Would have to say that they either have a huge back log of delisting requests -
probably because someone abandoned their post - which would not surprise me at
all.
Or... they fell asleep again on their way to the helpdesk... which also
wouldn't surprise me.
* On Wed, Jul 10 4:45PM Michael
Any Symantec/Messagelabs contact info?
We've got an IP address that seems to be continually being listed there. The
IP is not listed on any other blacklist. I'm not aware of any spamming events
happening on this IP address - but I'd love to discuss it further with Symantec
and figure out
* On Wed, Feb 12 5:03AM Laura Atkins said :
>
> > 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? O
l to
abuse_...@abuse-att.net is not good enough.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:50 AM Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
> Anybody from AT able to check a couple of abuse tickets for me?
>
> AT is blocking one of our servers, I sent messages on February 8th and
> February 10th to abuse_...@
commended that this be at least 12 hrs or 43,200
> seconds. The theory was that 900 seconds indicated it was on a dynamic ip
> address.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Lyle Giese
>
> LCR Computer Services, Inc.
> On 2020-02-26 15:25, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote:
>
> I know
Anybody seen a recent change in the way Symantec is listing IP. The ones
listed at:
https://ipremoval.sms.symantec.com/
Since the first of the year, I've seen several of our IPs getting listed in
this blacklist - but not in any other blacklists.
Is there anybody from Symantec (or whatever
Regarding the suggestion for "content/questions/answers/links to put on the
website" - have you ever considered making this mailing list into a forum?
I just like discussion forums a lot better than I do discussion mailing lists.
In my opinion, it's easier to contribute within a forum
Anybody on the list from Microsoft able to tell me why the IP address -
104.37.174.27 - does not qualify for mitigation?
Open deliverability report is: SRX1495147285ID
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
icket for Hotmail <http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=614866>
> ?
>
>
>
> *From:* mailop *On Behalf Of *Rob McEwen via
> mailop
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2020 9:29 AM
> *To:* mailop@mailop.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [mailop] Microsoft/Hotmail
Anybody from AT able to check a couple of abuse tickets for me?
AT is blocking one of our servers, I sent messages on February 8th and
February 10th to abuse_...@abuse-att.net but have not heard anything back -
other than the canned response - and the IP is still blocked.
The rejection notice
* On Tue, Feb 11 11:19AM Ken O'Driscoll via mailop said :
> On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 10:50 -0500, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote:
> > I suppose it's possible that AT is just inundated with abuse
> > requests - but maybe there is a better way to weed out the valid
> > requ
How many mail operators out there are forcing outbound SMTP communications
to use TLS? Is this a common practice now? I know secure everything and
TLS everywhere is a popular movement at this moment.
I've noticed that Constant Contact (constantcontact.com - at least the mail
server at
ere doing in
regards to this. The response is kind of what i expected, but the shift in
wanting TLS and encryption on every connection, kind of made me question
what the response would be.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:02 PM Michael Orlitzky via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On 2020-08-26 12:50,
> Maybe they should name it, "Unwanted mails you want to be reported"
I would second this. Maybe a little more simple. "Report as Junk" or
"Report as Spam".
Although I don't have the highest level of confidence in end-users reading
or knowing word meanings - so I'm not sure if it will really
Anybody from CloudMark able to contact off list?
Or how long does it generally take to get a response from CloudMark?
Sent a request at https://csi.cloudmark.com/en/reset on Sunday - clicked
the link in the Confirm CSI IP Address Statistics Reset Request email - and
the IP is still blocked and I
Has AT taken a page out of Microsoft's handbook and started silently
discarding messages even after their mail server has accepted them?
I've got a user that claims he's not getting our messages. I checked our
outbound logs and the messages are showing as being accepted by AT's mail
servers -
Maybe the answer is that not enough other mail server administrators are
shining a light on just how poorly Microsoft (and any other big named
provider) does in regards to incidents like this.
In my particular case at the moment, Microsoft is blocking one of our mail
server IPs.
Microsoft has
I'm definitely agitated with Microsoft/Hotmail/Live/Outlook at the moment
regarding an IP block. But I'll also agree that I can see their point and
reason for being strict with their blocks. They don't really care if
they're blocking legitimate mail from small time email servers.
But the real
You would think a company like Microsoft would have a better solution to
all of this.
Once you get blocked by Microsoft it's a 6 week race (because they'll only
reply about once a week) to plow through all of the crud replies they send
you, to actually getting something accomplished. Except,
JMRP never reported anything for me. Admittedly it has been several years
since I signed any of our IPs up for it. But when I was signed up, we'd go
through stretches where the IP would be blocked but nothing ever came
through JMRP. That's why I quit signing up IPs for it - didn't see much
> For weeks I haven't been able to submit the form to remove RBLs -- each
time it says (regardless of browser):
> "We're sorry, but something went wrong on our end. Please try again later"
> Anyone else experienced that?
Same here. See my post to this list from June 10th - Subject: "Hotmail -
> On the advice of their lawyers Microsoft doesn’t share that information
with senders.
And I understand the reasons for that. But... can't you see how this turns
into a "he said / she said" argument?
Microsoft: "Your IP sent us spam, so we're blocking you."
Mail Server Admin: "I don't see any
Might I also suggest that Microsoft needs a form or chat on their website
where other email server administrators can submit to
Microsoft/Hotmail/Outlook mail server administrators.
I keep getting on chat explaining that Microsoft/Hotmail/Outlook is
blocking one of our mail server IPs, and I keep
That's true - I'm not a customer. But who is a customer? What is defined
as a customer? Is a hotmail.com/live.com/outlook.com email user a
"customer"? And if so... how do they contact a real live human being at
Microsoft to voice their concerns about Microsoft's unilateral IP blocking
of other
ichael J Wise*
> Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
>
> "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
>
> Open a ticket for Hotmail <http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=614866>
> ?
>
>
>
> *From:* mailop *On Behalf Of *Scott Mutter
> via mailop
>
I know there's a guy that frequents this mailing list from Microsoft.
Apologies if this isn't really Mailops worthy... but Microsoft is one of
those great companies that's just really, really, really hard to get a hold
of a human.
I'm not able to get the support request form at:
Marcel Becker
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:13 PM Scott Mutter via mailop
> wrote:
>
>> Anybody from AT able to contact me off list concerning an issue with
>> messages sent from our server (192.158.238.23) to AT related email
>> addresses and being de
Anybody from AT able to contact me off list concerning an issue with
messages sent from our server (192.158.238.23) to AT related email
addresses and being delivered into their spam folder?
I'm not seeing any issues with the 192.158.238.23 IP address. No
blacklistings or reputation issues.
> 1. You must have an SPF record in order for the big mail providers to
even think about accepting your mail (softfail seems sufficient).
> 2. It's not worth rejecting incoming mail simply because it fails
SPF.There are too many badly configured servers out there
This has been my observation as
Good idea or not, that's a debate.
But if it did happen - be ready for the chorus of... "But it used to show
the person's name, why did it change? Can you change it back?"
People don't respond well to change. Even if it's for the betterment of
humankind, that's not really comprehensible.
On
Have you considered simply putting up a website and putting phpBB or SMF or
some other free forum software on it? You can set the forum to be private
so users have to login to see posts.
Honestly, I see mailing lists as a dying breed (said as I post this to a
mailing list). A forum tends to
OK... OK...
First rule about fight club, eh?
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 7:13 PM Jay R. Ashworth via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Grant Taylor via mailop"
>
> > On 12/16/20 10:21 AM, Scott Mutter via mailop wrot
Not necessarily a mailing issue - although, I do have an issue with
Microsoft blocking one of our IPs and I'm not able to submit a ticket, so
perhaps loosely a mailing issue.
The Microsoft form linked to at:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=614866
Does not appear to be working.
When I
Stone, Founder*
>
> *North America's Leading Zimbra VAR/BSP/Training Partner*
> *For Companies With Mission-Critical Email Needs*
> *Need more email security & compliance? Ask me about Mimecast!*
>
>
>
> --
> *From: *"Scott Mutter vi
There was once an IP based one?
I only ever knew of the DKIM one. Which never made a lot of sense to me -
since with shared hosting there can be multiple domains sending mail from
an IP. To configure DKIM and the DKIM feedback loop for every domain
wasn't practical.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at
> I don't think so. I'm primarily a datacenter operator and
> commercial-only ISP and my AUP says no spamming. As the proactive type
> that prefers to prevent spamming instead of ignoring it for profit, I do
> like to know if anyone is emitting spam from any of our IP space.
> Feedback loops based
URLs'
> >that you need to parse instead of via say a rwhois entry.
> >
> >(some are listed at various services you can query in RBL format
> >such as
> >RATS-AZURE)
> >
> >Some you can check via PTR naming conventions, and others you can
> >do an
> &
Not to really defend Microsoft here - because I've had my own run-ins with
their system and agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense.
But this isn't an only-Microsoft problem. Pretty much every big-name mail
service provider will employ similar tactics in some capacity.
I get it... Microsoft
The issue - at least to me - has always been that Microsoft is viewed as
this big, huge company that can do no wrong.
When our users have issues sending to Microsoft email servers - it's
obviously because *we're* stupid and something is wrong with *our* server.
It can't possibly be a Microsoft
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 1:24 PM Michael Peddemors via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> With apache, you can use modsecurity quite easily, and you can block all
> azure (and other cloud providers ranges) from certain services like
> wordpress, or contact forms etc.. (you can even do dns based
Not to hijack this thread and send it off-topic, but I'm also seeing a lot
of brute force attempts (mostly WordPress login attempts) from various and
wide-ranging subnets of Microsoft IPs.
Has Microsoft's network been compromised?
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 10:46 AM Jörg Backschues via mailop <
> If your correspondent opens a ticket with MS and says "I want to get
email from Marcus and it goes into spam and I don't think it should", they
may put mitigation in for you. It has less effect if you are the one
opening the ticket though.
What ticket form would these people need to fill out?
The fact that filling out their support ticket does nothing except generate
canned responses and that you have to come here to Mailops to get any
movement on a blocked IP address or blocked server - you would think that
that would tell Microsoft something about how ineffective their support
ticket
wrote:
> Dnia 25.02.2021 o godz. 11:53:44 Scott Mutter via mailop pisze:
> > I'll end this little soapbox rant acknowledging that I don't really have
> a
> > solution to this. How is Microsoft supposed to know that a USER of an IP
> > address is a well-respec
March 5th.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 11:54 AM J. Hellenthal
wrote:
> trace routes ? Pings ? Anything here?
>
> --
> J. Hellenthal
>
> The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says
> a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>
> > On Mar 6, 20
Some of our servers have not received emails from Gmail since early Friday
morning. We're also not able to connect to some of Gmail's mail servers
from these servers.
Is Gmail blocking some of these IPs? A routing issue? Anybody from Gmail
able to contact me off list to look into this?
gt; Comcast
>
>
>
> *From:* mailop *On Behalf Of *Scott Mutter
> via mailop
> *Sent:* Monday, August 16, 2021 9:08 PM
> *To:* mailop@mailop.org
> *Subject:* Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Vade - Blacklisting
>
>
>
> Thanks Alex.
>
>
>
> This looks to be working
Anybody from Vade on the list able to give any details as to
why 66.11.124.112 is listed?
Apparently Comcast uses Vade as part of their blacklist and this IP is
being blocked by Comcast's mail servers
554 resimta-po-40v.sys.comcast.net resimta-po-40v.sys.comcast.net
66.11.124.112 found on one or
company like Comcast (?) going to bed with such an
entity?
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 1:03 PM Al Iverson wrote:
> You might find https://sendertool.vadesecure.com/ to be a better way
> to work through the issue.
>
> Good luck,
> Al Iverson
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 12:24 PM Sc
;
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Alex Brotman
>
> Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
>
> Comcast
>
>
>
> *From:* mailop *On Behalf Of *Scott Mutter
> via mailop
> *Sent:* Monday, August 16, 2021 2:25 PM
> *To:* mailop@mailop.org
> *Subject:
espondence. So they choose a simple and easy
to remember password.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 2:17 PM Slavko via mailop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dňa Wed, 17 Nov 2021 13:31:50 -0600 Scott Mutter via mailop
> napísal:
>
> > Unless you are sending an encrypted password to your
>If one use good email client/browser, locally stored passwords are not a
> problem as they are encrypted
Unless you are sending an encrypted password to your mail server (in which
case, the compromiser still has the necessary to log into your email
account) then this has to be decrypted some how
Don't forget local compromises - keyloggers, spyware, and other malware -
running on an end-user's system.
If you are checking your email with an email client and not entering your
password every time you check for mail (which most of us don't do) then the
password to your email is stored some
Just keep sending them an email everyday. Sometimes you have to send an
email a day for a week or two before they pick up on it.
Not sure why they haven't created a website form to submit these. Relying
on email for delisting like this is a recipe for disaster. What do we set
the Subject as to
This is why I cringe everytime I see a provider asking you to "send an
email to x...@yyy.com to get delisted."
x...@yyy.com is going to get flooded with spam also. Whoever is on the
receiving end of that email address isn't going to know what's legitimate
and what's not legitimate.
It's so much
Yahoo's Feedback Loop is DomainKey based, but their blocking is IP based.
At least that's how it used to be. Never made much sense to me to have an
FBL based on DomainKeys, meaning every domain name that sends from an IP
address has to have a registered feedback loop based on the DomainKey. All
I think some of what's lost in this discussion - and it's true this may be
dragging the discussion off-topic, but seems as good a time as any to bring
this up.
Often times the individual maintaining the mailing list or sending out the
emails, is not the same individual that administers and
> Domain reputation is a thing though. If your IP really gets blocked (and
not just throttled; that's a signal you have access to btw) you usually
have a bigger problem.
Unfortunately, that's not what I'm seeing in the real world. Everything is
IP based. Go through the archives here at Mailops.
at 4:23 PM Grant Taylor via mailop
wrote:
> On 1/13/22 1:00 PM, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote:
> > The person sending out the mails or mailing list often doesn't care if
> > their recipients are flagging messages as spam or if their messages are
> > being treated as spam or
you've lost touch with reality.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:13 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop
wrote:
> On 1/13/22 16:08, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote:
> > I'm not sure what value of Recipients is really referring to - but I
> > think this is kind of the question that needs to be
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 5:32 AM Alessandro Vesely via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> I'm not clear what you mean by "secure your own IP block".
>
> Besides, for the mxroute address you wrote from, 149.28.56.236, I find an
> abuse address of ab...@vultr.com, which looks like your ISP's.
>
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:06 PM Grant Taylor via mailop
wrote:
> Drive by comment:
>
> What if we had something like an MX record published for the IP
> address(es) in reverse DNS / in-addr.arpa for
> ... and configure those MX records to route to a mail server
> of the owners /
aid:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >On 1/17/22 11:49 AM, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote:
> >> Do reverse DNS entries support the TXT structure?
> >
> >I can't remember the last time I used it to say with any certainty. But
> >would completely expect that it would. Remembe
A lot of the issues stem from the way IT managers, and maybe technology
managers in general bathe in arrogance. "There's no such thing as a good
idea, unless it is *my* idea." It's easier to get blood out of a stone
than for someone in IT to admit that someone else's approach to something
has
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 6:06 PM Grant Taylor via mailop
wrote:
> Why can't automated and manual reports go to the same address? Isn't
> that what recipient side filtering is for? E.g. separating RFC standard
> DSNs / MDNs from human generated messages, each handled by different teams.
>
> My
It depends on what context you are referring to.
Are you talking about abuse contact as a means to dispute abuse
complaints? In that case, I'd say a form is better. An example is AT
When AT blocks our server, the bounce back message tells us to send an
email to abuse_...@abuse-att.net. I'm
not really sure if that's the type of abuse contact
the OP was referring to in this thread.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:07 PM Michael Rathbun via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:55:40 -0600, Scott Mutter via mailop
> wrote:
>
> >(AT is just an exa
How an FBL is supposed to be used versus how an FBL is used is always a
topic for discussion that can be applied to anything.
How many of us expect email to be delivered instantly? But where is it
defined that email has to be delivered the second the sender clicks that
send button? But we all
I thought Validity was making the free FBL more like Google's Postmaster
Tools FBL. Which, I've never gotten one iota of anything relevant in
Google's FBL system.
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that this is going to be the future of
FBLs. I think providers want to be able to block certain
I also think one thing that Validity may not be understanding with this
move, and may lead to shooting themselves in the foot, the list of email
service providers that Validity provides feedback for isn't exactly major
players.
We get more feedback from Yahoo and Outlook's FBL system than we do
, Oliver via mailop <
> mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
>> On 13.09.2023 at 16:06 Scott Mutter via mailop wrote:
>>
>> > I also think one thing that Validity may not be understanding with this
>> move, and may lead to shooting themselves in the foot, the list of email
&
I think sometimes these "too big to fail" mail service providers block IPs
just because they can. Who are your users going to believe? It has to be
something you the small time email service provider is doing wrong, it
can't possibly be good ol "insert big brand here".
I certainly understand
Anybody from AT able to provide any insight as to why 205.251.153.98 is
being blacklisted?
Sent an email to abuse_...@abuse-att.net back on October 26, never got a
response.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
of arm twisting to get
any response at all.
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 7:56 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> Ok we will check
>
>
> --srs
> --
> *From:* mailop on behalf of Scott Mutter via
> mailop
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2023 10
Nope. Still the same.
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 9:42 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> Check again now
>
> --srs
> --
> *From:* mailop on behalf of Scott Mutter via
> mailop
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 23, 2023 1:52:25 AM
> *To:* mailo
We're seeing an increase of errors from Google's mail servers complaining
about multiple addresses in the From header. But these messages do not
have multiple addresses in the From headers or multiple From headers.
Best I can tell, this seems to be caused by additional spaces in some of
the
ter with a recent sample of the
> logs? Bcc me at s...@apple.com so I can follow up with the team.
>
>
>
> *From: *mailop on behalf of Scott Mutter via
> mailop
> *Date: *Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 8:00 PM
> *To: *mailop@mailop.org
> *Subject: *Re: [mailop] Apple/icloud b
t;
> --srs
> --
>
> *From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2023 10:33:52 AM
> *To:* Scott Mutter ; mailop@mailop.org <
> mailop@mailop.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [mailop] Apple/icloud blocking - Message rejected due to
> l
PM Scott Mutter
wrote:
> Nope. Still the same.
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 9:42 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian <
> ops.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Check again now
>>
>> --srs
>> ------
>> *From:* mailop on behalf of Scott M
Anybody from Apple/iCloud able to provide any insight as to why messages
from 209.236.124.55 are being blocked with - Message rejected due to local
policy messages?
I previously sent a message to icloudad...@apple.com but got no response.
___
mailop
Thanks.
It's actually the mailing script this client is using that is adding the
headers in this way. I will have to get with the client to resolve this.
That answers that issue.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:53 AM Scott Mutter
wrote:
> We're seeing an increase of errors from Google's mail
I wrote icloudad...@apple.com on August 26, 2023
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 12:03 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> I’ll have someone look at your email and reply if they haven’t yet
>
> --srs
> --
> *From:* mailop on behalf of Scott Mutter via
&g
visit
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204137
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 7:56 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> From which address?
>
>
>
> *From: *mailop on behalf of Scott Mutter via
> mailop
> *Date: *Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 6:25 PM
> *To: *mailop@mailop.org
Anybody from Cloudmark aware of any issues with their CSI IP Reputation
Remediation Portal form?
I've filled out the form - https://csi.cloudmark.com/en/reset - twice, I
get the message:
*An email has been sent to the email address you provided. Please follow
the instructions in this email to
Been preaching about this for years. Have yet to get anybody of value's
attention.
If you're going to block mail servers by IP address (which, to be clear, I
don't have a problem with providers doing this - and Yahoo does this along
with countless other mail services), then you need to have a
It depends on what Google mail server you are sending to. Some require
SPF, some don't. Although, maybe they've since closed that loophole.
Google started requiring SPF records back in December 2021 according to the
logs I reviewed (at least for some of their mail servers). The mail
servers
Are you sure it's actual people registering or is it bots?
Do the sign up pages have effective captcha or other anti-bot/prove
you're human measures?
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 7:30 PM Ken Simpson via mailop
wrote:
>
> It's WooCommerce:
>
Are there effective anti-bot measures in place on the form?
How effective captcha systems are can be debatable. BUT, if there are
no anti-bot measures on the form... then shouldn't this type of
activity/abuse be expected?
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 8:48 PM Ken Simpson wrote:
>
> No idea whether
Kind of unnerving that this list gets filled with "Can someone from X
company contact me about a block/rejection?"
All because X companies that are too big to fail can't be bothered to
provide any way to dispute a listing or get in touch with someone that
actually administers their mail system.
Automatic email forwarders are generally a bad idea, at least in my
humble opinion.
They're always going to fail SPF unless you rewrite the
sender-envelope, which I also don't think is a good idea.
Ultimately, the argument generally comes down to "well, these used to
work" and that's part of the
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 7:20 PM Mark Milhollan via mailop
wrote:
> It does not. As recently discussed, Gmail plays a game of trying to
> guess whether SPF should have failed on a previous hop, rather than just
> the connected peer.
I don't really see that much of an issue with this in popping
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 4:47 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
> I would say the opposite. Mail forwarding was there before SPF, so anybody
> who designed SPF should have taken that into account. They didn't. So SPF is
> the "bad guy" here among these two. SPF is the one that breaks forwarding,
If you forward your mail to Google then Google is going to get your email.
If you give Google your POP password to retrieve mail, then Google is
going to get your email.
What more is Google going to get with your POP password versus plain
old forwarding email?
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 6:00 AM
Been a while since I've added an IP to our JMRP profile - but seems to not
be working.
I've done the request access for the IP and validated the IP by clicking
the link in the email.
But when I go to add the IP under the Junk Mail Reporting Program, the IP
address is not shown.
"If you want to
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Simon Arlott wrote:
> If it's already in another JMRP feed you can't add it to a new one. Does
> someone else have access to the network that contains the IP? They may
> have created a JMRP feed and you're probably not able to see it.
>
> --
> Simon Arlott
>
>
Has
Half the time they never respond to their abuse complaints. There's a huge
thread on their forums:
https://forums.att.com/conversations/att-mail-login-security/rbl-ip-unblock-request-and-abuse_rblabuseattnet-is-not-responding/5e620c10758fed5c61aea8ff
Dates back several years. Occasionally it
So basically SPF is worthless. You can define all the IPs that legitimate
mail for the domain should be coming from and exclude everything else with
a -all and mail servers are just supposed to ignore that and look for a
DMARC record?
Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.
What's next? Another
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:34 PM Brandon Long wrote:
> When forwarding mail, there are two options: rewrite the envelope sender
> or not. There are a variety of pros and cons to both of them, and cases
> where one or the other is more prominent. Not rewriting has been the
> dominant form of
is in the disarray that it is.
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 10:38 PM Neil Jenkins via mailop
wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023, at 11:10, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote:
>
> So basically SPF is worthless.
>
>
> It's not worthless at all. It's a valuable signal to assign reputation as
&g
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 12:20 PM Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> > Am 08.02.2024 schrieb Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop :
> >
> > > But forwarding an email from a domain that have DMARC enabled (with a
> > > policy different than "none") could still work if the
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
