On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:38:12 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop
wrote:
>Now people have made me curious what they set those values to for Gmail.
>We don't have simple limits like those (a quick check shows the max number
>of messages sent on a single connection in the past week is 414k, and I
>know I'
There are a bunch domains that are incredibly sensitive to this kind of
thing. Crank up the concurrent connections and search logs for
"*connections*" You'll find the ones that care really quickly. There are
plenty of them.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:29 PM Blake Hudson via mailop
wrote:
> For what
For what it's worth, Oath is the only email service provider I've ever
had to rate limit outgoing email to. All other email service providers
seem to work fine when one uses the (seemingly sensible) Postfix defaults.
Laura Atkins via mailop wrote on 9/6/2019 2:49 PM:
Gmail has never suggested
Gmail has never suggested they care.
Laura
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 6, 2019, at 8:38 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
> Now people have made me curious what they set those values to for Gmail. We
> don't have simple limits like those (a quick check shows the max number of
> messages sent on a
Now people have made me curious what they set those values to for Gmail.
We don't have simple limits like those (a quick check shows the max number
of messages sent on a single connection in the past week is 414k, and I
know I've seen total number of connections from a single source over 10k),
the
> On Sep 6, 2019, at 8:01 AM, Ewald Kessler | Webpower via mailop
> wrote:
>
> Not short, but certainly sweet:
>
> I don't care what method people devise to make sure that people don't get
> added to a mailing list without their consent, so long as it actually works.
> I don't care if they
Not short, but certainly sweet:
I don't care what method people devise to make sure that people don't get
added to a mailing list without their consent, so long as it actually
works. I don't care if they call it "sucking chest wound" so long as the
process they adopt effectively prevents abuse. Do
There were smaller folks who did tarpit heavily and there was likely badly
written spamware, but neither of those were cases I was thinking about.
I’m, basically, quoting one of the mail engineers from one of the large mailbox
providers. They implemented limits to connections and limits to numb
I remember that IIRC a lot of that was down to the receiving mail server
tar-pitting perceived spam connections to deter. However a lot of software
was so crude it had no connection timeouts and just sat there - haven't
seen that behaviour in a very long time :)
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 11:08, Laura
There was a point in time where if you didn’t limit the number of messages per
session a few of the larger mailbox providers would simply cut you off. The
issue was some spammers were making hundreds of connections and then holding
them open for days (yes, really, more than 24 hours at a time).
Hi Alex,
Yep we have been using roll up by MX since it became available and roll up
by IP for all the hosted outlook vanity MX records which used to make IP
warming a nightmare.
Once Yahoo is back on it's feet I'll push ours back out to 20
Cheers
Dave
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 09:00, Alex Irimia
11 matches
Mail list logo
