You have a good point in that the first and main problem is that the
forwarder cannot be trusted to not mangle or fake the original message.
Nothing else can be sorted out until this gets out of the way, including
OOB communication between originator and final receiver. Which is in
effect
Greetings.
What I believe will happen is most non-big mail client apps will support
BIMI if they support avatars, otherwise, they won't, cause the arguments
on the receiver side are the same for both features.
I don't buy the "promoting authentication" argument. There would be a
marginal
On 2022-11-24 14:01, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote:
And to circle back to on-topic: The result of that is what then pops up in
/var/log/maillog.
So it isn't about 'should VT change [something]'; It is more 'shouldn't society
change the incentive structure and general setup around academia as
On 3/2/22 13:59, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
To me any system that aims to replace email must be based on pushing
messages and have a distributed nature.
This means that deliverability issues are an inherent risk, in a way
that pulling messages from a central/unified service can avoid.
On 2021-12-31 13:42, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
The difference between them is that, although HTTP provides for put
and post verbs, the web evolved around clients downloading data from
the servers, while email dealed the opposite direction. The
implication with respect to spam is
On 2021-12-28 17:55, Nicolas JEAN via mailop wrote:
My conclusion is that today, there's no technical way to forward
client IPs from roundcube to dovecot/postfix.
Doesn't the XFORWARD feature work for postfix? I thought that's how
amavis for example talks to postfix. Usually via a dedicated
On 2021-08-05 21:51, Brielle via mailop wrote:
Looks like some of the topics of the spam is starting to gravitate
towards current events...
ESP to spamming customer: "improve the quality of your mailings, stop
sending people mail they don't want or we will have to ask you again to
stop,
On 2021-07-30 11:30, mailop--- via mailop wrote:
I'm not sure that anyone can offer me anything other than sympathy but
I'm open to any advice or suggestions.
These huge freemail providers are killing email. Mail was never supposed
to be so centralized. We're just managing our misery here.
On 26/8/2020 20:36, flo via mailop wrote:
I prefer not to put my private address unprotected on the internet.
Well duh.
Not everyone is a business with already-public information. I run my own
server and host some domains on that. What assurances do I have that my
personal information is
On 24/7/2020 8:12 μ.μ., Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
On 24 Jul 2020, at 7:48, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Not true, I was (and am) always delivering mail via IPv4 and had
mentioned
problems (and also other people whose complaints I have read don't
use IPv6
as well).
I see no
On 24/7/2020 7:13 μ.μ., John Levine via mailop wrote:
In article <20200724160354.gg9...@ikki.ethgen.ch> you write:
I think it might happen that in past hetzner (my hosting provider) ...
Oh, there's your problem. Hetzner's network spews garbage. I don't
accept any mail from it at all.
On 17/2/2020 22:39, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
One could state facts – i.e., pointing out that SPF will break
straight forwarding and mailing lists that do not rewrite – without
introducing judgement.
How about a small section in the FAQ about decisions that the mail admin
must make?
On 17/10/2019 22:05, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote:
Why doesn't Microsoft handle this internally instead of forcing the
reporter to jump through another flaming hoop? They got the report to
their whois-listed abuse contact based on originating IP. They know
what internal department should
On 5/6/2019 20:23, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
That hasn't been determined as of yet. Comments and thoughts on that
subject welcome.
A good start would be VM/VPS/server provisioners actually putting
default firewall rules in their images. Especially outgoing rules to a
certain port
14 matches
Mail list logo
