On 28 Aug 2020, at 0:56, Chris via mailop wrote:
I'm sure that some privacy advocate could word that in a sufficiently
bowel-loosening fashion that brings out the torches and pitchforks.
That's a very unusual storage choice for such things.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or
> and this also no guarantee for no spam. Recently I got some spam for
> "dates18.com" sent via Casual Networks B.V (on the CSA whitelist) in
> which even the "Imprint"-URLs lead to "Congratulations, you
> confirmed your mailaddress".
Whitelisted senders send plenty of spam.
The requirements
On 8/28/20 9:29 AM, Florian Vierke via mailop wrote:
Hi everybody,
the requirement for having an imprint in advertising mails is not
limited to T-Online. It’s a legal requirement and also criteria for the
Certified Senders Alliance (CSA) which is at least relevant in Germany.
For those not
Am 28.08.20 um 10:10 schrieb Bjoern Franke via mailop:
>
> and this also no guarantee for no spam. Recently I got some spam for
> "dates18.com" sent via Casual Networks B.V (on
> the CSA whitelist) in which even the "Imprint"-URLs lead to "Congratulations,
> you confirmed your mailaddress".
On 27/08/2020 16:53, Tim Bray via mailop wrote:
The same kind of regulations exist in the UK, but everybody forgets
about them. You often see business names on websites that don't
match their legal entity; confusions between sole trader (just a
person) and a registered company (limited,
Hi,
the requirement for having an imprint in advertising mails is not
limited to T-Online. It’s a legal requirement and also criteria for the
Certified Senders Alliance (CSA) which is at least relevant in Germany.
For those not having heard of it – it’s a whitelisting project
originally
lto:mailop@mailop.org>
Betreff: Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing
"provider identification"
This email has reached Mapp via an external source
Am 26.08.20 um 19:36 schrieb flo via mailop:
Hi there
Have any of you had any bad experiences w
Auftrag von Hans-Martin Mosner via
mailop
Gesendet: Freitag, 28. August 2020 08:51
An: mailop@mailop.org
Betreff: Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing
"provider identification"
This email has reached Mapp via an external source
Am 26.08.20 um 19:36 schri
Am 26.08.20 um 19:36 schrieb flo via mailop:
> Hi there
>
> Have any of you had any bad experiences with Deutsche Telekom lately?
> They put one of my servers on their blacklist after an IP change with
> the reason that I have to provide an imprint on that machine.
> Have I missed something? Is
On 2020-08-26 13:36, flo via mailop wrote:
Hi there
Have any of you had any bad experiences with Deutsche Telekom lately?
They put one of my servers on their blacklist after an IP change with
the reason that I have to provide an imprint on that machine.
Have I missed something? Is this how it
On 27 Aug 2020, at 16:53, Tim Bray via mailop wrote:
> Why t-mobile want to white list, I don't know. But you can be sure they
> don't get random spam from random compromised home broadband or cloud servers.
...until someone registers an IP with them, then $time passes and they
terminate
On 27/08/2020 10:30, G. Miliotis via mailop wrote:
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 protected by T-Mobile / DT after I
send it to them? Why should I be forced
On 2020-08-27 at 12:22 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> This is so absurd that it's even hard to find words to describe it.
>
> And it should be - in my opinion - a reason for everyone to block all
> e-mails FROM t-online.de in return.
> Maybe such an Internet-wide block will force them
On 27/08/2020 12:39, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
It's rather strange that you are comparing this to SPF.
1) SPF has no "default deny" policy; if a domain has no SPF record at all,
then mail is (or at least should be) accepted by default.
No, but it's possible for a receiver to have a
Dnia 27.08.2020 o godz. 12:06:29 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
> >>So if you got some cloud vm with a new IP address, which never before
> >>sent mail to a @t-online.de address, mails will be rejected.
> >>You need to write their postmasters so it gets added to their
> >>whitelist. And for this
On 27/08/2020 11:22, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
So if you got some cloud vm with a new IP address, which never before
sent mail to a @t-online.de address, mails will be rejected.
You need to write their postmasters so it gets added to their
whitelist. And for this process you need to have
Dnia 27.08.2020 o godz. 09:21:20 Felix Zielcke via mailop pisze:
> Deutsche Telekom uses a whitelist which IPs can send mails to @t-
> online.de accounts. They block every IP by default.
>
> So if you got some cloud vm with a new IP address, which never before
> sent mail to a @t-online.de
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 Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 09:21:20AM +0200, Felix Zielcke via mailop wrote:
[..]
> Deutsche Telekom uses a whitelist which IPs can send mails to @t-
> online.de accounts. They block every IP by default.
>
> So if you got some cloud vm with a new IP address, which never before
> sent mail to a
Am 27.08.2020 um 08:37 schrieb Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via mailop:
T-Online (or Deutsche Telekom) require that somewhere on your domain is
your address visible. Even if you don't have a web page at all. And
just use the domain for sending mails.
If only there were some standardized mechanism for
Am Donnerstag, den 27.08.2020, 09:21 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke via
mailop:
> Am Donnerstag, den 27.08.2020, 09:02 +0200 schrieb Renaud Allard via
> mailop:
> > Does this mean that if you send a mail for "u...@domain.com" from
> > the
> > server "mail.example.com" with a correct FCrDNS, it will
Am Donnerstag, den 27.08.2020, 09:02 +0200 schrieb Renaud Allard via
mailop:
>
> On 8/27/20 8:24 AM, Felix Zielcke via mailop wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 26.08.2020, 21:06 +0200 schrieb ml+mailop--- via
> > mailop:
> > > > But it was enough to have the imprint visible for them just for
> > > >
On 8/27/20 8:24 AM, Felix Zielcke via mailop wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 26.08.2020, 21:06 +0200 schrieb ml+mailop--- via
mailop:
But it was enough to have the imprint visible for them just for the
Sorry for a stupid question: What is "the imprint"?
Does that mean you have to operate a web
Felix Zielcke via mailop writes:
> T-Online (or Deutsche Telekom) require that somewhere on your domain is
> your address visible. Even if you don't have a web page at all. And
> just use the domain for sending mails.
If only there were some standardized mechanism for this information...
Am Mittwoch, den 26.08.2020, 21:06 +0200 schrieb ml+mailop--- via
mailop:
> > But it was enough to have the imprint visible for them just for the
>
> Sorry for a stupid question: What is "the imprint"?
> Does that mean you have to operate a web server with an "Impressum"
> (I guess that's the
On 2020-08-26 15:50, ml+mailop--- via mailop wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
There SHOULD be a URL associated with the domain ('mydomain.com') in the PTR..
Ah, the stuff you suggested on ietf-smtp and which got "rejected" by
pretty one every one who replied?
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> There SHOULD be a URL associated with the domain ('mydomain.com') in the PTR..
Ah, the stuff you suggested on ietf-smtp and which got "rejected" by
pretty one every one who replied?
___
Dnia 26.08.2020 o godz. 12:29:38 Michael Peddemors via mailop pisze:
> There SHOULD be a URL associated with the domain ('mydomain.com') in
> the PTR.. And that URL should reflect the organization that is
> responsible for activity related to that domain..
No, it is a nonsense requirement.
Mail
More and more companies are requiring transparency.
mail.mydomain.com
There SHOULD be a URL associated with the domain ('mydomain.com') in the
PTR.. And that URL should reflect the organization that is responsible
for activity related to that domain.. I will have to dig up that M3AAWG
Nest
> But it was enough to have the imprint visible for them just for the
Sorry for a stupid question: What is "the imprint"?
Does that mean you have to operate a web server with an "Impressum"
(I guess that's the German word?) if you want to send mail?
Am Mittwoch, den 26.08.2020, 19:36 +0200 schrieb flo via mailop:
> Hi there
>
> Have any of you had any bad experiences with Deutsche Telekom lately?
> They put one of my servers on their blacklist after an IP change with
> the reason that I have to provide an imprint on that machine.
> Have I
Hi there
Have any of you had any bad experiences with Deutsche Telekom lately?
They put one of my servers on their blacklist after an IP change with
the reason that I have to provide an imprint on that machine.
Have I missed something? Is this how it is done now?
I have been running mail servers
32 matches
Mail list logo
