Re: [mailop] Anyone using clustered DoveCot?

Hi Tom, I'm running some cluster with Dovecot (Load balancer + Director + Dovecot backend) with NFS storage on NetApp. About email on object storage I've only heard nightmares :-) I will happy to talk with you Il 22/01/21 23:36, Tom Perrine via mailop ha scritto: I’d be interested in

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Sendgrid again...

Dnia 22.01.2021 o godz. 10:06:19 Marcel Becker via mailop pisze: > > I agree. I was merely responding to the notion that anything email is all > equal (it's a common misconception). Well, I may be old-fashioned and you may not agree with me, but I would say even more: Any company whose core

[mailop] Anyone using clustered DoveCot?

I’d be interested in chatting with anyone who has rolled out (or failed to rollout!) Dovecot in a cluster. Especially if you’re using an object store. Tom ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

* ml+mailop--- via mailop : > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021, Benot Panizzon via mailop wrote: > > > Now Assume two recipients with different Anti-Spam Settings: > ... > > That's what PRDR is for, but it isn't supported by many MTAs > or setups :-( The only reference to PRDR I could find, is an expired

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021, Benot Panizzon via mailop wrote: > Now Assume two recipients with different Anti-Spam Settings: ... That's what PRDR is for, but it isn't supported by many MTAs or setups :-( ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org

Re: [mailop] PRDR (was: Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?)

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021, Patrick Ben Koetter via mailop wrote: > The only reference to PRDR I could find, is an expired RFC draft. Is that what > you are referring to? Yes. Something like this: Eric A. Hall. Smtp service extension for per-recipient data responses (prdr). Draft, Internet

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On 22/01/2021 07:24, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: What I observed is that EXIM keeps on trying every recipient even after receiving 452 which signals that we reached the maximum recipients. So there would be no point in EXIM trying all remaining recipients after hitting the first such

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 08:24:24AM +0100, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: > Hi Paul and Gang > > I have been testing with our Exim and Postfix. > > Everything works as expected. If Postfix rejects a recipient with 452 > Exim is immediately re-sending that recipient with a new SMTP session. >

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: Thank you about the hint to RFC5321 (draft standard) Yes indeed we violate this RFC. I was not aware of that. But this RFC also breaks established spam filtering techniques by stating an MTA must accept at least 100 recipients. I guess

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid again...

Am 22.01.21 um 15:22 schrieb Andrew C Aitchison via mailop: > > Are you sure that it was Sendgrid that blocked the message ? > Looks to me as if ab...@sendgrid.com is hosted at gmail and > it was *gmail* that objected to the content ... > > Or am I misunderstanding something ? No, of course

Re: [mailop] [External] Sendgrid again...

On 1/22/2021 9:08 AM, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: Well I'm not complaining about the spam from them - it's a steady flow, nothing new. But it looks like they have filters on their abuse box now to reduce the amount of abuse reports: Of course, that would be my next step in their

[mailop] Sendgrid again...

Well I'm not complaining about the spam from them - it's a steady flow, nothing new. But it looks like they have filters on their abuse box now to reduce the amount of abuse reports: The original message was received at Fri, 22 Jan 2021 05:45:50 -0800 from m0099904.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid again...

> On 22 Jan 2021, at 14:38, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop > wrote: > > Am 22.01.21 um 15:22 schrieb Andrew C Aitchison via mailop: >> >> Are you sure that it was Sendgrid that blocked the message ? >> Looks to me as if ab...@sendgrid.com is hosted at gmail and >> it was *gmail* that objected

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid again...

> On 22 Jan 2021, at 14:08, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop > wrote: > > Well I'm not complaining about the spam from them - it's a steady flow, > nothing new. > > But it looks like they have filters on their abuse box now to reduce the > amount of abuse reports: > > The original message

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid again...

Are you sure that it was Sendgrid that blocked the message ? Looks to me as if ab...@sendgrid.com is hosted at gmail and it was *gmail* that objected to the content ... Or am I misunderstanding something ? No, of course you're right. But forwarding an abuse address that is somewhat

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid again...

Dnia 22.01.2021 o godz. 14:48:03 Gregory Heytings via mailop pisze: > > Actually Sendgrid uses a double filtering: the first line of the > error report you got ("The original message was received at Fri, 22 > Jan 2021 05:45:50 -0800 from m0099904.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]") means > that the mail has

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid again...

Are you sure that it was Sendgrid that blocked the message ? Looks to me as if ab...@sendgrid.com is hosted at gmail and it was *gmail* that objected to the content ... Or am I misunderstanding something ? On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: Well I'm not complaining

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid again...

One year anniversary of phishing from SendGrid/Twilio... And the problem is SO easy to fix On 2021-01-22 6:08 a.m., Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: Well I'm not complaining about the spam from them - it's a steady flow, nothing new. But it looks like they have filters on their abuse

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid again...

Dnia 22.01.2021 o godz. 15:08:13 Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop pisze: >- Transcript of session follows - > ... while talking to aspmx.l.google.com.: > >>> DATA > <<< 552-5.7.0 This message was blocked because its content presents a > potential > <<< 552-5.7.0 security issue. Please

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Sendgrid again...

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 7:11 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > > Strange that Sendgrid, being an email company, does not even self-host it's > company email, but resorts to Google for this. Doesn't look very > professional... > Bulk mail, email marketing, consumer email, enterprise email.

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Sendgrid again...

> On 22 Jan 2021, at 16:16, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 7:11 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop > wrote: > > Strange that Sendgrid, being an email company, does not even self-host it's > company email, but resorts to Google for this. Doesn't

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Sendgrid again...

Bulk mail, email marketing, consumer email, enterprise email. Those are all different businesses. Just because a company does one thing doesn't mean it should be doing (or be good at) the other.  That's correct, but in that case what Sendgrid should do is to use a specific subdomain for

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Sendgrid again...

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:54 AM Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote: > That's correct, but in that case what Sendgrid should do is to use a > specific subdomain for abuse reports, e.g. use ab...@abuse.sendgrid.com > instead of ab...@sendgrid.com, and run their own mailserver on >

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Sendgrid again...

> On 22 Jan 2021, at 18:04, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:54 AM Gregory Heytings via mailop > wrote: > >> That's correct, but in that case what Sendgrid should do is to use a >> specific subdomain for abuse reports, e.g. use ab...@abuse.sendgrid.com >> instead

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

On Thu 21/Jan/2021 16:24:03 +0100 Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: On 2021-01-21 6:03 a.m., Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: It's never been about the $$, it's always been about identifying the responsible party. Which is why I am always surprised, that some providers choose NOT to offer

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Sendgrid again...

Am 22.01.21 um 17:16 schrieb Marcel Becker via mailop: > > > Bulk mail, email marketing, consumer email, enterprise email. Those are all > different businesses. Just because a > company does one thing doesn't mean it should be doing (or be good at) the > other.  True, but... If a company is

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

On Thu 21/Jan/2021 19:09:04 +0100 Graeme Fowler via mailop wrote: [Admin note] Unless you are a representative of UCEPROTECT, or you have something to actually add to the discussion rather than endlessly nitting on statistics etc, please refrain from continuing this thread. Jim has been on

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Sendgrid again...

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:02 AM Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > If a company is active in some business area, it should be competent in > handling the risks associated with that area. A small business does not > need to run an abuse desk, even though their e-mail

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

I've been a steady user of UCEPROTECT for years now. I use their levels 1, 2, and 3 with postscreen rankings along side other popular RBLs. On my systems a UCEPROTECT level 3 rating will reject, unless the IP is listed in ips.whitelisted.org. IOW, on your systems any mail coming from

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 19:12 +0100, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: > On Thu 21/Jan/2021 19:09:04 +0100 Graeme Fowler via mailop wrote: > > [Admin note] > > > > Unless you are a representative of UCEPROTECT, or you have something to > >

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Sendgrid again...

On 1/22/21 10:51 AM, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote: That's correct, but in that case what Sendgrid should do is to use a specific subdomain for abuse reports, e.g. use ab...@abuse.sendgrid.com instead of ab...@sendgrid.com, and run their own mailserver on abuse.sendgrid.com.  If two other

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Note: Last post by me on this thread Graeme. On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 20:45 +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote: > At the time we were discussing this 24 hours ago, there were about ~2400 > IPs in their network that were flagged. This number