote: >Does this happen "recently"? Saw it yesterday. Haven't started work yet today. >Then it might be a result of the efail issue with people disabling HTML >and external content? Or that the MS mail services have modified their >handling

[mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?

We have a product, GreenArrow Monitor, that is a fairly standard inbox rate monitoring tool. Senders incorporate the Monitor seed list, our robot collects and collates the data, users see the results, merriment may or may not ensue. Recently we had occasion to investigate weirdness in Hotmail

Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:13:35 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith wrote: >if Microsoft's filters were aggressively moving heaps of *wanted* email out of >the inbox, I'd expect Outlook's read rates to be lower, but my metrics show >that read rates at Outlook are often in line with read rates at Gmail and

Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:46:53 +, Michael Wise wrote: > >Do these accounts ever *SEND* email? >… Asking for a friend. Ours don't. No idea about Paul's sampling methods. mdr ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org

Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:44:03 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith wrote: >Yes, the vast majority of mailboxes in EmailGrades' panel are actively used >by real humans who send and receive email. (But even so, I wouldn't count >on people replying to most legitimate commercial email like promotions or

Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:20:27 +, Vladimir Gabrielescu wrote: >It could be the focus inbox effect. If the user ignores your mail long enough >then they don’t even see it And there would need to be a mechanism for that to happen. If the mechanism defined by the provider is "make

Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 16:10:15 +, Mihai Costea wrote: >Michael, the two sample accounts you sent privately had no safesenders at all. Correct. When our team discovered extensive unsolicited modifications to the safe and blocked lists, they cleared them out -- we really need accurate data if

Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?

On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 07:59:45 +0100 (BST), Andrew C Aitchison wrote: >Wont a simple text MUA like mutt or (al)pine retrieve a message >without visiting any of the links ? Certainly. I use alpine, and a Windows text MUA from the late Cretaceous (Agent), and it doesn't retrieve diddly unless I

Re: [mailop] News about the travails with my famous Y! trap account

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:47:50 -0500, Michael Rathbun wrote: >Fascinating... Lots of interesting words about separators, thanks to all, but... > Tue 2018-06-19 13:32:31: [197232] --> MAIL > From: SIZE=1300 > Tue 2018-06-19 13:32:31: [197232] <-- 250 sender > ok >

Re: [mailop] News about the travails with my famous Y! trap account

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 18:20:47 -0400, "Bill Cole" wrote: >Not sure if that is intended sarcastically, but YES, I DO love it. No sarcasm on my watch, no indeed. mdr -- If I laugh when a guy goes flying on a banana peel, is that a schadenfreudian slip? -- Zippy

Re: [mailop] Hotmail/Outlook feedback loop processing delay?

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:53:15 -0500, Al Iverson wrote: >I agree 100% here. Could there be a bug? Sure. Is it likely, based on >the data scene so far? No, not really. Agreed. Withal the fact that the platform is nearing the end of a massive conversion/merge suggests

Re: [mailop] Microsoft, your one-stop source for blowback spam

On 17 Jan 2018 16:52:46 -0500, "John Levine" wrote: >It's gotten a lot worse lately. Have other people noticed this? And >what broke at Microsoft? Nobody else has this much trouble avoiding >blowback. Mostly, I've just noticed the overnight quadrupling of the spam load for

Re: [mailop] Mail Transfer Agent Alternatives

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:27:29 -0400, Marc Goldman via mailop wrote: >We also have multiple Green Arrow installs. It is a great MTA and the support >is excellent and I find their pricing model is really quite fair. Delighted to hear that. >With that said, it isn’t perfect.

Re: [mailop] News about the travails with my famous Y! trap account

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:03:49 -0500, Michael Rathbun wrote: >On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:47:50 -0500, Michael Rathbun wrote: > >>Fascinating... And, this morning, I discover that m...@yahoo.fr delivers to me as well. {heavy sigh} mdr -- We are all temps. --

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 15:24:07 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: >I would also point out that seeing differences between mailbox providers in >this instance is not really a surprise. It may have more to do with which >random address people use in these situations. They may be choosing Gmail

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:28:32 -0700, Laura Atkins wrote: >We should sit down over cold frosty beverages next time we’re in the same >town. (SF next feb? Budapest next June?) Ooh, I'd love to be in on that one. Not bloody likely, alas. mdr -- "Honest folk do not wear masks when they enter a

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 18:13:46 +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > >It’s abuse. >And it takes many forms. >There are many stories like Mr. Rathbun’s … already enunciated. >And then there’s stuff like this: > > http://www.honet.com/Nadine/default.htm Thanks for jogging my memory.

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:00:10 -0400, Vick Khera wrote: >I think this falls in the "known trouble makers" category that some address >validation vendors report as "do not send". I used to keep a list of >anti-spam folks as part of my traps against new customer list imports, and >shockingly it did

Re: [mailop] Bitcoin password ransom email from user at outlook.com

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:41:46 -0400, "Eric Tykwinski" wrote: >Did you submit to ab...@outlook.com? Unless something has changed profoundly since I worked there, no human will likely ever read ab...@microsoft.com or the other domains concerned. I would be delighted to discover that this is no

Re: [mailop] Bitcoin password ransom email from user at outlook.com

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:28:01 -0400, "Eric Tykwinski" wrote: >I really hope your wrong, since it's in their FAQs. >https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Deal-with-abuse-phishing-or-spoofing-in-Outlook-com-0d882ea5-eedc-4bed-aebc-079ffa1105a3 > >Reporting abuse > >If you're being

Re: [mailop] Is BitBounce for real?

On 16 Jan 2018 11:26:07 -0500, "John Levine" wrote: >Is this a practical joke? One could be forgiven for believing that the prime revenue model is "money from subscribers to the 'service'". mdr -- Sometimes half-ass is exactly the right amount of ass. --

Re: [mailop] Received header address information

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 12:19:02 -0400, Al Iverson wrote: >It blacklists an unrelated party, is my point. Not only is it unfair, >but it makes for pretty useless and sloppy spam fighting. My personal experience is that, even if no listing occurs, there will be time wasted

Re: [mailop] [OUTLOOK] Michael, Can you jump on shutting down this Fake Apple Sender right away

On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 11:00:07 -0800, Michael Peddemors wrote: >From: Apple >Typical Phishing/Fraud.. > >Surprised that one got out.. It's been a few years since I had an office a few doors down from Michael Wise's, but our battle

Re: [mailop] Recent "banned sending IP" errors when sending to Microsoft

On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:42:16 +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > >Office365 and “Hotmail/Outlook/Live/MSN” are very much distinct systems, even >thought they are now running on the same hardware. >Sort of like BASH vs TCSH. Given an episode where a client is seeing the "unfortunately not

Re: [mailop] Microsoft blocklists are secret - how to comply with microsofts technical requirements?

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:46:05 +0200, Benoit Panizzon wrote: >Hi List > >Now I am sort of baffled, after a lengthy email exchange about the >blocklist case, Microsoft states: > >"As previously stated, your IP(157.161.12.54) is mitigated at this time. >I do apologize, but I am unable to provide any

[mailop] Interesting IMAP traffic explosion

Noticing that yesterday's IMAP server log was 3.3K in size, and today's is (so far) 173K, I observe that a huge variety of IPs, mostly on CBL, are interested in talking to the server (993 is the only open IMAP port). A very large number of the sessions involve attempts to authenticate a

Re: [mailop] Unsubscribe

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:55:09 +, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: >There is a certain irony in a bulk sender asking for others to intervene and >unsubscribe them. It's been one of those weeks when such events are an almost-welcome tickle. mdr -- Sometimes half-ass is exactly the right

Re: [mailop] Tin.it delivery issues

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 13:29:50 +, Lindani Tshabangu via mailop wrote: >Hi Guys, > >Is anyone experiencing any Tin.it issues with this error bounce: >421 vsmtp8.tin.it Service not available - too busy All the time. The server IS quite busy, judging by the amount of spam it sends. mdr --

[mailop] New(er) dictionary attack bot is less frenetic

Miscreants have correctly guessed that the AUTH Fail lockout here had a relatively narrow window during which a second failure would trigger blockage. Cometh now 213.123.221.101, from btopenworld, that slid through by retrying every 25 minutes. It also EHLOs as "192.168.0.1", which is a bit of a

Re: [mailop] Best practice - running small outgoing only mailservice / network /ip-addresses

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 22:53:45 +1200 (NZST), Simon Lyall wrote: >So I guess some of the domains generated in the above email are so bad >they generated bounces from around 220 list members. Heh. On this end, it merely generated a SpamAssassin score of 26.8, despite the massive "known mailing

[mailop] Confirmation of Hotmail sending advice (was Re: Recent "banned sending IP" errors when sending to Microsoft)

On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:25:12 +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: >If you start to see 4xx deferrals (esp. 3113, 3114, 3115, 3150, …) from the >“Hotmail/Outlook/et al” data centers, you should know that the IP has been >throttled, and one would be well advised, given that situation, to STOP

Re: [mailop] Spamcop IP blacklisted

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:04:03 +, Laura Atkins wrote: >Last time I talked to a SC employee, which admittedly was more than a few >years ago, about their trap conditioning they were using a 2+ year cycle of >actively rejecting mail to trap domains. If your users can’t figure out how to >stop

Re: [mailop] Fwd: Looks like we'll be seeing a big breach notification surge...

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 01:41:24 +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > >/grr… >Why are all my replies only going to the original author of late? Given >Reply-To: Michael Wise in the headers, I would classify this as "the expected behaviour". mdr -- Sometimes half-ass is exactly the right

Re: [mailop] Pet Peeve of the day, legalese signatures

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 19:36:48 +, David Carriger wrote: [defeating the "remove canonical .sig" mechanism] > Failure to do so will cause C'thulhu to rise from the depths of R'lyeh and > devour your firstborn child, and you'll accidentally read spoilers for the > last season of Game of

Re: [mailop] Outlook.com Support (whining time)

On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 16:51:38 +, Laura Atkins wrote: >Personally, I believe Microsoft is going to do what they’re going to do. This >isn’t just about their filtering, this is a giant corporate culture that has >some Extremely Poor Policies that are unfriendly to people and are actively

Re: [mailop] Usually don't post about these.. large aggressive Brute Force Bot fired up today..

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:41:07 -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote: >Someone thinks it funny to do it on April Fools.. > >Attacks Port 587, uses an EHLO of server.com, looks to be router >compromises, but instead of the typical distributed low volume this one >is hitting hard.. But see some other

Re: [mailop] Digital Ocean Sextortion Spammers..

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 08:35:48 -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote: >Don't even get us started on the AUTH Attacks ;) > >Course, those (server.com) are coming from all the Content Delivery >Networks.. Thankfully, that bot net is less than 1000 IP(s) strong still. > >But the AUTH attacks related to

Re: [mailop] Digital Ocean Sextortion Spammers..

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 07:51:47 -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote: >This has gone on now for more than a month, and they aren't even trying >to hide.. > >50 more IP(s) and domains overnight.. Each of those netblock contributes several IPs conducting the "EHLO server. com" AUTH LOGIN attacks, now in

Re: [mailop] Spamhaus Blocking SBLCSS - Need assistance

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:58:45 -0500, Michael Rathbun wrote: >>The IPs are from different networks and being used by different customers... And I should have mentioned that "same spam from different networks, from same sending operation" is one of the most instantaneous ways of ge

Re: [mailop] Spamhaus Blocking SBLCSS - Need assistance

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:27:30 +, Jan Mollenhauer via mailop wrote: >Hello, > >we are an email service provider. Our customers use our software to send >newsletter. >Our software and servers are configured with all best practices like SPF, >DKIM, DMARC, RDNS. We have also processes

Re: [mailop] Is Yahoo retiring inactive addresses?

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:18:50 -0400, Lili Crowley via mailop wrote: >These are legitimate inactive accounts being removed as a clean-up effort. Lovely. More arrows in the quiver. mdr -- "There are no laws here, only agreements." -- Masahiko

Re: [mailop] Is Yahoo retiring inactive addresses?

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 12:07:13 +0100, Syed Alam wrote: >We are assuming it is really a hard bounce and Yahoo is retiring inactive >addresses. Just a heads up that the bounce rate at Yahoo will most likely >increase until they mark all these inactive addresses as passive. Many of the major mailbox

Re: [mailop] Summary of Active Brute Force Attackers, something to think about over the weekend

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:01:15 -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote: >The pgHammer continues to lead in the sheer volume of attempts, but is >down to only 271 servers still operational. (Amazon, five are still on >your network) The stats for yesterday showed a mere 279 IPs and a paltry 7,551 hits.

Re: [mailop] Our customers e-mail constantly going to outlook.com junkmail (any Microsoft people around?)

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 20:06:41 +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: >Why in the *WORLD* would you think that INBOX placement is based on such a >small set of factors...? Every culture or area of endeavour develops its own set(s) of legend and lore. It is not uncommon, for instance, to see

Re: [mailop] Our customers e-mail constantly going to outlook.com junkmail (any Microsoft people around?)

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 23:48:29 +0100, Chris Woods wrote: >This is an interesting topic - it's one I'm affected by. I see these things from multiple angles, having been on the Office 365 spam analyst team for 2.5 years before taking a position doing deliverability consulting and policy enforcement

Re: [mailop] The utility of spam folders

On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 22:40:57 +0200, Thomas Walter wrote: >As a "free" mail system provider, I'd disable those abandoned accounts >and not rely on the email senders to track their recipients and stop >sending mails. > >Is there anything wrong with telling the sender: "550 Mailbox abandoned >for X

Re: [mailop] The utility of spam folders

On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 21:39:48 +0200, Thomas Walter wrote: >And force people like me to resubscribe every 90 to 180 days, because I >don't allow tracking nonsense in emails? That's your option, certainly. However, if you run a large "free" mail system, o you discover that up to 80% of the mail

Re: [mailop] The utility of spam folders

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:19:09 -0600, Dave Warren wrote: >I strongly disagree here, the freemail providers have a product (your >eyeballs) to sell to their customers (the advertisers). Their customers >aren't particularly interested in advertising on a service without users. Indeed. However

Re: [mailop] The utility of spam folders

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:43:56 +0100, Laura Atkins wrote: >Ah. You’re new here. According to reports by MS employees the use of >boilerplates is mandated by legal and nothing can be sent that is not >pre-approved by the legal department. Occasionally real information may leak through. When I

Re: [mailop] The utility of spam folders

On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 04:52:42 +, Sébastien Riccio wrote: >We noticed that near 100% of the complaints are legit mails, almost none of >them are real SPAM. Here's another real-world perspective: I have an antique Yahoo! account that still, after 25 inactive years, gets a wide variety of

Re: [mailop] The utility of spam folders

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 09:02:19 -0400, Bryan Blackwell wrote: >I'd just like to point out that there are some - perhaps not many, but some - >of us who deliver mail where the subscriber most certainly is the customer. >My list server at corvair.org was paid for entirely by individual

Re: [mailop] Microsoft blacklisting a /16

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 19:49:15 +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > >All true progress depends on SOMEbody sticking their neck out. >… I think. Thou knowest, my brother. mdr -- The world is a real mixed bag but if you can’t find the beauty in it occasionally you might be the broken part.

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

On Tue, 28 May 2019 11:57:01 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop" wrote: >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

Re: [mailop] What is the story with QQ.COM?

On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 03:17:32 -0700, Brian Kantor via mailop wrote: >Has anyone else seen this or had it happen to their mailboxes? We get about three successful deliveries per week that fit this description. They all come from CBL-listed boxes, almost entirely in .cn. We would probably see

Re: [mailop] Microsoft blacklisting a /16

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 13:25:40 +0200, Hetzner Blacklist via mailop wrote: >For the past two years things have been going really well for us in >regards to the Microsoft blacklist. We've had very few issues, probably >because we aggressively check the SNDS and block/terminate IPs/clients >that send

Re: [mailop] Microsoft blacklisting a /16

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 10:40:59 +0200, Hetzner Blacklist via mailop wrote: >That's really interesting, thanks for sharing Michael. I was under the >impression that the Microsoft blacklist, at least the one for Outlook, >and not O365, was an automated system. Do you know if it is still >possible to

Re: [mailop] Barracuda IP listings

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:57:02 +0100, 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] DigitalOcean calling for social media s* storm? (Re: Why is it so hard to have takedown's performed..)

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:26:23 -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: >PS, pgHammer went quiet yesterday.. either someone caught/killed his C >server, or the actor realized that there was too much attention on the >activity. That doesn't mean those servers listed should not still be >taken

Re: [mailop] ActiveCampaign Deliverability Specialist (Sydney, AU or Dublin, IRE)

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:19:36 -0600, Lori Vaughn via mailop wrote: >Hello All, > >ActiveCampaign is hiring a Deliverability Specialist in Dublin (would >consider EU remote for the right person) or Sydney. Let me know if you are >interested or know someone who might be! >

[mailop] Could Googlemail do something about the massive volume of NDRs?

For a while, back in June, my antique Yahoo! account (my initials) got a large pile of messages warning me that my email to myself could not be delivered. These were all verifiably >From: Mail Delivery Subsystem and stated that >Your message to [my own Y! address] has been blocked. See

Re: [mailop] Could Googlemail do something about the massive volume of NDRs?

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:45:50 -0700, Brandon Long wrote: >We're aware of the issue and working on it, but safely rolling out >this change will take some time... and of course break some real NDRs, >so hopefully >people who actually want NDRs will be sending from authenticated domains. Thanks for

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

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 08:14:16 -0700, Luke via mailop wrote: >I did intend to send it to the whole list. > >"Spamspeak" makes it sound so clandestine. So Orwellian. Like there is some >> subversive element on the list trying to turn the tides and normalize spam. >> Sounds spooky. Sounds

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

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:40:55 +0100 (BST), Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: >You can't use engagement like that. Everyday experience with a large number of volume mailer clients says that, in the general case, you not only can, you must. There have been public statements by staff at major

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

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:06:40 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop" wrote: >> Spam being unsolicited broadcast email, I would say that if you agree to >> receive it, it cannot be spam. This definition has held up well over the >> twenty-five years I've been involved in the industry. >

Re: [mailop] mailop Digest, Vol 142, Issue 35

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 16:08:50 -0400, Damon via mailop wrote: >Back in the day of the IETF ASRG, I think we said it’s spam if the user >calls it spam. In other words - it’s in the eye of the beholder. For legal >purposes UBE, and later UCE, were defined with the legal speak. "SPAM" was first

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

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:39:31 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >Not sure I understand this point of view. I think everyone should be rejecting >after DATA, if only to stop the abuse of the email address validation >services. For defined spam traps here, we accept the message (although we

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

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:31:04 +, "Brotman, Alexander via mailop" wrote: >One of the interesting things I’ve learned while interacting with ESPs is that >some of them will artificially restrict the number of messages per session, in >lieu of opening more sessions. Some of them have told me

Re: [mailop] Help - Tucows/OpenSRS

On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 22:32:39 -0400, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: >Oh my gawd, don't get me started on their support desk. I have to admit that I liked them a lot more when TUCOWS stood for The Ultimate Collection Of Windows Software. mdr -- Sometimes half-ass is exactly the right

  1   2   3   >