Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?

[Matt Corallo via mailop]

On 8/12/22 6:03 PM, Simon Arlott via mailop wrote:
-snip-

Ideally random outgoing address selection across all IP address
families should be used to avoid this but Exim can't do that.


Sure it can, set your router to include
ipv4_prefer = ${randint:2}
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?

[Michael Peddemors via mailop]

We "can" limit it the RFC's, and the companies that fail that otherwise 
would pass, should clean up those records..


But mainly for the opposite way you expect.. we don't 'fail' to process 
those, they simply are treated as too weak to be reliable.


SPF can help the reputation of the sender, but only if they use it 
correctly.. if it isn't correct, then well we kind of have to accept it 
from anywhere, so if one of their customers gets 'phished', it is on them.


But we do have to educate don't we? If they don't know it's bad, will 
they fix it? Many times we are the 'first' company that lets someone 
know they have bad KSF records..


Be nice if the DNS resolvers would test it like they do all other 
configs, before allowing it to be used..


But the really scary part, given the size of some clouds, is that 
allowing ALL the IPs in the clouds SPF record, means any malware or 
miscreant on the same cloud can impersonate them.


On 2022-08-15 19:59, Brandon Long wrote:
I mean, you can either limit it to the limits in the RFC and fail a 
bunch of things that would otherwise pass, or
acknowledge that those limits are much smaller than practical given the 
proliferation of third party senders

that are used by companies.

Especially since some larger companies will not break the limit 
themselves, but make it much harder for
their users to stay within the limits (ugh, yeah, that's workspace 
customers).


Brandon

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 10:59 AM Michael Peddemors via mailop 
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:


Addendum: It's amazing how many billion dollar companies can't even get
SPF right.. Pop Quiz.. how many recursive DNS queries are supposed
to be
in SPF max?

On 2022-08-12 10:24, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
 > And frankly, for most people it is the easiest solution.
 >
 > So many time we tell people, turn off IPv6 and all their problems go
 > away, but asking them to set up all the extra layers such as SPF,
DKIM
 > etc, and to do it right.. well.. in practice, people have better
things
 > to do..
 >
 > We of course still say:
 >
 > * Sane PTR, only a single one unless you are forced to have two
(small
 > subnet DNS responsibility)
 > * Only a couple of A records, keep the list small (UDP vs retry
to TCP0
 > * Implement a sane SPF record (Amazing how many people have
trouble with
 > this, or simply add everyone.. if you include all of google,
amazon, and
 > microsoft, why bother having an SPF record ;)
 > * Turn off ipv6 for MTA->MTA mail. (I know the IPv6 evangelists
scream
 > when I say this, but email operators just want it to work) Slowly we
 > work towards first MTU->MTA over IPv6, I think we will see
IPv4->IPv4
 > for server to server communication for some time yet.
 >
 > Let's not try to make it too difficult for the little guys, we
should be
 > encouraging more people operating email servers, not making it so
 > difficult that they throw their hands in the air, and move to Gmail..
 > (of course, that might be the plan all along ;)
 >
 > On 2022-08-12 09:47, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
 >> Hey Jesse,
 >>
 >> This is sort of controversial and you'll get some people saying very
 >> vehemently that you should never do this ever, for various
reasons of
 >> interoperability or strong opinions about how the internet
works. But
 >> instead, here's my take from an operational perspective...
 >>
 >> I personally would keep forcing mail to Gmail over IPv4, and I do
 >> indeed do this on my own hobbyist systems. Every time I spin up
a new
 >> VPS and forget this, I notice it rather quickly because of bouncing
 >> mail. Not only are they quicker to block IPv6 mail overall (IMHO),
 >> they also are more likely to block IPv6 mail from IPs without rDNS,
 >> and mail that lacks either SPF or DKIM authentication. Their filters
 >> are evolving and it feels as though their IPv4 blocking is
catching up
 >> a bit -- more likely to block unauthenticated IPv4 mail today
versus a
 >> year or two ago, but that doesn't really mean it suddenly became
 >> easier to send over IPv6.
 >>
 >> I blogged about this a couple year ago - nothing you don't already
 >> know, really -
 >>

https://www.spamresource.com/2020/11/honestly-dont-send-to-gmail-over-ipv6.html



 >>
 >> - but recently that article got linked to on Reddit and a bunch of
 >> nerds made noise that I don't know what I'm talking about and that
 >> they can get mail to Gmail over IPv6 just fine. So, YMMV. (My
point is
 >> that it's not impossible, but it is annoying and that it has
exacting,
 >> but unclear requirements.)
 >>
 >> Cheers,
 >> Al Iverson
 >>
   

Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?

[Brandon Long via mailop]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:15 PM Simon Arlott via mailop 
wrote:

> On 12/08/2022 17:22, Jesse Hathaway via mailop wrote:
> > Back in 2013[1] we changed our mail config to force MX lookups for gmail
> > to only use IPv4 addresses.  We made these change after hearing reports
> > of higher spam scoring when sending mail via IPv6. Would anyone from
> > Google be able to comment as to whether forcing IPv4 is still needed?
> > Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway
>
> My experience in the past is that because Google insist on a successful
> matching reverse DNS lookup for IPv6, it will randomly permanently
> reject email for a temporary error. It looks like Google are now doing
> this for IPv4 too but I don't know if they've fixed it to handle
> temporary DNS errors properly.
>
> The other general problem is that your server's reputation will probably
> be different for each address and suddenly swap between IPv6 and IPv4 on
> a retry. Ideally random outgoing address selection across all IP address
> families should be used to avoid this but Exim can't do that.
>

While we try to do the right thing with DNS temp failures, it can be
challenging to differentiate
sometimes.  We would also need to propagate a dns temp failure into an
spf/etc temp failure
and then potentially have different spam rejects based on whether a
specific spam rule depended
on those features... but that's not really how the spam system works.

And yes, while we started with stricter auth requirements for IPv6, that's
coming for IPv4 incrementally.
That said, fundamentally an IPv6 address is different from an IPv4 one,
which means different netblocks as
well, and different reputations.  Unless you split your mail evenly between
them, and had the same mail stream
evenly split across the entire netblock... and ASN... you wouldn't have
identical spam results.

Brandon
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?

[Brandon Long via mailop]

I mean, you can either limit it to the limits in the RFC and fail a bunch
of things that would otherwise pass, or
acknowledge that those limits are much smaller than practical given the
proliferation of third party senders
that are used by companies.

Especially since some larger companies will not break the limit themselves,
but make it much harder for
their users to stay within the limits (ugh, yeah, that's workspace
customers).

Brandon

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 10:59 AM Michael Peddemors via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:

> Addendum: It's amazing how many billion dollar companies can't even get
> SPF right.. Pop Quiz.. how many recursive DNS queries are supposed to be
> in SPF max?
>
> On 2022-08-12 10:24, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> > And frankly, for most people it is the easiest solution.
> >
> > So many time we tell people, turn off IPv6 and all their problems go
> > away, but asking them to set up all the extra layers such as SPF, DKIM
> > etc, and to do it right.. well.. in practice, people have better things
> > to do..
> >
> > We of course still say:
> >
> > * Sane PTR, only a single one unless you are forced to have two (small
> > subnet DNS responsibility)
> > * Only a couple of A records, keep the list small (UDP vs retry to TCP0
> > * Implement a sane SPF record (Amazing how many people have trouble with
> > this, or simply add everyone.. if you include all of google, amazon, and
> > microsoft, why bother having an SPF record ;)
> > * Turn off ipv6 for MTA->MTA mail. (I know the IPv6 evangelists scream
> > when I say this, but email operators just want it to work) Slowly we
> > work towards first MTU->MTA over IPv6, I think we will see IPv4->IPv4
> > for server to server communication for some time yet.
> >
> > Let's not try to make it too difficult for the little guys, we should be
> > encouraging more people operating email servers, not making it so
> > difficult that they throw their hands in the air, and move to Gmail..
> > (of course, that might be the plan all along ;)
> >
> > On 2022-08-12 09:47, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
> >> Hey Jesse,
> >>
> >> This is sort of controversial and you'll get some people saying very
> >> vehemently that you should never do this ever, for various reasons of
> >> interoperability or strong opinions about how the internet works. But
> >> instead, here's my take from an operational perspective...
> >>
> >> I personally would keep forcing mail to Gmail over IPv4, and I do
> >> indeed do this on my own hobbyist systems. Every time I spin up a new
> >> VPS and forget this, I notice it rather quickly because of bouncing
> >> mail. Not only are they quicker to block IPv6 mail overall (IMHO),
> >> they also are more likely to block IPv6 mail from IPs without rDNS,
> >> and mail that lacks either SPF or DKIM authentication. Their filters
> >> are evolving and it feels as though their IPv4 blocking is catching up
> >> a bit -- more likely to block unauthenticated IPv4 mail today versus a
> >> year or two ago, but that doesn't really mean it suddenly became
> >> easier to send over IPv6.
> >>
> >> I blogged about this a couple year ago - nothing you don't already
> >> know, really -
> >>
> https://www.spamresource.com/2020/11/honestly-dont-send-to-gmail-over-ipv6.html
> >>
> >> - but recently that article got linked to on Reddit and a bunch of
> >> nerds made noise that I don't know what I'm talking about and that
> >> they can get mail to Gmail over IPv6 just fine. So, YMMV. (My point is
> >> that it's not impossible, but it is annoying and that it has exacting,
> >> but unclear requirements.)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Al Iverson
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 11:26 AM Jesse Hathaway via mailop
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Back in 2013[1] we changed our mail config to force MX lookups for
> gmail
> >>> to only use IPv4 addresses.  We made these change after hearing reports
> >>> of higher spam scoring when sending mail via IPv6. Would anyone from
> >>> Google be able to comment as to whether forcing IPv4 is still needed?
> >>> Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/79753
> >>> ___
> >>> mailop mailing list
> >>> mailop@mailop.org
> >>> https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
> 
> Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
> Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
> A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
> "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
> 
> 604-682-0300 <(604)%20682-0300> Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
>
> This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are 

Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?

[Jesse Hathaway via mailop]

Thanks everyone for the advice. For the immediate future I am going to
continue to send to Gmail only over IPv4. After I have some confidence
that I have checked all the boxes for our IPv6 IPs I will do some
experimental sending to Gmail from those IPs. If I can achieve reliable
delivery I will consider removing the IPv4 only config.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?

[Simon Arlott via mailop]

On 12/08/2022 17:22, Jesse Hathaway via mailop wrote:
> Back in 2013[1] we changed our mail config to force MX lookups for gmail
> to only use IPv4 addresses.  We made these change after hearing reports
> of higher spam scoring when sending mail via IPv6. Would anyone from
> Google be able to comment as to whether forcing IPv4 is still needed?
> Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway

My experience in the past is that because Google insist on a successful
matching reverse DNS lookup for IPv6, it will randomly permanently
reject email for a temporary error. It looks like Google are now doing
this for IPv4 too but I don't know if they've fixed it to handle
temporary DNS errors properly.

The other general problem is that your server's reputation will probably
be different for each address and suddenly swap between IPv6 and IPv4 on
a retry. Ideally random outgoing address selection across all IP address
families should be used to avoid this but Exim can't do that.

-- 
Simon Arlott
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?

[Slavko via mailop]

Hi,

Dňa 12. augusta 2022 17:24:51 UTC používateľ Michael Peddemors via mailop 
 napísal:

>* Turn off ipv6 for MTA->MTA mail. (I know the IPv6 evangelists scream when I 
>say this, but email operators just want it to work) Slowly we work towards 
>first MTU->MTA over IPv6, I think we will see IPv4->IPv4 for server to server 
>communication for some time yet.

Interesting, all mails from (and to) google (as it is in question) are coming
via IPv6 to my MTA. The same eg. for mailop and other IPv6 aware sites...

regards

Slavko
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?

[Michael Peddemors via mailop]

Addendum: It's amazing how many billion dollar companies can't even get 
SPF right.. Pop Quiz.. how many recursive DNS queries are supposed to be 
in SPF max?


On 2022-08-12 10:24, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:

And frankly, for most people it is the easiest solution.

So many time we tell people, turn off IPv6 and all their problems go 
away, but asking them to set up all the extra layers such as SPF, DKIM 
etc, and to do it right.. well.. in practice, people have better things 
to do..


We of course still say:

* Sane PTR, only a single one unless you are forced to have two (small 
subnet DNS responsibility)

* Only a couple of A records, keep the list small (UDP vs retry to TCP0
* Implement a sane SPF record (Amazing how many people have trouble with 
this, or simply add everyone.. if you include all of google, amazon, and 
microsoft, why bother having an SPF record ;)
* Turn off ipv6 for MTA->MTA mail. (I know the IPv6 evangelists scream 
when I say this, but email operators just want it to work) Slowly we 
work towards first MTU->MTA over IPv6, I think we will see IPv4->IPv4 
for server to server communication for some time yet.


Let's not try to make it too difficult for the little guys, we should be 
encouraging more people operating email servers, not making it so 
difficult that they throw their hands in the air, and move to Gmail..

(of course, that might be the plan all along ;)

On 2022-08-12 09:47, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:

Hey Jesse,

This is sort of controversial and you'll get some people saying very
vehemently that you should never do this ever, for various reasons of
interoperability or strong opinions about how the internet works. But
instead, here's my take from an operational perspective...

I personally would keep forcing mail to Gmail over IPv4, and I do
indeed do this on my own hobbyist systems. Every time I spin up a new
VPS and forget this, I notice it rather quickly because of bouncing
mail. Not only are they quicker to block IPv6 mail overall (IMHO),
they also are more likely to block IPv6 mail from IPs without rDNS,
and mail that lacks either SPF or DKIM authentication. Their filters
are evolving and it feels as though their IPv4 blocking is catching up
a bit -- more likely to block unauthenticated IPv4 mail today versus a
year or two ago, but that doesn't really mean it suddenly became
easier to send over IPv6.

I blogged about this a couple year ago - nothing you don't already
know, really - 
https://www.spamresource.com/2020/11/honestly-dont-send-to-gmail-over-ipv6.html 


- but recently that article got linked to on Reddit and a bunch of
nerds made noise that I don't know what I'm talking about and that
they can get mail to Gmail over IPv6 just fine. So, YMMV. (My point is
that it's not impossible, but it is annoying and that it has exacting,
but unclear requirements.)

Cheers,
Al Iverson

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 11:26 AM Jesse Hathaway via mailop
 wrote:


Back in 2013[1] we changed our mail config to force MX lookups for gmail
to only use IPv4 addresses.  We made these change after hearing reports
of higher spam scoring when sending mail via IPv6. Would anyone from
Google be able to comment as to whether forcing IPv4 is still needed?
Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway


[1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/79753
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop












--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."

Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.

604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?

[Michael Peddemors via mailop]

And frankly, for most people it is the easiest solution.

So many time we tell people, turn off IPv6 and all their problems go 
away, but asking them to set up all the extra layers such as SPF, DKIM 
etc, and to do it right.. well.. in practice, people have better things 
to do..


We of course still say:

* Sane PTR, only a single one unless you are forced to have two (small 
subnet DNS responsibility)

* Only a couple of A records, keep the list small (UDP vs retry to TCP0
* Implement a sane SPF record (Amazing how many people have trouble with 
this, or simply add everyone.. if you include all of google, amazon, and 
microsoft, why bother having an SPF record ;)
* Turn off ipv6 for MTA->MTA mail. (I know the IPv6 evangelists scream 
when I say this, but email operators just want it to work) Slowly we 
work towards first MTU->MTA over IPv6, I think we will see IPv4->IPv4 
for server to server communication for some time yet.


Let's not try to make it too difficult for the little guys, we should be 
encouraging more people operating email servers, not making it so 
difficult that they throw their hands in the air, and move to Gmail..

(of course, that might be the plan all along ;)

On 2022-08-12 09:47, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:

Hey Jesse,

This is sort of controversial and you'll get some people saying very
vehemently that you should never do this ever, for various reasons of
interoperability or strong opinions about how the internet works. But
instead, here's my take from an operational perspective...

I personally would keep forcing mail to Gmail over IPv4, and I do
indeed do this on my own hobbyist systems. Every time I spin up a new
VPS and forget this, I notice it rather quickly because of bouncing
mail. Not only are they quicker to block IPv6 mail overall (IMHO),
they also are more likely to block IPv6 mail from IPs without rDNS,
and mail that lacks either SPF or DKIM authentication. Their filters
are evolving and it feels as though their IPv4 blocking is catching up
a bit -- more likely to block unauthenticated IPv4 mail today versus a
year or two ago, but that doesn't really mean it suddenly became
easier to send over IPv6.

I blogged about this a couple year ago - nothing you don't already
know, really - 
https://www.spamresource.com/2020/11/honestly-dont-send-to-gmail-over-ipv6.html
- but recently that article got linked to on Reddit and a bunch of
nerds made noise that I don't know what I'm talking about and that
they can get mail to Gmail over IPv6 just fine. So, YMMV. (My point is
that it's not impossible, but it is annoying and that it has exacting,
but unclear requirements.)

Cheers,
Al Iverson

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 11:26 AM Jesse Hathaway via mailop
 wrote:


Back in 2013[1] we changed our mail config to force MX lookups for gmail
to only use IPv4 addresses.  We made these change after hearing reports
of higher spam scoring when sending mail via IPv6. Would anyone from
Google be able to comment as to whether forcing IPv4 is still needed?
Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway


[1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/79753
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop








--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."

Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.

604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?

[Al Iverson via mailop]

Hey Jesse,

This is sort of controversial and you'll get some people saying very
vehemently that you should never do this ever, for various reasons of
interoperability or strong opinions about how the internet works. But
instead, here's my take from an operational perspective...

I personally would keep forcing mail to Gmail over IPv4, and I do
indeed do this on my own hobbyist systems. Every time I spin up a new
VPS and forget this, I notice it rather quickly because of bouncing
mail. Not only are they quicker to block IPv6 mail overall (IMHO),
they also are more likely to block IPv6 mail from IPs without rDNS,
and mail that lacks either SPF or DKIM authentication. Their filters
are evolving and it feels as though their IPv4 blocking is catching up
a bit -- more likely to block unauthenticated IPv4 mail today versus a
year or two ago, but that doesn't really mean it suddenly became
easier to send over IPv6.

I blogged about this a couple year ago - nothing you don't already
know, really - 
https://www.spamresource.com/2020/11/honestly-dont-send-to-gmail-over-ipv6.html
- but recently that article got linked to on Reddit and a bunch of
nerds made noise that I don't know what I'm talking about and that
they can get mail to Gmail over IPv6 just fine. So, YMMV. (My point is
that it's not impossible, but it is annoying and that it has exacting,
but unclear requirements.)

Cheers,
Al Iverson

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 11:26 AM Jesse Hathaway via mailop
 wrote:
>
> Back in 2013[1] we changed our mail config to force MX lookups for gmail
> to only use IPv4 addresses.  We made these change after hearing reports
> of higher spam scoring when sending mail via IPv6. Would anyone from
> Google be able to comment as to whether forcing IPv4 is still needed?
> Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway
>
>
> [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/79753
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop



-- 

Al Iverson / Deliverability blogging at www.spamresource.com
Subscribe to the weekly newsletter at wombatmail.com/sr.cgi
DNS Tools at xnnd.com / (312) 725-0130 / Chicago (Central Time)
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?

[Jesse Hathaway via mailop]

Back in 2013[1] we changed our mail config to force MX lookups for gmail
to only use IPv4 addresses.  We made these change after hearing reports
of higher spam scoring when sending mail via IPv6. Would anyone from
Google be able to comment as to whether forcing IPv4 is still needed?
Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway


[1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/79753
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] gmail SPAM reporting works fine

[Jarland Donnell via mailop]

With the newsletter bombs my inbox has been getting, and me reporting 
every single one through spamcop, I submit that I've broken things. I 
even bought the "fuel" to bypass the delays.


On 2021-09-18 10:07, Andy Smith via mailop wrote:

Hello,

On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 12:16:29AM -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote:
It appears that Michael Butler via mailop  
said:

>It looks like google is no longer accepting spam reports; all my spamcop
>submissions now fail with something like this in the log ..

I send lots of abuse reports to Google, most recently an hour ago. and 
as far as I can tell

they accept them all.


When using spamcop the last couple of weeks, the web front end has
been reporting a temporary failure in sending reports (to everyone
as far as I can see) perhaps 10% of the time. Could be there is a
problem on sapmcop's side?

Cheers,
Andy
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] gmail SPAM reporting works fine

[Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop]

There definitely is a performance/reliability issue. It doesn't only affect 
the we fron end but also SMTP based submission where 45x type errors don't 
really matter.


Cheers,
Hans-Martin

Am 18. September 2021 17:40:48 schrieb Andy Smith via mailop 
:



Hello,

On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 12:16:29AM -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote:

It appears that Michael Butler via mailop  said:
>It looks like google is no longer accepting spam reports; all my spamcop
>submissions now fail with something like this in the log ..

I send lots of abuse reports to Google, most recently an hour ago. and as 
far as I can tell

they accept them all.


When using spamcop the last couple of weeks, the web front end has
been reporting a temporary failure in sending reports (to everyone
as far as I can see) perhaps 10% of the time. Could be there is a
problem on sapmcop's side?

Cheers,
Andy
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] gmail SPAM reporting works fine

[Andy Smith via mailop]

Hello,

On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 12:16:29AM -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> It appears that Michael Butler via mailop  said:
> >It looks like google is no longer accepting spam reports; all my spamcop 
> >submissions now fail with something like this in the log ..
> 
> I send lots of abuse reports to Google, most recently an hour ago. and as far 
> as I can tell
> they accept them all.

When using spamcop the last couple of weeks, the web front end has
been reporting a temporary failure in sending reports (to everyone
as far as I can see) perhaps 10% of the time. Could be there is a
problem on sapmcop's side?

Cheers,
Andy
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] gmail SPAM reporting works fine

[John Levine via mailop]

It appears that Michael Butler via mailop  said:
>It looks like google is no longer accepting spam reports; all my spamcop 
>submissions now fail with something like this in the log ..

I send lots of abuse reports to Google, most recently an hour ago. and as far 
as I can tell
they accept them all.

Perhaps this is more about the reports that Spamcop sends than about Google.

R's,
John
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] gmail SPAM reporting now fails

[Michael Butler via mailop]

It looks like google is no longer accepting spam reports; all my spamcop 
submissions now fail with something like this in the log ..


Tracking message source: 2a00:1450:4864:20:0:0:0:144:
Routing details for 2a00:1450:4864:20:0:0:0:144
ab...@google.com bounces (25774 sent : 13245 bounces) <--
Using abuse#google@devnull.spamcop.net for statistical tracking.

imb



___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] Gmail SPAM

[Ross Gay]

HI All,

Just wondering if anyone from Google mail is on list. Having issues with some 
domains ending up in SPAM on for any receipts that use Gmail or Gsuite mail. 
After days of talking with google technical support going through the normal 
channels and passing all the basic tests they asked for, they are unable to 
provide a reason why its ending up in SPAM. The official final solution from 
support was to get recipients to click "not Spam" and hope that they system 
stops classifying the emails as spam.

Cheers,
Ross


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