Re: [mailop] SendGrid Abuse unresponsive

[Alexander Zeh via mailop]

Hi Andy,

well.. there is software out there that does exactly that. Follow every single 
link. Sometimes multiple times even with a delay of hours. At least that’s what 
I am seeing. That stuff is pretty annoying. But you’re right, for abuse reports 
there should be a webform and some kind of captcha. I don’t agree with the 
unsubscribe mechanism though. As list-unsubscribe is supposed to be done by the 
mail client in the background without showing the result to the user, a captcha 
or something like that would defeat the purpose. But that’s already kind of 
solved with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8058 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8058>.

Cheers,
Alex

> Am 05.05.2020 um 17:42 schrieb Andy Smith via mailop :
> 
> Hi Alexander,
> 
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 05:25:38PM +0200, Alexander Zeh via mailop wrote:
>>> It would also be great if SendGrid would include an abuse reporting
>>> URL in the headers of each message, specific to that message, i.e.
>>> that passes along all info that SendGrid would need to identify that
>>> campaign/client.
>> 
>> I’m not so sure about that, having in mind that the list-unsubscribe header 
>> already causes some headache on my end as some filters are checking and 
>> therefore „clicking“ all the URLs they find in body and header. 
> 
> At a minimum wouldn't such software already follow all links and
> confirm deliverability on behalf of the recipient every time they
> got marketing email? That seems like a bad idea to begin with, and
> also a bad idea from the web server side.
> 
> All web contact forms already need some sort of "I am not a bot"
> detection because of software like that; you couldn't have some sort
> of "this is spam" web service that took a report solely based on a
> GET request, and sensible unsubscribe mechanisms don't work that way
> either.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] SendGrid Abuse unresponsive

[Alexander Zeh via mailop]

Hello,

> It would also be great if SendGrid would include an abuse reporting
> URL in the headers of each message, specific to that message, i.e.
> that passes along all info that SendGrid would need to identify that
> campaign/client.

I’m not so sure about that, having in mind that the list-unsubscribe header 
already causes some headache on my end as some filters are checking and 
therefore „clicking“ all the URLs they find in body and header. 

Cheers,
Alex
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] contact to freenet.de mail admin here on the list ?

[Alexander Zeh via mailop]

Hi,

I get responses from postmas...@freenet.de . 
(Sometimes it takes a few days, depending on the amount of requests they get).

Cheers,
Alex

> Am 04.05.2020 um 14:05 schrieb Kurt Jaeger via mailop :
> 
> Hi!
> 
> For a mailserver I'm operating we see rejections when the connecting
> IP is from IPv6, with the error message:
> 
> 550-Inconsistent/Missing DNS PTR record (RFC 1912 2.1)
> 
> I've checked forward/reverse/SPF records for that domain and
> set of IPs and everything checks out.
> 
> Is there some freenet.de mailadmin at hand so that we can find the
> cause of that problem ?
> 
> -- 
> p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372Now what ?
> 
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] authentication failures for messages from microsoft

[Alexander Zeh via mailop]

Hi,

I have a similar issue with confirmation mails from the Office 365 Delist 
Portal.
When using an outlook-freemail address it’s going to the spam folder at least, 
where I can access it.

Alex

> Am 18.10.2019 um 07:56 schrieb Andreas Schulze via mailop :
> 
> Am 11.10.19 um 15:27 schrieb Andreas Schulze via mailop:
>> we receive multiple complains from out customers not getting notification 
>> messages from Microsoft.
>> Our DMARC filter reject them.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> no one has similar observations? Mr. Micheal Wise: could you share some 
> insides?
> 
> -- 
> A. Schulze
> DATEV eG
> 
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop



___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

[Alexander Zeh via mailop]

The thing is.. maybe technically savvy users don’t need spam folders. But 
having „normies“ in mind, like I’m thinking of my parents or friends who work 
in a totally different industry, I’m sure we need spam folders.
Why? Because most people are kind of lazy. They don’t want to move spam away, 
even if it’s only one click. They want the provider to do it for them. And if 
they can choose from multiple providers (e.g. Google vs. outlook.com 
 vs. Yahoo …) they will choose the more convenient option. 
(Just think of WhatsApp or messengers in general.. WA was so extremely 
successful, because it was the first who’s was really convenient for the users).

And (especially big) providers do whatever the majority of the users want, 
because that’s what enables their business.
If you run a server for a couple of users, simply try the approach you’re 
suggesting here and wait for the reaction. I’m pretty sure most users won’t be 
very happy and ask you to bring back the old behavior.


> Am 16.10.2019 um 14:19 schrieb Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop :
> 
> Dnia 16.10.2019 o godz. 13:01:49 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
>> In your first situation, rejecting the messages is very bad. In the
>> second situation, rejecting the messages *may* be better than
>> accepting and semi-hiding - but only if you have another viable way
>> of contacting the recipient. So, in general, rejecting is the worse
>> option.
> 
> I'm not in favour of rejecting.
> 
> I would rather be in favour of only *marking* the possible spam as spam,
> without auto-moving it to the spam folder, and leaving the option to do so
> to the user. It may be a single-click setup that turns on automatical moving
> of messages marked as spam to the spam folder, but still if this would
> require user's decision, the user will be more aware that such thing as spam
> folder exists at all, and more likely to check this folder periodically than
> in case when this is set up automatically by email provider and the user
> might even don't know about it.
> -- 
> Regards,
>   Jaroslaw Rafa
>   r...@rafa.eu.org
> --
> "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
> was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
> 
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

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

[Alexander Zeh via mailop]

My best guess from a receivers perspective is:
If >99.9% of the traffic from a netblock were spam (let’s say from half of the 
IPs in that block), I don’t want to accept any more messages from the other IPs 
from the same netblock (and risk unhappy recipients and - even worse - 
financial impact because they contact support) because statistically they are 
most likely spam too.

Even though some of the other IPs might be clean.. the positive impact of 
rejecting the whole netblock is most likely no more spam, even from IPs I never 
received a single mail from before (meaning happier users, no support costs,…) 
vs. the negative impact of very few false positives which cost almost nothing.

I don’t say that this is necessarily good the way it is, but I can totally 
understand the idea behind that.


> Am 14.10.2019 um 15:58 schrieb Nick via mailop :
> 
> On 2019-10-14 14:41 BST, Graeme Fowler via mailop wrote:
>> On 14 Oct 2019, at 14:30, Nick via mailop  wrote:
>>> If an ip address in the range is held by a legitimate mailer, you're
>>> saying the legitimate mailer will be evicted to make way for the
>>> spammer?  Does that really happen?
>> 
>> No; but if you don't get any email from the 'legitimate' sender then
>> your only signal is that from the neighbours.
> 
> Sure, and blocking the neighbours who are deemed spammers is not what
> I'm questioning.
> 
>> If a large percentage of them have a signal which is 'poor' (FSVO
>> 'poor') then the inference is that the whole block is poisonous, and
>> you bin it (or put mail from it in the junk folder).
> 
> It is not an inference.  You agreed ("Does that really happen?" "No")
> that legitimate senders remain in the block.  The whole block is not
> poisonous.
> 
> My question remains unanswered.  Why not treat each ip address on its
> own merits?  Is it technically infeasible, too expensive, less
> convenient, or what?
> -- 
> Nick
> 
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop



___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] https://sender.office.com/ not working (or only with outlook.com addresses)

[Alexander Zeh via mailop]

Hi all,

I recently wanted to delist an IP using https://sender.office.com/ 

Unfortunately I never received the confirmation email from step 2. I heard from 
others that they received the email when using an address @outlook.com, I 
didn’t confirm that though. Do others see the same behavior? It’d be weird to 
be forced to register a mailbox there to do that, as I don’t need it that often.

Cheers,
Alex


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

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

[Alexander Zeh via mailop]

Same problem here.
Seems to be a general problem: https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/yahoo.de 


> Am 05.09.2019 um 10:18 schrieb tobisworld--- via mailop :
> 
> We're currently seeing several yahoo domains (ex yahoo.de) cannot be
> resolved any more in DNS. All the responsable nameservers for that
> domain do not reply anymore. Only ns4.yahoo.com replies from time to
> time for yahoo.de but according to glue record ns4.yahoo.com is not in
> charge for yahoo.de anymore.
> 
> anyone else seeing such problems with yahoo?
> 
> --
> Cheers
> 
> tobi
> 
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

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

[Alexander Zeh via mailop]

This might also be an issue of different wordings used in different parts of 
the world. I started working in the email space 10+ years ago for the eco 
Association in Germany. In every document, in every personal conversation I 
had, always the term DOI was used. Not only by marketeers, also by postmasters 
and lawyers.
I heard the term COI for the very first time at a M3AAWG meeting, and indeed 
thought it’s the term for „I’ll send the recipient a confirmation email that 
he’s now subscribed“.
I’m not sure how these terms are used in other european countries.

Alex

> Am 26.08.2019 um 00:06 schrieb Luke via mailop :
> 
> Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of language
> to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to be
> concerning
> 
> As do I. I guess my argument is that this isn't what is happening when some 
> email marketer says "double opt in" or "cold outreach."
> 
> If you're someone who hasn't spent a great deal of time thinking about the 
> world's spam problem or haven't really given much thought to the consequences 
> of not requiring some kind of confirmation before adding an address to your 
> mailing list, the term double opt in makes sense. 
> 
> Should they be corrected? Sure. Should they be taught that "double opt in" 
> isn't actually accurate because the recipient is only opting in once. Sure. 
> Do they deserve to be labeled a spammer or be told they are talking like a 
> spammer? No. Is it some kind of concerted effort to normalize spammy 
> behavior? No. 
> 
> I don't like the terms double opt in or cold outreach either and I don't use 
> them. But I don't think the term "spamspeak" and the allusion to 1984 is 
> appropriate.
> 
> Luke
> 
> 
>  
> 
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Michael Rathbun  > wrote:
> 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 provocative. Let's run with this.
> >> *Rolls eyes*
> >
> >
> >But yes, I was poking fun at the use of the term spamspeak. The allusion to
> >1984's newspeak or doublespeak is silly.
> 
> I have seldom been accused of being overly serious.
> 
> >If alluding to 1984 in the context of permission based email isn't a little
> >funny to you, then I apologize for my remarks.
> 
> Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of language
> to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to be
> concerning, however "funny" they may appear at the onset.  (I leave out of the
> discussion the fact that I once had a role in a stage production of "1984"
> that made me more than slightly well-acquainted with that work.)
> 
> Rob's remarks were, to my knowledge, accurate and apposite.
> 
> mdr
> -- 
>Those who can make you believe absurdities 
>can make you commit atrocities.
> -- Voltaire
> 
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop