On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:39:04PM -0500, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
> an account that I established at Yahoo! in 1986
That's some mighty early adoption you've got there.
- Matt
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/l
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 03:30:03PM -0700, Rob Nagler via mailop wrote:
> gmail.com started failing messages from domains which are correctly setup
> for SPF (and have been for some years):
>
> 550-5.7.26 Gmail requires all senders to authenticate with
> either SPF or DKIM. 550-5.7.26 550-5.7.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 01:36:13PM -0800, Robert L Mathews via mailop wrote:
> I was mostly surprised that after reviewing it, Spamhaus's policy is that
> this behavior (not using COI and hitting spamtraps as a result, for
> messages that in other respects are wanted by recipients and
> transaction
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 06:52:16AM -0800, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> (DO wish these "Too Big to Block" would SWIP their IP space more
> fractionally, or run their own 'rwhois' services with accurate details)
The existence of "Too Big to Block" implies the existence of "Too Big to Care".
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 07:57:09AM +0100, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
> We've been seeing runs of spam mails from Microsoft IP addresses without
> reverse DNS (possibly cloud servers).
>
> One is sending with addresses , starting on February 8.
>
> The other (same or different spammer?)
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 11:04:05AM +0200, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
> On Tue 24/Oct/2023 06:53:37 +0200 Matt Palmer via mailop wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 03:11:06AM +0100, Richard Clayton via mailop wrote:
> > > In message <07d58480-7dde-4d15-a5ca-5bb6c8e1
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 03:11:06AM +0100, Richard Clayton via mailop wrote:
> In message <07d58480-7dde-4d15-a5ca-5bb6c8e10...@mtasv.net>, Matt Palmer
> via mailop writes
>
> >The relative "noisiness" of the attack, in fact, is a fairly strong signal
> >that
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:04:25PM -0400, Ian Kelling via mailop wrote:
> Philip Paeps via mailop writes:
> > On 2023-10-22 14:34:39 (+0530), Slavko via mailop wrote:
> > Indeed: not directly related to mailops. But a very instructive example
> > of why monitoring C-T logs is a good idea.
>
> An
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 12:48:26PM +0300, Mary via mailop wrote:
> from what I understand, this is a government issued wiretapping against
> that specific services/servers (hosted by Hetzner and Linode in Germany?)
> and not a general TLS exploit.
On what evidence do you base that understanding?
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 08:56:26PM +, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
> > On 22.10.2023 at 15:06 Philip Paeps via mailop wrote:
> > On 2023-10-22 14:34:39 (+0530), Slavko via mailop wrote:
> >> while not directly about email, recently was published details
> >> about success MiTM attack agai
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 11:13:56PM -0500, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
> What if we just got to the heart of the matter and admitted that
> greylisting is useless 2023?
That feels like a bit of a strawman, insofar as greylisting is *far* from
the only reason why a 4xx could be emitted.
- Matt
__
On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 04:48:11AM +0200, Ángel via mailop wrote:
> None of those would now be able to email yahoo accounts, apparently. I
> find it hard to believe that they may have added such restriction on
> purpose. It may be that a check inadvertently added a dependency on th
> domain part of
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 10:24:09PM -0400, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Matt Palmer via mailop said:
> >DKIM doesn't encrypt, it signs, and since people are using DKIM for
> >non-repudiation long after the e-mail has been delivered, I'd argue that
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 01:48:12PM +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> Dnia 26.04.2023 o godz. 09:35:25 Matt Palmer via mailop pisze:
> >
> > DKIM doesn't encrypt, it signs, and since people are using DKIM for
> > non-repudiation long after the e-mail has been
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 08:55:30PM +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter via mailop wrote:
> * John Levine via mailop :
> > It appears that Matthäus Wander via mailop said:
> > >Hello everyone,
> > >
> > >what's the experience with DKIM signatures with RSA keylengths larger
> > >than 2048 bits? Is it suppor
[Fixed TOFU]
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 03:57:00PM -0500, Christine Borgia via mailop wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 1:09 PM Benny Pedersen via mailop
> wrote:
>
> > Christine Borgia via mailop skrev den 2023-02-24 17:17:
> >
> > >>> 421 4.7.0 [149.72.90.158 15] Our system has detected that this
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:40:10AM +, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
> > On 11 Jan 2022, at 10:25, Alessandro Vesely via mailop
> > wrote:
> > On Tue 11/Jan/2022 07:40:31 +0100 Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
> >> As a list admin, you're between a rock and a hard place. In some
> >> cas
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:56:37PM -0700, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:09 AM Nick via mailop wrote:
> > On 2020-07-23 03:26 BST, Ted Hatfield via mailop wrote:
> > > It appears that to reach wide spread adoption of this protocol we're
> > > going to be creating a new
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 08:57:04PM -0400, Matt Corallo via mailop wrote:
> Hmm, that may have been confusingly worded, I admit. The point is that
> we'd like to publish the private keys after delivery. This means that if
> anyone goes and verifies an email with the DKIM key *after* delivery, they
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 06:06:25PM -0700, Luke wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 07:48:45AM -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
> > > I cant tell if this the thing about ESPs not removing bounces is a joke
> > or
> > > not. All of the major ESPs have logic for adding bad addresses to
> > > suppression l
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 07:48:45AM -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
> I cant tell if this the thing about ESPs not removing bounces is a joke or
> not. All of the major ESPs have logic for adding bad addresses to
> suppression lists.
[Citation needed]
Your assertion does not match my data.
- Matt
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 03:08:47PM -0400, Matthew Grove via mailop wrote:
> Just to clarify, Mailchimp does remove addresses from specific lists when
> we receive a hard bounce. Atro is correct; we do not suppress hard bounced
> addresses globally across all of our users for a number of reasons. Ea
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 12:38:31PM -0400, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2020, at 16:52, Oreva Akpolo via mailop wrote:
> > I'm Oreva, a Deliverability Engineer at Mailchimp. There currently isn't
> > a
> > system to force double opt-in on recipients per email address. What we
> > can
> > r
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:37:59PM +0300, Atro Tossavainen via mailop wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 08:22:40PM +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
> > It would need to be a standard... a SINGLE standard.
> >
> > Like the FTC "Do Not Call" list.
>
> What Michael said... And it would be a colo
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 06:17:01PM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail via mailop wrote:
> On 3/27/2020 5:21 PM, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
> > I believe that what the consent covers needs to be refined.
> >
> > Consent to receive transactional email is not implicit consent to
> > receive non-transactional
[side note: I run Tor middle-nodes and bridges, although I do not have the
intestinal fortitude -- or a suitably supportive ISP -- to run an exit node]
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:35:45AM +0100, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote:
> Occasionally, spam or more often, log-in attempts and dictionary
> a
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 09:55:10AM +, Sébastien Riccio via mailop wrote:
> I don’t think their doing it on purpose, but the final result could make
> think they do. Some of our customers already moved to office365 because
> of this.
>
> As long as we don’t have a way to clearly understand why
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 06:28:17PM +0300, Lena--- via mailop wrote:
> If a mailbox provider wants to spam-filter by domain, they have to use
> a list of such multiple-corporation domains (what is the proper term?).
I believe the term-du-jour is "effective TLD", or "eTLD" for short.
- Matt
_
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:55:10PM +0200, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote:
> Yet another one, reported a work report with full salary detail from
> his employer, not aware that Microsoft would forward that sensitive data
> to our abuse desk.
This one, at least, smells like it might be a GDPR risk
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 12:01:20PM -0700, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2019, at 6:55, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote:
> > 3: Try to make it more obvious in the documentation of that junk
> > folder, that moving emails there will lead to a complaint to the
> > senders ISP.
>
> I've
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:47:02AM +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> BTW. I also sometimes (quite rarely) send messages from my server using two
> other sender addresses corresponding to two small organizations I belong to.
> They are in different domains. I also tried to send mail from thos
31 matches
Mail list logo
