On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Michael Wise via mailop
wrote:
>
> At least a Mailing List is in a position to rewrite the headers so that SPF
> works when it sends the traffic out.
>
Yep, but only those managed by ppl who know how to keep things
updated, patched, etc. Lots of bad managed mai
Is there someone from Yahoo! who can provide some insight into why
there is always 1 SPF lookup failure in your DMARC reports.
http://domainmail.org/reports/yahoo.com!netcoolusers.org!1506556800!1506643199.xml
http://domainmail.org/reports/yahoo.com!netcoolusers.org!1506988800!1507075199.xml
htt
On Oct 27, 2017 11:42, "Jim Popovitch" wrote:
Is there someone from Yahoo! who can provide some insight into why
there is always 1 SPF lookup failure in your DMARC reports.
http://domainmail.org/reports/yahoo.com!netcoolusers.org!150
6556800!1506643199.xml
http://domainmail.o
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop
wrote:
>
> In fact, you should not use "-all" for your mail domain if you care
> about deliverability.
FALSE! (Also, you should not randomly add CC recipients to the same
mailinglist that you are responding to)
Aside from a few HUGE
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Bill Cole
wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2017, at 14:01 (-0500), Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
>> Aside from a few HUGE providers, those with very large and disparate
>> networks/offices/topology
>
>
> SPF isn't related to the complexity of a net
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Tara Natanson wrote:
>
> I think this is what most people outsource to companies like RP and
> 250ok.com, seed list monitoring?
>
> Seems like a hefty thing to build yourself when its been done and automated
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Carl Byington wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 10:13 -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
>> Anyone else seeing the same thing?
>
> Same here.
>
> delay=00:31:30, xdelay=00:00:02, mailer=esmtp, pri=215046,
> relay=mta6.am0.yaho
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Marc Perkel
wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> I'm having problem with Microsoft too. It's just plain weird. Sometimes it
> takes 6 hours to deliver an email. And I can't quite understand what is
> happening.
>
> I'm in the front end spam filtering business. Email comes to me
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Laura Atkins wrote:
>>
>> I'm seeing it for confirmed-opt-in list subscribers using
>> hotmail/live/outlook addrs.
>>
>> And the beauty is I'm getting mailbombed by MS about 1918 addrs:
>>
>>From: st...@hotmail.com
>>To: postmas...@domainmail.org
>>Subje
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> In general, I'd be surprised if we spam folder mailop, though given it's a
> mailing list and several of the participants have dmarc p=reject or
> p=quaruntine enabled and the list isn't set up to handle that, not really
> surprised.
>
> Brando
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Laura Atkins wrote:
>
>> On Sep 3, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>>> In general, I'd be surprised if we spam folder mailop, though given it's a
>>
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> or Google...
>
Guess what, Google allows their DMARC'ed domain to send to GMail users
via 3rd party systems (i.e. mailop), so I do get Brandon's emails to
various lists. It's odd, from my perspective, to say the least.
:-)
-Jim P.
___
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> There's magic sauce to try and split hairs, and it's not perfect.
Yep, that is why I mentioned it. Let me ask: does your company split
hairs because the spec is possibly flawed, or is this a case of bad
implementation? I only ask because I
On Thu, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>>> There's magic sauce to try and split hairs, and it's not perfect.
>>
>> Yep, tha
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Franck Martin
>> wrote:
>
>
> You know you are there, when they impersonate you
But if you didn't poi
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
> I thought I would post the following, to make sure everyone is aware and
> getting prepared.
>
> https://dmarc.org/2015/10/global-mailbox-providers-deploying-dmarc-to-protect-users/
>
> Yahoo Expanding Use of Strict DMARC Policies
> Enabling
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> +arc-discuss
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>>
>> This has a feeling of "cart before the horse". :-) Mailman, and
>> presumably other list mangers, now
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Renaud Allard wrote:
> So maybe all of this *** stuff is not so bad if it brings more verifications
> which can be used to restore reliability of email delivery.
We're going on at least 15 years now of people making that similar
statement. :-)
-Jim P.
_
Dear IBM,
Please fix your SPF record. It's 2016, you can't honestly expect
people to accept email from peo...@us.ibm.com when the sending host is
smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com
-Jim P.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.o
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 5:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>Please fix your SPF record. It's 2016, you can't honestly expect
>>people to accept email from peo...@us.ibm.com when the sending host is
>> smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com
>
> The SPF record ends with ~all so why not?
Because it triggers SPF_SOF
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 5:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>Please fix your SPF record. It's 2016, you can't honestly expect
>>>people to accept email from peo...@us.ibm.com when the sending host is
>>> sm
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Al Iverson wrote:
> IMHO, Mailman should strip the existing DKIM header and Mailop.org should
> sign anew.
Yes! That is the perfect and proper way, despite some rants by less
experienced mailinglist operators.
Mailman has a REMOVE_DKIM_HEADERS setting in mm_cf
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> IMHO, Mailman should strip the existing DKIM header and Mailop.org should
>>> sign anew.
>>
>>Yes! That is the perfect and proper way, despite some rants by less
>>experienced mailinglist operators.
>
> Hi. I've been running mailing lists
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Rob Heilman wrote:
> pitt-edu.mail.protection.outlook.com
I haven't been following this discussion, but for the purpose of
providing some historical perspective... pitt.edu seemed to have
signed their DNS two weekends ago, and upmc.edu signed their DNS last
weeke
Hello,
Why am I seeing a hostname as the reply for an ADSP lookup?
~$ dig TXT _adsp._domainkey.live.com
rds.live.com.nsatc.net.
Shouldn't I be seeing something like this:
~$ dig TXT _adsp._domainkey.domainmail.org
"dkim=unknown"
-Jim P.
___
mailop
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>> On May 2, 2016, at 7:27 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Why am I seeing a hostname as the reply for an ADSP lookup?
>>
>> ~$ dig TXT _adsp._domainkey.live.com
>> rds.li
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>> On May 20, 2016, at 1:01 PM, Michael Rathbun wrote:
>>
>> A client who is more on top of things than the average has noticed some
>> mailings to him that have two DKIM signatures, and wondered whether there was
>> some advantage to that.
>
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>> >
>> > DKIM is designed to support multiple signatures. There are many
>> &g
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Kurt Andersen (b)
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>> >>
&g
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Michael Rathbun wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2016 17:00:37 -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
>>Give me a (real world) example of how 2 DKIM sigs will be in the same
>>email msg and both sigs will verify.
>
> Here are two:
>
>>Auth
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>> On May 21, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Michael Rathbun wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 May 2016 17:00:37 -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>>
>>>>
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>> On May 21, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 21, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>>>
>&g
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> We saw a few messages backed up with our email server logging these items:
> Site yahoo.com (63.250.192.46) said in response to MAIL FROM (451
> 4.3.2 Internal error reading data)
> Site yahoo.com (98.136.216.25) said after data
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>>
>>> Some explanation for my deep curiosity Mailman (which I hack on
&g
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Robert Hong wrote:
>
> Our sincere apologies. We've unsubscribed from the list with the address
> which is connected to our ticketing system while we investigate the matter.
> I suspect an update has been made recently by our supplier...
I can't be alone in wonder
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
>
> 163 is an email provider that I doubt provides dynamic IP space of any sort.
> And as Junping says, 700 million mailboxes. Well north of 30 million, like
> I said :)
Where does 123.com fit into all this? http://paste.debian.ne
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Peter Bowen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 163 is an email provider that I doubt provides dynamic IP space of any s
Hello!
If Mailman (and other MLMs) would provide some header data that listed
msg modifications (i.e. pre-pended subject with 6 chars, post-pended
body with 6 lines, etc), would this be beneficial for anyone to use in
order to reconstruct an original msg and validate the original DKIM
sig (X-Googl
On Aug 30, 2016 05:10, "Neil Schwartzman" wrote:
>
> Users, like all humans, make errors. Are sys admins the sole tranche
immune to such things? Somehow, I doubt it.
>
But what should be done about those who repeat their errors...within 5
months of their last error...
-Jim P.
___
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Brandon Long via mailop
wrote:
> The spam team would love to send all unauthed mail to the spam label or even
> reject it (they call it no auth no entry).
I'd love to see "no auth no entry", but I'd prefer to see native PGP. ;-)
-Jim P.
___
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:12 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>But I'm not sure what native would look like. After Lavabit, would the
>>type of folks who use pgp actually trust our implementation if they
>>couldn't see it and verify it?
>
> In my experience there are two kinds of PGP users. One is the ha
On Oct 13, 2016 07:46, "Stefan Haunß" wrote:
>
> the question is what's behind those domains? i didn't have the time to
> analyze it, yet.
>
Super cheap, and further discounted first-year, registration fees.
-Jim P.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailo
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Eric Tykwinski wrote:
> I'm seeing a lot of session timeouts on connections to
> .ess.barracudanetworks.com servers.
> Just checking to see if it's a known issue...
Same here (domainmail.org). At first it looked like they had SSL
issues (http://paste.debian.ne
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:53 PM, David Sgro, Dataspindle
wrote:
> Check Proofpoint.com to see if you listed
> https://support.proofpoint.com/rbl-lookup.cgi?ip=
It's almost the end of the 2nd decade of the 2nd century that IPv6 has
been in use... I would have thought ProofPoint would be out to pr
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>5. Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use
>>of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name"
>>token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for the designers of those
>>protocols.
>>
>
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Eric Henson wrote:
> Just be aware that using XY will have you labeled as misogynist , XX will
> have you labeled a SJW, and XXX will get you blocked by porn filters.
>
> :-)
Damn the world is complicated. All I was thinking of was Pokémon.
-Jim P.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Derek Diget
wrote:
>
> Anyone else seeing connection issues to AOL? Saturday morning (EST) we
> started getting
>
> 421 mtaig-maa03.mx.aol.com Service unavailable - try again later
>
Yep,
~$ mailq
Queue ID- --Size-- ---Arrival Time --Sender
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Lili Crowley wrote:
> We are working on an issue here that is causing this problem.
I see it as resolved now, Thank you Lili and TeamAOL.
-Jim P.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/c
On Apr 9, 2017 13:07, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." wrote:
This brings up a good point...back in 'the day' folks would report spam on
NANAE; is there a managed, moderated mailing list to report spam, that has
the main ESPs and such on it?
SDLU ?
-Jim P.
On Apr 10, 2017 12:15, "Laura Atkins" wrote:
On Apr 9, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Apr 9, 2017 13:07, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." wrote:
This brings up a good point...back in 'the day' folks would report spam on
NANAE; is there a managed, moderat
On February 8, 2018 1:05:59 AM UTC, Michael Peddemors
wrote:
>Spammers are abusing Google Groups lists of course, and I am sure they
>are working on it, but the issue is with the unsubscribe URL methods..
>Comments at the bottom of the example..
>
I've been reporting this to Google for 4 week
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 09:33 -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> This doesn’t look so good, though:
> http://dnsviz.net/d/mail.mil/dnssec/
but this did:
http://dnsviz.net/d/mail.mil/WsaG2w/dnssec/
and before that there was:
http://dnsviz.net/d/mail.mil/Wusx
On May 3, 2018 5:02:22 PM UTC, Frank Bulk wrote:
>It's all good now -- someone figured it out and fixed it. =)
>
Thank the stars that this month has 31 days, so June is a bit further out
before we have to hear about this again. :-)
-Jim P
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 10:27 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
> there has to be some justified level of "collateral damage" these
> days, due to the very high frequency of hijacked accounts, hijacked
> websites, and spamming ESP customers (from ESP that are o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 17:21 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 16:47, Jim Popovitch via mailop org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 10:27 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
> > > there has to be some justified level
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 17:46 -0400, Vick Khera wrote:
> I'd be curious to know if you are successful. My recollection is they
> just spam you if you are outside of China.
FTFY! ;-)
- -Jim P.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEPxwe8uYBnq
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 00:30 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> And still I'm honestly looking for stats about how many domains are
> really currently sending DMARC reports to senders (I get reports for
> much less than 1% of my recipients: is it what yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Can someone from messagingengine.com/fastmail.com please contact me.
I'm seeing lots of:
4251pv49w5z118G 5091 Wed Sep 5 11:35:35 list-boun...@spammers.dontlike.us
(host in1-smtp.messagingengine.com[66.111.4.73] refused to talk to me:
451 4.7
forwarding him the spam email that triggered the listing. There's a
meme jpg
floating around that I swear is not entirely accurate. ;-)
- -Jim P.
On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 08:05 +1000, Marc Bradshaw via mailop wrote:
> Replied off list.
>
>
> - Original message -
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 09:52 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2018, at 5:44, Frands Bjerring Hansen wrote:
>
> > Noel,
> >
> > LE does not insist on certbot. They recommend it, and why wouldn't
> > they? :)
> >
> > Use acme.sh instead if you
On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 11:31 -0400, Dave Brockman wrote:
> On 10/29/2018 10:40 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
> > You allow nsupdate from your cgi/php/java enabled webserver(s)?
> >
> > -Jim P.
>
> No, the whole point of using acme.sh and the nsupdate module
On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 12:32 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2018, at 10:40, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
>
> > You allow nsupdate from your cgi/php/java enabled webserver(s)?
>
> My **what?*** Are you high? Do you mean to be insulting???
Of course not. I only asked
On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 13:18 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2018, at 12:41, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
>
> > N.B. please don't CC me, I'm subscribed to the list.
>
> I normally wouldn't, but your posts all have this header:
>
> Reply-To: J
On October 31, 2018 3:37:12 PM UTC, Tracy Morgan
wrote:
>Please unsubscribe me.
>
>[id:image001.png@01D36CE4.60810D90]
>
>Tracy Morgan | DIGITAL CAMPAIGN SPECIALIST
>
There is a certain irony in a bulk sender asking for others to intervene and
unsubscribe them.
-Jim P.
_
On December 1, 2018 12:22:21 AM UTC, "Kurt Andersen (b)"
wrote:
>One of about 5 hyphenated *marriott* domains that I have received mail
>from over the last year :-P
>
It's the not unique to Marriott, Prudential does the same..same exact format.
I wonder if all these companies were identified
On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 13:56 +, Mathieu Bourdin wrote:
> Wasnt that the paying "service"? I think remember something like 20$
> for getting delisted for each IP or domain.
Yep, that's $20 per year. The $$ isn't to fund their vacations or
service, the $$ is to validate the responsible entity be
On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 15:06 +, Olaf Petry - Hornetsecurity wrote:
> > > the $$ is to validate the responsible entity behind a sending
> > > domain that is whitelisted
>
>
> You are kidding, don't you?
No I am not kidding.
> Which spammer would not pay that fee if they would be interested to
On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 11:26 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 10:26 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
> > > Which spammer would not pay that fee if they would be interested
> > > to
> > > get whitelisted?
> >
> > That's not how it works, and
On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 12:04 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 11:46 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
> > The same has been said about HTML emails...but that hasn't stopped
> > folks from using them.;-)
>
> "apples to oranges" comparison - sort of lik
On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 18:03 +, Olaf Petry - Hornetsecurity wrote:
> > > If the barrier had been $1000, then sure
> > > I would have said "it's extortion", but it wasn't.
>
> Where does the extortion barrier start in your opinion? 1000, 500,
> 100, 20 or 1 Buck?
Any value greater than a reas
On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 16:36 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 4:26 PM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
> > Any value greater than a reasonable amount to provide a
> > communications
> > portal, and actual communications with, the entity requesting the
> > de-
>
On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 09:33 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote:
> ... [snip] ...
>
> So I'll stop here and quit before I put my foot in my mouth!
But ya didn't, did ya?
Look dude, everybody has opinions. You are de-valuing mine, strictly
because I have a biz agreement with some entity you dislike. Pffft.
On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 11:37 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 1/10/2019 10:44 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
> > you are de-valuing mine,
>
> Actually, your opinion about these organizations was important and
> noteworthy. if someone has a conflict of interest, it *is* helpful
On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 17:07 +, Benjamin BILLON wrote:
> I'm not convinced Mailop is the best place to get help on your very
> specific deliverability issues. You might want join slack workspaces
> like "emailgeeks" to discuss that,
FWIW, Slack's a bit odd about workspaces.
From: https://emai
On Sun, 2019-01-20 at 09:28 +, Laura Atkins wrote:
> > On 19 Jan 2019, at 09:42, Jim Popovitch via mailop > rg> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 17:07 +, Benjamin BILLON wrote:
> > > I'm not convinced Mailop is the best place to get
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2019-03-06 at 16:03 -0500, Scott Mutter wrote:
> Hello list
>
> I'm looking for any assistance in trying to get off of an Outlook/Hotmail
> mailinst list with Microsoft.
Received: from hawk.wznoc.com ([209.140.28.140])
envelope-from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 13:50 -0400, Scott Mutter wrote:
> >Received: from hawk.wznoc.com ([209.140.28.140])
> >envelope-from
> >From: Scott Mutter
> >Message-ID: <20190306210316.gb19...@ams-salesandsupport.com>
> >
> > That's 3 diff
On April 29, 2019 3:46:03 AM UTC, John Levine via mailop
wrote:
>
>Still waiting to hear when mailop.org adds its SPF record.
Didn't it take almost 2 years the last time we waited on mailop.org to fix a
cert?😊
-Jim P.
On mobile so pls excuse any brevity, typos, lack of taste, crudeness, down
On June 30, 2019 11:31:49 AM UTC, Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop
wrote:
>I'm in the postmas...@python.org team.
>https://sendersupport.olc.protection.outlook.com/snds/ is displaying
>the IP for mail.python.org (188.166.95.178) as red/yellow.
>
>We're seing a constant stream of mails to Outlook/Hotm
On September 9, 2019 7:12:14 PM UTC, Al Iverson via mailop
wrote:
> Looks like OpenSRS is sending domain verification emails with a from
> address of the domain technical contact. Not authenticated, as far as
> I can tell, and it probably violates a domain's DMARC policy, if they
> have a restric
On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 08:15 -0500, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 22:32:39 -0400, Jim Popovitch via mailop
> wrote:
>
> > Oh my gawd, don't get me started on their support desk.
>
> I have to admit that I liked them a lot more when TUCOWS
> In the past, I've found them to be totally unresponsive and gave up on
> them.
That can't be right. I literally contacted them a few days ago and had
a successful response (unlisting) within minutes during US business
hours.
Go here, put in your IP address, and they give you an opportunity t
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 11:34 +0100, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
> On Sun 09/Feb/2020 00:33:34 +0100 Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Feb 2020, Aragon Gouveia via mailop wrote:
> > > Does anyone know why this list breaks DKIM verification? In particular it
> > > looks like it's al
On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 14:49 +0200, Sidsel Jensen via mailop wrote:
> but if the effect is that it will drive up the adoption rate for DMARC then I
> am clapping my hands.
"Once verified, the BIMI file tells the email service where to find the
sender’s logo and the email service pulls that logo in
On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 00:19 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> Dnia 22.07.2020 o godz. 14:27:52 Jim Popovitch via mailop pisze:
> > "Once verified, the BIMI file tells the email service where to find the
> > sender’s logo and the email service pulls that logo into the inb
On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 11:56 -0700, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:35 AM Jim Popovitch via mailop
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 14:49 +0200, Sidsel Jensen via mailop wrote:
> > > but if the effect is that it will drive up the
On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 12:24 +0200, Andreas Schamanek via mailop wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2020, at 09:51, Andy Smith via mailop wrote:
>
> > Since yesterday I've been seeing a large number of attempted
> > subscriptions to all the public lists on one of my Mailman servers.
> > (...)
>
> I can conf
On Thu, 2020-08-20 at 09:43 +0800, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote:
> On 2020-08-20 05:17:09 (+0800), Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
> > BotNet?
> > Were they listed in the SpamHaus XBL as being compromised?
>
> The problem is that the subscriptions come in through the Mailman web
> interface, not
On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 12:08 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter via mailop wrote:
> Bjoern!
>
> * Bjoern Franke via mailop :
> > Hi,
> >
> > > FYI we have, finally, completed the mailing list migration to a new VM.
> > >
> > > Firstly: many, many thanks to Andy Davidson for administering & hosting
> > >
On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 22:07 +1300, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
> I've just gone though some unsubscribes for the last few days ago
> hopefully we are now synced. If you have unsubscribed from the list
> recently and are still subscribed then please unsubscribe again and it
> should stick.
>
>
On Sat, 2020-11-07 at 17:08 +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> Dnia 7.11.2020 o godz. 11:58:03 Mary via mailop pisze:
> > In another mailing list, they automatically replace the From: with
> > something like "Mary via listname ", then its easy to
> > re-sign the email with the list DKIM sign
On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 13:59 +0100, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 21.11.20 12:54, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> > You can configure your MTA to disable IPv6 only for delivery to Google - at
> > least with Postfix it should be possible.
>
> how would one do that?
With a custo
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 10:15 +0100, Ewald Kessler | Webpower wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> There's one 'e' too many
>
> > googleemail.com smtp-v4:
Heh, Thanks. I've had that like that for close to a decade now and
never realized that.
-Jim P.
___
m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 11:21 +0100, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
>
> I agree with what you said. That said, those who use UCEPROTECT above
> level 1 to unconditionally block mails deserve to lose mails.
>
For me, it's "appreciate never seeing t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 13:29 +0100, Hetzner Blacklist via mailop wrote:
>
> New/current policy: http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=5
>
You failed to mention this bit from that link:
"UCEPROTECT-Level 3 lists all IP's within an ASN excep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 14:10 +0100, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
>
> On 1/20/21 1:58 PM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 13:29 +0100, Hetzner Blacklist via mailop wrote:
> >
> > &g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 08:27 -0800, Russell Clemings via mailop wrote:
> I don't really understand why anybody would use UCEPROTECT3 anyway.
>
> The first sentence of their web page says:
>
> "This blacklist has been created for HARDLINERS. It can,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:08 +0100, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
> On Wed 20/Jan/2021 14:25:10 +0100 Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 14:10 +0100, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
> > > On 1/20/21 1:58
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:44 +0100, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
> On Thu 21/Jan/2021 13:26:43 +0100 Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
> > On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:08 +0100, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
> > > On Wed 20
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 08:54 -0500, Chris via mailop wrote:
> On 2021-01-21 07:26, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
> > On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:08 +0100, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
> > > So yes, perhaps it's not ext
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
