On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:53:37 -0700, "Luis E. Muñoz" said:
> large ranges in the SPF validation. I suppose it would be plagued with
> false positives, but if enough people did it, it would give some
> priority to actually think about your SMTP flows when setting up your
> SPF records.
That sor
On Mon, 22 May 2017 10:59:21 -0700, Michael Peddemors said:
> Some have pointed out on the list the problem with 'forwarding', however
> that is a forwarding problem, and not an SPF problem.
Forwarding has worked just fine for 30 or so years, if not longer. The
"problem" only happens if you insist
On Mon, 22 May 2017 13:21:08 -0700, W Kern said:
> On 5/22/2017 11:22 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > not an SPF problem.
> > Forwarding has worked just fine for 30 or so years, if not longer. The
> > "problem" only happens if you insist on attaching SPF to it.
> Except when it is a shared
On Mon, 22 May 2017 14:42:20 -0700, W Kern said:
> I am talking about the scenario where a third party sender WITH an -all
> SPF record sends to my customer and then MY customer forwards it
> elsewhere (gmail, hotmail).
So you accept spam if it has a valid SPF?
pgp1vLecxuz_9.pgp
Description:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 09:29:34 -0400, Joey Rutledge said:
> Do you guys have any samples of the invalid Unsubscribe headers? There is a
> newish spec (RFC8058; https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8058) that Iâve seen
> floating around and wondering if those are the headers screwing things up.
That pro
On Fri, 26 May 2017 13:53:40 -0700, Carl Byington said:
> Yes, we have t= in the signature, but all the servers have clocks
> corrected by NTP. We are using relaxed/relaxed canonization.
>
> I should have mentioned that all this mail is generated by a wide
> variety of user agents (Outlook, Thunde
On Fri, 26 May 2017 15:56:21 -0700, Carl Byington said:
> Does that matter? The dkim signature (with t=) is generated on the mail
> server, which has the proper time.
I was considering what the introduction of an inaccurate Date: header
or other MUA-generated timestamps might do...
pgpGv01x_ZGy
On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 16:22:56 +0200, Benoit Panizzon said:
> The problem is that apparently lotus notes uses the § character in the
> Message-ID and amavis complains about it being an unencoded 8-bit
> character.
Lotus Notes is a boil upon the buttocks of internet email that desperately
needs lanci
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:46:28 -, Michael Wise via mailop said:
> Youâd be surprised how many people think that their sincerity is flagged in
> the protocol somehowâ¦.
RFC3514 was written explicitly to add support for that.
pgpzmD8obTwjW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:10:21 -0500, "Scott Bonacker CPA" said:
> The IP for abanet.org is (currently) listed on CASA and SORBS as a bad sender
> What authority is required to make a request for removal from a block
> list? Certainly not a user, but what level in the sending
> organization?
As a
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:10:53 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop said:
> Why can't smtp software being expected to maintain a list of trusted CAs?
> Or at least run on an OS that is expected to do so.
Quick: What two CAs did Google just remove from Chrome's list?
Has your OS vendor followed suit? And
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:57:14 -0700, Michael Peddemors said:
> Seeing more and more cases of this not being honoured..
> Surprised that there is not more breakage, but noticed that Yahoo's DKIM is
> now one long line, in addition to Microsoft's VERY long header lines..
I wonder if this is the sour
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 01:30:27 +0200, Philip Paeps said:
> On 2017-10-06 15:18:45 (-0700), Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> >It can also aid in using say geohop stats. Ie, one easy way to try to
> >detect hijacking is to geoloc the accessing IP, and see how close it
> >was to the last access, or kee
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:56:19 -0400, "Kevin A. McGrail" said:
> Recently we were alerted to a valid address that did not meet the syntax.
Are you able to tell us in what way it didn't meet the syntax, and how you
confirmed it's valid anyhow?
pgp8_pvw2dwEM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:50:16 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell Esq." said:
> Weirdly, every single email in this particular thread ended up in Gmail's
> spam folder. Any good guesses as to why?
My email is also hosted at GMail, but none of the thread ended up in my
spam folder. So whatever it was, it mus
One of my users is seeing repeated fails to send to hosted mail for nsf.gov
from qwest.net:
first MX:
... while talking to stn-mtpe-01-03-p.inet.qwest.net.:
>>> DATA
<<< 451 4.3.2 Please try again later
... Deferred: 451 4.3.2 Please try again later
<<< 503 5.0.0 Need RCP
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 11:42:41 -0800, Michael Peddemors said:
> Besides, you want to keep the customer, not make him a gmail customer ;)
If the mail service is bundled with something else that's a profit center,
unbundling
the cost center part and handing that to Google will improve your bottom li
On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 13:46:05 -0800, "Luis E. Muñoz via mailop" said:
> On 9 Nov 2017, at 13:33, Charles McKean wrote:
>
> > Legal? Was that a threat? Do you have prior experience attacking a
> > lunatic asylum with a banana? Best of luck.
>
> I suspect^Whope this is a language thing.
Almost posit
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:13:26 +, Emanuel Gonzalez said:
> 501 5.5.4 Invalid domain name
> but the reverse dns it's ok:
> example:
> 200.58.101.62
> smht-101-62.dattaweb.com
Make sure you double-check this *on the machine that issued the 501 error*.
In 4 decades, I've seen *way* too many times
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:28:08 +0100, Leo Gaspard said:
> hours (between 10.200.48.129 and 10.55.109.198 if someone knows what
> those IPs mean), and then for exactly 8 hours (between
> mail-vk0-f56.google.com and and... itself?) before reaching my server.
Sounds almost like two different processes
On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 20:59:04 +0200, Sotiris Tsimbonis said:
> Hi all,
>
> I received today (9 Jan 2018) a message from outlook's feedback loop
> with a message that was originally sent to a hotmail address on 30 Jan 2017.
Just as a gentle reminder - sometimes the Date: is incorrect because
the sys
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:30:25 +0100, David Hofstee said:
> As much as I like to complain, I am not sure I would come to the same
> conclusion. It seems like a simple bug.
> >> *Don't do that*. Just paste the headers and maybe the text version.
> >> Because the form is not POST-ed but GET-ed. This
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 23:29:31 -0400, Rob Heilman via mailop said:
> I went back and forth on that. My initial read was as you stated, it should
> be enclosed by dquotes when specials are used. However other specials,
> https://tools.wordtothewise.com/rfc5322#section-3.2.3, do not cause issues in
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 14:27:39 -0400, Jim Popovitch said:
> 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
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:23:20 +0100, Rupesh Gohil said:
> Yes email marketer having those IPs. Is it really hard to come out from
> Drop? - Email Marketer has 20 to 25 Spamtraps and these spamtraps has been
> removed now.
Removing the spamtraps won't fix the problem.
Your Email Marketer needs to
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:47:15 -0400, Josh Nason said:
> What if a sender doesn't have list-unsubscribe enabled?
Then they should get with the program. The RFC is from last century.
2369 The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail List Commands and their
Transport through Message Header Fiel
On 16 Sep 2016 18:22:33 -, "John Levine" said:
> There are some issues with helpful spam filters that fetch the URLs in
> list-unsubscribe headers to see if they lead somewhere malicious, but
> they're not all that hard to deal with.
For those who don't know what John is referring to:
Subjec
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:57:24 -0400, Mitchell Kuch said:
> inbox. Gmail discards what it considers to be duplicate messages. I
> find this to be a frustrating behavior.
And most of the time, that's not too bad - if somebody cross-posts to two
lists that you're on, you'll get only one copy. And th
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:59:46 -0400, Mitchell Kuch said:
> Filtering by either
> the List-Id header contains ""
> or
> a Received header contains "for mailop@mailop.org"
"D'Oh!" -- H. Simpson.
Apparently, the last time I looked at this and gave up in disgust,
List-Id: wasn't as common out in the
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:09:27 +0200, Benoit Panizzon said:
> > PS: Maybe I am not supposed to send multiline prompts if a server
> > greets with HELO instead of EHLO?
>
> Note to self, next time read RFC before sending email...
>
> Old RFC 821 does not state, that a reply to HELO can be multiline.
>
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:23:49 +0200, Benoit Panizzon said:
> Nice, so Yahoo's mailservers are broken?
It's 2016. The mere fact it's sending HELO rather than EHLO is a pretty good
indication that it is either so decrepit or so deficient that it can safely be
called broken.
The fact it doesn't eve
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:58:35 +0100, Hetzner Blacklist Support said:
> our customers who use them on their own dedicated servers. They're the
> ones having issues, since Microsoft has blacklisted large parts of our
> network.
That should be your big hint that you have a customer problem. (The othe
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:58:58 -0800, Carl Byington said:
> If you have IPv6 connectivity thru a tunnel, with a smaller MTU, that
> will fail. With a 1500 byte MTU, it works. The TCP handshake works - it
> then hangs during the TLS handshake which sends full size packets.
Did you do anything to spe
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:01:50 -0800, Carl Byington said:
> response to that will be a bunch of full size packets from Yahoo with
> the certificate, etc. The *far* end of my tunnel will be sending the
> icmpv6 "packet too big" back to Yahoo.
And you identified that the problem was at Yahoo, and not
On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 08:33:27 -0800, Carl Byington said:
> Of the 220 sites identified above, 218 of them manage to see the icmpv6
> packet and respond by resending with a packet that makes it thru the
> tunnel. I suspect that packets from at least one of those 218 sites goes
> thru many of the sam
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:26:04 -0700, Luke Martinez via mailop said:
> Whether or not you should ignore changes to whitespace and capitalization
> seems like a fairly trivial thing.
Not when you're talking about a cryptographic signature, where a single
changed bit should change the signature drast
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 14:48:19 +, Graeme Fowler said:
> On 9 Jan 2017, at 14:08, Franck Martin via mailop wrote:
> > Often, it is a problem of finding an acceptable cypher to both parties...
I have to admit my first guess was that one end insisted on TLS 1.0 or later
and the other end was ancie
On 23 Jan 2017 21:30:20 +, "John Levine" said:
> That led to great merriment, since that's Blue State Digital and mail
> from mainstream political groups went into spamtraps that tested the
> URLs, some of which were "Click here to donate now with your preregistered
> credit card!" Oops.
OK,
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:52:25 -0500, Rich Kulawiec said:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:33:47PM -0800, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> > More and more, if you want to deliver email in today's environments, you
> > have to ensure your email servers are correctly configured.
>
> I think there's considerable
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:16:42 -0800, ml+mai...@esmtp.org said:
> How would a user know that (s)he missed a mail?
>
> I sometimes send patches to various open source projects and if a
> mail to the maintainer bounces due to some "anti-spam" measures,
> then I take that as an indication that they don
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:04:02 -0800, Brandon Long via mailop said:
So your post un-wordraps into:
MAIL FROM:<>
250 2.1.0 OK d7si5125389wjc.145 - gsmtp
RCPT TO:
250 2.1.5 OK d7si5125389wjc.145 - gsmtp
DATA
354 Go ahead d7si5125389wjc.145 - gsmtp
Testing. .
550-5.7.1 [2001:4830:11aa:106:c23f:d5ff:fe
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:59:36 +, Phil Pennock said:
> I believe Brandon's point is that this is a probe _of_ Gmail, not _by_
> Gmail, and the service purporting to be testing RFC conformance is
> instead doing a very old-style message with no headers at all.
Right. The test sends something th
On 17 Mar 2017 15:47:50 +0100, "John R Levine" said:
> I used to have my own credit card account and my card processor demanded
> PCI compliance. About 1/4 of it was reasonable, 3/4 was cargo cult stuff
> that mostly involved stuff like setting packet filters so they couldn't
> probe ports that w
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:21:45 -0600, Ryan Harris via mailop said:
> It might be helpful to understand why people want to post on email forums
> rather than an abuse desk. Is it to gain public attention on the matter? Is
> there a bit of shaming going on and the reporter wants the community to
> kno
On Fri, 05 May 2017 10:48:46 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
> Does Google use the SAME?... or DIFFERENT?... outbound IPs for "G suite"
> (or any other customers who are using their own domain names) ...as they
> do for @gmail.com addresses?
Don't your own logs have enough info in them for that? See what
On Fri, 05 May 2017 14:50:54 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop said:
> In reality, ESPs exist along a spectrum, both in their ability to keep
> spammers out and their desire to. And "spammers" also exist along a
> spectrum, from folks clearly knowing they are doing it to folks who don't
> to entitie
46 matches
Mail list logo
