Re: [mailop] help with running a listserv and DMARC

On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Geoff Mulligan ge...@proto6.com wrote: Folks, I run a small listserv supporting the Presidential Innovation Fellows at the White House and a few alumni classes at the Air Force Academy, plus a couple of small other lists. These are not huge lists, perhaps

Re: [mailop] help with running a listserv and DMARC

On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:31 PM, Dave Warren da...@hireahit.com wrote: On 2015-02-12 16:35, Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 02/12/2015 01:26 PM, Michael Wise wrote: You need to rewrite the From: Header. To elaborate: if you send a message claiming to be From: u...@aol.com, it's going to be

Re: [mailop] Someone made a typo...

On Apr 2, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Steve Atkins st...@blighty.com wrote: On Apr 2, 2015, at 1:59 AM, David Hofstee da...@mailplus.nl wrote: Hi, We’re seeing, from different domains (that have nothing in common), these bounces in our logs: 550 5.7.1 Your mail server is blacklisted. RBL

Re: [mailop] Delivery problems to yahoo.com?

On Jul 31, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Tim Bosserman tb...@squareup.com wrote: We are currently unable to send any email to yahoo.com. The failures look like this: delivery temporarily suspended: lost connection with mta7.am0.yahoodns.net [98.136.217.203] while sending RCPT TO Is anyone else

Re: [mailop] Gmail's postmaster tools

On Jul 13, 2015, at 6:13 PM, John R Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote: Google's record doesn't affect SPF. Look at section 4.5 of RFC 7208, and you'll see that SPF takes all of the records returned for the TXT lookup, and only picks the one that starts with v=spf1. Other records are ignored

Re: [mailop] Gmail selectively treating email as spam

> On Nov 2, 2015, at 10:59 PM, Yang Yu wrote: > > Lately I see a lot of emails from > mintcustomersupport-no-re...@intuit.com (sent from salesforce) are in > gmail spam folder with message "Our systems couldn't verify that this > message was really sent by intuit.com".

Re: [mailop] Delivery to gmail via IPv6

> On Dec 11, 2015, at 6:06 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote: > > I wonder why they don’t use the terminology from the RFCs: "reject", "defer", > "non-delivery notification", "delay notification"? > > As it is, when you say "Hardbounce", I don’t know whether you’re referring to > an

Re: [mailop] Mailchimp / Mandrill App: European VS US Privacy Laws

> On Jun 10, 2016, at 10:30 AM, John Levine wrote: > >> With regard to Mailchimp, as a non-customer observer it seems to me that >> pre-Mandrill was excellent, post-Mandrill not as much. > > Mandrill is automated, which makes vetting the customers a lot harder. > > They are

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 11:07 AM, John Levine wrote: > >>> List-Unsubcribe: >>> List-Unsubscribe-Post: mailaddr=some...@receipient.de=0209023 > >> If there is a requirement from MUA developers for an https-based >> non-interactive

Re: [mailop] "One-Click" List-Unsubscribe URIs

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 9:11 AM, John Levine wrote: > >> It's a public document and I welcome requests with updates... >> https://github.com/Lockhead/oneclick/blob/master/draft-herkula-oneclick.txt > > Hmmn. One the one hand, I'm definitely in favor of making it as easy > as

Re: [mailop] DKIM CNAME temperror from Microsoft - 1024 bit vs. 2048 bit

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Simon <s...@4lists.simonliebold.de> wrote: > > Am 07.06.2016 um 18:27 schrieb Steve Atkins: >> The 2048 bit key plus the CNAME gives a reply packet big enough that >> the UDP reply to a non-edns query is truncated. Retrying over TCP &

Re: [mailop] Excluding Message-ID from DKIM Signature

> On May 26, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Joel Beckham wrote: > > Are there any negative consequences to consider before excluding message-id > from our signature? > > I'm working towards p=reject on bombbomb.com and found that Securence / > usinternet.com (A forwarder) gets a

Re: [mailop] PayPal DNS problem causing spoof notices to fail

> On Jan 15, 2016, at 10:07 AM, Franck Martin wrote: > > I see a few problems in your DNS, you may consider to have it fixed. > > http://dnsviz.net/d/mikea.ath.cx/dnssec/ Also, an MX record is a good sign that you're using the domain for mail intentionally. Cheers,

Re: [mailop] What to do with Amazon SES?

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 9:17 AM, Petar Bogdanovic wrote: > > How should one handle Amazon SES abuse? I'm seeing more and more junk > from them but I also don't remember my abuse reports getting far. ~ ∙ whois -h whois.abuse.net amazonses.com

Re: [mailop] mailop + DMARC + mailman = mung_from

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 12:48 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:46 PM, John Levine wrote: IMHO, Mailman should strip the existing DKIM header and Mailop.org should sign anew. >>> >>> Yes! That is the perfect and proper way,

Re: [mailop] Yahoo DMARC changes

> On Mar 29, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com> wrote: > > >> On Mar 28, 2016, at 8:20 PM, Vick Khera <vi...@khera.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: >> >>

Re: [mailop] Should I be disappointed with Reflexion?

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Mark Keymer wrote: > > We recently setup our first customer using the encryption aspect with > Reflexion. And for the end-user they have been dealing with bounce backs from > recipients e-mail accounts not liking the e-mail that Reflexion

[mailop] Yahoo DMARC changes

Yahoo recently posted elsewhere[1] about upcoming changes with their DMARC usage, and I thought mailop might be interested. As of next Monday y7mail.com and a huge list of international yahoo.* domains will be switching to DMARC p=reject, matching yahoo.com's configuration. So if you've been

Re: [mailop] Yahoo DMARC changes

ay, March 22, 2016 8:54 PM > To: mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > Subject: Re: [mailop] Yahoo DMARC changes > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: >> So if you've been doing anything special with forwarders or mailing lists >

Re: [mailop] Got UCE-1 listed yesterday

> On Apr 21, 2016, at 6:05 AM, Eric Henson wrote: > > > > Any…suggestions? I’d prefer that my company switch all our clients to Exact > Target for these emails, but that’s really not up to me. Is anyone you care about blocking your mail? If so, then talk to them

Re: [mailop] SPF check overly stringent?

--Original Message- > From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins > Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 12:18 PM > To: mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > Subject: Re: [mailop] SPF check overly stringent? > > >> On Apr 29, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Frank Bulk <

Re: [mailop] SPF check overly stringent?

> On Apr 29, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: > > We're helping a customer (sigiowa.com) who's having issues sending emails to > the USDA. Our email server logs this: > Site usda.gov (2a01:111:f400:7c10::10) said after data sent: 450 > 4.7.26 Service does not accept

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

> On May 21, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Michael Rathbun wrote: >> 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

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

On May 21, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: >> >> Some explanation for my deep curiosity Mailman (which I hack on >> here and there) and other MLMs had problems in the past because >>

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

> On May 20, 2016, at 1:01 PM, Michael Rathbun wrote: > > A client who is more on top of things than the average has noticed some > mailings to him that have two DKIM signatures, and wondered whether there was > some advantage to that. > > Of the two samples he sent, it was

Re: [mailop] What in the name of all that is evil is this new spam technique?

> On May 9, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Anne Mitchell wrote: > > > > > >> Weird. I've been involved with mail servers for 15 years, and it's the >> first time I've run in to that. > > Without commenting on what I think of the 'service' personally, I know the > founders over

Re: [mailop] Cisco PIX Mailguard Oddity

> On May 6, 2016, at 6:04 AM, Todd Herr <toddmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: > I've seen them do that when they get out of sequence. Are you doing the > transaction above by han

Re: [mailop] ADSP query: '_adsp._domainkey.live.com' reply was unresolved CNAME

> On May 2, 2016, at 7:27 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > Hello, > > Why am I seeing a hostname as the reply for an ADSP lookup? > > ~$ dig TXT _adsp._domainkey.live.com > rds.live.com.nsatc.net. Wildcard CNAME at the root of live.com, I expect. ;; ANSWER SECTION:

Re: [mailop] Cisco PIX Mailguard Oddity

> On May 5, 2016, at 5:08 PM, Todd Herr wrote: > > Forgive me if this is off topic, but I don't know where else to turn. > > I've got a customer who's having trouble sending mail to two domains with > nothing obvious (to me) in common save for one thing; both domain's

Re: [mailop] Null MX & Preference

> On Jul 14, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Brian Godiksen wrote: > > I noticed inconsistencies in how domains are publishing null MX records. In > RFC7505 it states these records should be published with a preference number > 0. I am seeing a variety of preferences specified

Re: [mailop] Dealing with a DKIM replay attack

> On Aug 13, 2016, at 8:47 PM, Neil Jenkins wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Aug 2016, at 11:55 AM, Security Desk wrote: >> I think I'd start by not letting random people sign up as >> secure_m...@internet-mail.org > > That has zero relevance to the topic in hand, which is DKIM

Re: [mailop] Dealing with a DKIM replay attack and yahoo's use of DKIM domains for FBL reports

> On Aug 12, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Vick Khera <vi...@khera.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: >> You're vouching for / accepting responsibility for every mail you sign. >> If your users are bad actors -

Re: [mailop] Gmail blocking due to "missing" PTR record

> On Aug 12, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Seth Charles via mailop > wrote: > > Hello, > We're running into a strange issue I'm wondering if anyone on this list has > seen before. > > We have a client that is running into blocks at Gmail, and the reason given > is, "550 5.7.1

Re: [mailop] Abuse Contacts hosted @ gmail and Google's Spam filter

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:10 AM, Benoit Panizzon wrote: > > Hello > > Operating the experimental future SWINOG Spamtrap development and Spam > Reporting infrastructure I often come across the problem, that many > abuse desks have their abuse contact address hosted by

Re: [mailop] Abuse Contacts hosted @ gmail and Google's Spam filter

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Hal Murray wrote: > > >> There is currently no way to deliver spam to abuse@ > > Google isn't the only problem. There are lots of outfits that do content > filtering on their abuse mailbox. > > It seem reasonable to reject mail from

Re: [mailop] Yahoo Bounce Message URLs

> On Jul 10, 2016, at 1:36 PM, Justin Scott wrote: > > If anyone is here from Yahoo's mail team, the URLs that are coming > back in some of the bounce messages (e.g. deferred mail, etc.) are > providing URLs which no longer exist. Specifically: > > 421 4.7.0 [GL01]

Re: [mailop] Problems with hotmail, outlook and others

> On Jul 2, 2016, at 9:09 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > > Suddenly my users can't send to a number of email servers. As far as I > can tell they are all the same server run by Microsoft. Here is a > sample bounce message. > >> : host

Re: [mailop] looking for contact at / info about comcast fbl

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Miles Fidelman > wrote: > > > Original-Mail-From: fusn-ow...@lists.fusn.org > That suggests you're not using VERP. Is that the real return path you're using? If not, VERPing that seems like an easy thing to do. Cheers, Steve

Re: [mailop] Odd spamcop glitch

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:30 PM, John Levine wrote: > > According to my logs, Spamcop listed 69.25.202.114 for a while yesterday. > > That led to great merriment, since that's Blue State Digital and mail > from mainstream political groups went into spamtraps that tested the >

Re: [mailop] Dealing with a DKIM replay attack

> On Aug 15, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Robert Mueller wrote: > >> We're definitely seeing dkim replay attacks and of course doing our best to >> catch them. >> > > Out of curiosity, one thing I thought might be a strong sign of a replay > attack is lots of emails with the same b=

Re: [mailop] Blocking emails from domains without SPF records

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > > Franck Martin wrote: >> I don't think you should block however: > > I'm not making any call either way - it's upto the admins involved. > Personally I have a valid SPF record my milter I wrote and build from

Re: [mailop] anyone from Microsoft around ?

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 4:02 AM, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > > I'm wondering if there is something wrong in the format of our headers > and if this could affect users of our software disregarding the kind > of mails they send with it. I've been tackling this for hours before >

Re: [mailop] Breathe....

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Franck Martin via mailop > wrote: > > I do not want to talk for the moderator/list owner but we have > representatives from all the different types of mail systems, small, big and > huge, that are engaged on this list. > > Please be careful

Re: [mailop] increased spam from "newslettertool2.1und1.de"

> On Aug 29, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Benoit Panizzon wrote: > > Hello > > In the last couple of days I have come across more spam emails > originating from: mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.133] (whitelisted > as much legitimate emails is sent from that IP) but which contain

Re: [mailop] (New) Mailman mailing lists marked as spam by Gmail

> On Sep 25, 2016, at 1:36 AM, Mark Foster wrote: > > As much as i'm sure this gets answered in a more conventional sense by other > traffic on this list all the time, my problem particularly pertains to > mailman driven mailing lists. > > I've moved my mailman

Re: [mailop] Yahoo blacklist removal

It's generally considered unprofessional and downright rude to share individuals email addresses without their permission, let alone sharing them with a public mailing list. Role aliases and contact procedures exist for a reason. Please think hard before sharing individuals email addresses

Re: [mailop] Mysterious DKIM failure.

. Though I'd probably try injecting identical-ish messages into outlook.com's dozens of MXes and see if there were any pattern first. Easy enough to black-box it with swaks and a shell script. Cheers, Steve > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: >

[mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

I know there's no standard header for storing the envelope recipients for a message (for good reason, especially when it comes to Bccs) but there are times when it's useful. Does anyone know of a system that does that? I'm stashing them in "X-Rcpt-To" at the moment, for lack of anything

Re: [mailop] Mysterious DKIM failure.

RC with p=reject, which repurposes DKIM and SPF to make negative rather than positive assertions, so actually fails when both DKIM and SPF fail to validate. So we have to care more now. Cheers, Steve > > Thanks, > > Maarten Oelering > Postmastery > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2016

Re: [mailop] Mysterious DKIM failure.

> > On Dec 11, 2016, at 8:53 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 12/10/2016 8:08 AM, Al Iverson wrote: >> Suggestion...modify the template to remove all the tabs or replace >> them with spaces, and try again. If it passes on both, then you've >> found that something in the

Re: [mailop] GoDaddy Email admins' in the house?

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Michael Peddemors > wrote: > > Noticed that they are using underscores in their hostnames used in the > HELO/EHLO.. > > https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1034.txt > > p3plsmtp09-04_26.prod.phx3.secureserver.net > > Comments from the list? >

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

> On Jan 6, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Kelly Molloy wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Vick Khera wrote: >> >> >> So if you're goal is to solve problems, then what's the point of having a >> minimum 48 hour block when the problem is solved at the

Re: [mailop] Spamhaus CSS listings of normal mail servers?

> On Mar 24, 2017, at 1:16 PM, Robert L Mathews wrote: > > Over the last two days, our outbound customer mail servers have been > repeatedly listed on the Spamhaus CSS ("snowshoe spammers"). This is > odd, because unless I'm misunderstanding, the Spamhaus CSS isn't >

Re: [mailop] Do we need a new list for reporting spam? (Was Re: Admin: This is not a place to report Spam. )

> On Apr 10, 2017, at 1:01 PM, Philip Paeps wrote: > > On 2017-04-10 21:50:01 (+0200), valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:21:45 -0600, Ryan Harris via mailop said: >>> It might be helpful to understand why people want to post on email forums >>> rather

Re: [mailop] OVH Abuse Contact?

> On Apr 6, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Tim Starr wrote: > > I have a client getting spoofed with a payload domain hosted by OVH. I found > their abuse-reporting webform, but are there any better contacts for > reporting this to them? There's no functioning abuse enforcement at

Re: [mailop] Penetration testing phishing emails

> On Aug 1, 2017, at 2:37 PM, David Harris wrote: > > Hi, > > We have a potential customer in the business of doing penetration testing, > and they want to send penetration testing phishing emails authorized by a > target company to that company's own employees. > > If we

Re: [mailop] self-signed cert for inbound TLS

> On Jul 26, 2017, at 1:43 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:10:53 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop said: >> Why can't smtp software being expected to maintain a list of trusted CAs? >> Or at least run on an OS that is expected to do so. > > Quick: What two CAs did

Re: [mailop] SNDS - Low Inboxing

> On Jun 29, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Chris Truitt wrote: > > Hi Laura, > > Thanks for your feedback. > > The email volume overall is not that high. There are many sends in the low > thousands, some in the low hundreds. It's actually rare to see a single > delivery to a

Re: [mailop] DKIM for Exchange - experiences?

> On Jun 27, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Al Iverson wrote: > > Yeah, if I had to do it, I'd set up a linux server running postfix and > have the Exchange server smarthost out through that. Another vote for this. Mostly because Exchange has[1] a bad habit of occasionally

Re: [mailop] Concurrent Messages and Proper Time to Keep a Connection Open

> On Aug 1, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Michael Wise via mailop > wrote: > > > It's nice, from time to time, to be able to Telnet to port 25 and type in the > commands manually for testing. > I know, I should write some simple scripts. ☹ http://www.jetmore.org/john/code/swaks/ is

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

ab...@constantcontact.com, with a complete copy of the message, would be the right place to report this. This mailing list isn't, really. Cheers, Steve > On Aug 9, 2017, at 8:36 AM, Bryan Bradsby > wrote: > > Constant Contact > > Why did you send spam to

Re: [mailop] lost connection with amazon-smtp.amazon.com

> On Aug 7, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.email> wrote: > > On 2017-08-07 14:09, Steve Atkins wrote: > >> Try connecting manually to the MX from a shell on the smarthost too. >> If they can connect to port 25 and get a banner that's a very

Re: [mailop] lost connection with amazon-smtp.amazon.com

> On Aug 7, 2017, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> wrote: > > On 2017-08-07 13:41, Steve Atkins wrote: >>> On Aug 7, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.email> wrote: >>> Trying to help someone on another team debug a problem wit

Re: [mailop] lost connection with amazon-smtp.amazon.com

> On Aug 7, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > Trying to help someone on another team debug a problem with connection to > Amazon. The sender domain has accurate SPF, and mail is being accepted at > most sites (including notoriously picky ones like Google).

Re: [mailop] Many SPF failures lately

> On May 15, 2017, at 9:34 AM, D'Arcy Cain wrote: > > I tried sending this a few days ago but it doesn't appear to be arriving. > Trying again. Apologies if you see this twice. > > I am finding that lately there are a lot of reports of failures sending to us > due to SPF

Re: [mailop] Sender IP reverse lookup rejected

> On Jun 23, 2017, at 11:56 AM, Nick Schafer wrote: > > Hi all, > > Anyone have any ideas what would cause the below error? > > Sender IP reverse lookup rejected > > rDNS is configured for the IP where we are seeing this so its not an issue > with the record not resolving.

Re: [mailop] SPF record

> On May 22, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Michael Wise via mailop > wrote: > > > Forwarding ... is GROSSLY insecure and causes far more problems than it > solves. > Just grabbing the traffic from the original INBOX with IMAP or POP3 is a much > more secure solution. /me gestures

Re: [mailop] SPF record

> On May 22, 2017, at 2:42 PM, W Kern wrote: > > > We quarantine inbound SPF failures. Customers complain but we point that out. > So those are not the issue. > > I am talking about the scenario where a third party sender WITH an -all SPF > record sends to my customer

Re: [mailop] ARC lesson please

> On May 22, 2017, at 10:01 PM, Hal Murray wrote: > >> ARC is the very-near-future solution to much of this. Get your vendors on it. >> http://arc-spec.org > > I'm missing something. What keeps a bad guy from setting up shop and > claiming to be forwarding mail and

Re: [mailop] dkim signature failures sendmail/opendkim

> On May 26, 2017, at 8:00 AM, Carl Byington wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Using sendmail with opendkim for signing mostly works, but I have a few > domains with dmarc p=reject, and looking at the aggregate reports, I am > seeing some

Re: [mailop] SPF record

> On May 19, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Bryan Blackwell wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Please pardon the noob question, just want to make sure this is what a proper > SPF record should look like: > > example.org. IN TXT "v=spf1 mx ~all" It's fine. I'd marginally prefer one

Re: [mailop] AOL bouncing email

> On Jun 18, 2017, at 3:23 PM, Ken Robinson wrote: > > I run a mailing list and AOL has been bouncing messages. Here are some of the > bounce messages: > > xx...@aol.com > host mailin-04.mx.aol.com [152.163.0.67] > SMTP error from remote mail server after initial

Re: [mailop] autoresponders & envelope-from/return-path

> On Jun 5, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Autumn Tyr-Salvia wrote: > > Hello, > > Any idea what the impact of turning on the return-path for autoresponders > would be? Colleagues tell me that the hosted mail service (Proofpoint) tells > their clients not to use a return-path address

Re: [mailop] Outlook.com bad behaviour (blocked by fail2ban?)

> On Sep 25, 2017, at 2:22 PM, MRob wrote: > > Some time in the recent week or two, it seems like many (most?) Microsoft > mail can't be delivered here. I suspect fail2ban caught their server doing > something bad, but I need help. > > The bounce senders are getting is

Re: [mailop] AOL backing up the queue

> On Nov 27, 2017, at 1:46 PM, Josiah Ritchie > wrote: > > It appears that AOL is having some problems right now in other areas > regarding mail, but I haven't seen any commentary from mail operators yet. > Anyone else having intermittent ability to send

Re: [mailop] SPF recommendations

> On Dec 14, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > > On 15/12/2017 09:27, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > >> On 12/14/2017 03:28 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: >>> My point is that -all is policy, and most people ignore the policy portions >>> of SPF because it

Re: [mailop] IMAP to IMAP

> On Dec 15, 2017, at 12:07 PM, John Levine wrote: > > I have a client who's moving from one mail system to another, and has > quite a lot of mail on the old system's IMAP server that they want to > take with them. > > While I can certainly write a python script that

Re: [mailop] A proposal for automated management of mail sending limits

> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:05 AM, Federico Santandrea > wrote: > > Hello, > > I am working on a rough draft for a protocol meant to facilitate exchange of > deliverability information among ESPs and mailbox providers. > > This arose from the observation that

Re: [mailop] Public Mailop archive?

> On Nov 6, 2017, at 10:15 AM, John Levine wrote: > > In article > you > write: >> https://www.mail-archive.com/mailop@mailop.org/ >> >> All other members, you might want to check this out and make sure >>

Re: [mailop] Certified Senders Alliance

ur way into a certification program. -- -- Steve Atkins -- https://wordtothewise.com/ ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

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

> On Nov 6, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Thomas Greer wrote: > > So you’re suggesting the solution is nothing? We just let customer mail get > bounced for no reason at all? Honestly, I'd suggest you assign someone with a different set of skills to work this issue, especially

Re: [mailop] Since it seems to be spam discussion day on MailOp, SparkHost compromised lists..

It is never spam discussion day on MailOp, unless it's operationally relevant to email. If it's not, like this, maybe take it to the spam or messaging abuse focused lists, some of which I'm sure you're on or reach out to the relevant company directly? Cheers, Steve > On May 9, 2018, at

Re: [mailop] Since it seems to be spam discussion day on MailOp, SparkHost compromised lists..

> On May 9, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Marc Goldman via mailop > wrote: > > > For those of us who came tardy to the party can you share the signup details > for the spam and messaging abuse lists and any related others we may be able > to get on? Some public, open access ones

Re: [mailop] Disabling TLS1.0 for SMTP

> On May 22, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Al Iverson wrote: > > Are folks disabling TLS1.0 support in SMTP? Our security team has > asked, but I'm a bit concerned about potential failure cases when > trying to deliver mail to smaller corporate sites that might be doing > stuff

Re: [mailop] Should mail servers publish IPv6 MX records? Could this harm your spam filtering?

> On Jun 10, 2018, at 10:18 AM, Grant Taylor via mailop > wrote: > > On 06/09/2018 09:32 AM, Andrew C Aitchison wrote: >> If a domain has no MX record, do all servers deliver to an record, as >> required by (at least) RFC3974, or do some email systems ignore domains with >> no MX and no

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

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Brandon Long via mailop > wrote: > > They used to use qmail which uses - instead of the more common + for multiple > addresses, wonder if this is a side effect of the forwarding for ymail.com > using qmail Likely. Though at one point it wasn't unusual to

Re: [mailop] Should mail servers publish IPv6 MX records? Could this harm your spam filtering?

> On Jun 6, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > > > > Isn't the simplest way to handle this is to treat IPv6 at the /64 or smaller > level? More likely, because most people use IPv4, the RBL's just don't have > the data sources they need to populate the data, not because of

Re: [mailop] sectoor TOR blacklist

> On Jun 6, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote: > > On 06/06/2018 16:55, Steve Atkins wrote: >> >> >> IPv4 blacklists will always list 127.0.0.2 and never 127.0.0.1. >> IPv6 blacklists will always list :::7F00:2 and never :::7F00:1. >> D

Re: [mailop] Should mail servers publish IPv6 MX records? Could this harm your spam filtering?

> On Jun 6, 2018, at 1:41 PM, SM wrote: > > Hi Rob, > At 01:08 PM 06-06-2018, Rob McEwen wrote: >> Here is an article I posted on Linkedin about spam filtering IPv6-sent email. >> >> "Should mail servers publish IPv6 MX records? Could this harm your spam >> filtering?" > > In other words,

Re: [mailop] Verification of Microsoft 4.7.0 protocol error

> On Jun 29, 2018, at 10:38 AM, Damon Sauer wrote: > > "Hello!" everyone (Al, Michael's, John's (R and not R), Bill, etc) > > Can someone verify for me that: > > "smtp;421 4.7.0 Too many protocol errors (6) on this connection closing > transmission channel.

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Contact

> On Apr 30, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Rob Heilman via mailop wrote: > > We appear to be having issues with the way Microsoft’s systems are parsing > headers. In particular headers using display-name strings containing the @ > symbol. For example: > > From: sen...@domain.net

Re: [mailop] Issues delivering to Hotmail addresses

> On Jan 24, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Michael Wise via mailop > wrote: > > > Much internal discussion, but … > Apparently … > > “ 452 is a special error code (per RFC) that instructs the sending MTA to > retry the rejected recipients immediately. > “ it is designed to split

Re: [mailop] Trulia / Zillow contact

> On Feb 2, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Jaren Angerbauer > wrote: > > Hi, > > Looking for a contact Zillow, or even possibly their ESP. That'd be mailgun, for this domain anyway, for anyone following along at home. > We are seeing one of their domains

Re: [mailop] Lots of spam from gmail ?

> On Feb 2, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Aaron C. de Bruyn via mailop > wrote: > > It's been about a month for me, but my GSuite account has been hammered from > other GSuite or Gmail accounts and it's all a mix of SEO spam and "Hire us > for your business website" junk. Most of it

Re: [mailop] Trulia / Zillow contact

lstream or domain, but I do work a bit with some folks at Zillow. I'm > responding offline to Jaren. > > Will > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Jaren Angerbauer <jarenangerba...@gmail.com&

Re: [mailop] Mail Transfer Agent Alternatives

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 9:27 AM, Marc Goldman via mailop wrote: > > > I agree with sticking to facts so lets cover a few here: > > 1. PMTA (formerly Port25 now Message Systems) is the 800 lb gorilla in the > MTA world. > > 2. I own 2 enterprise licenses for PMTA 4.0 and paid

Re: [mailop] Mail Transfer Agent Alternatives

violating. Cheers, Steve > > Regards, > Andris Reinman > ZoneMTA > > 2018-02-05 20:03 GMT+02:00 Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com>: > > > On Feb 5, 2018, at 9:27 AM, Marc Goldman via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > > wrote: > > > > >

Re: [mailop] Tell me about survey monkey

> On Dec 26, 2017, at 3:14 PM, John Levine wrote: > > They have a bizarre policy that when you send a spam report in > response to one of their survey invitations, they reply and say it's > been suppressed *for that user only*. I've gone around with them on > this, they insist

Re: [mailop] DKIM headers - which do you sign and why?

> On Jul 28, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Carl Byington wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On Mon, 2018-07-23 at 15:28 -0700, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Laura Atkins >> wrote: > >>> Spammers poisoned that particular well a while ago.

Re: [mailop] Is the 3rd-party reporting DMARC record required?

> On Aug 14, 2018, at 3:29 PM, Steve Jones via mailop wrote: > > On 8/14/18, 10:17 AM, "mailop on behalf of Bill Cole" wrote: > >I'm doing a DMARC setup for a client and for the first time need to >point the 'rua' value to an address in a domain other than the client >domain. As I

  1   2   >