* Al Iverson via mailop:
> Sorry, Ralph, you're really on the wrong track here.
I'm OK with agreeing to disagree, and the discussion in itself has merit
even if we have different opinions. I did not claim that my method is
suitable for each and every case, however I do know it works nicely for
th
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:14 PM Brandon Long wrote:
>> This is silly. Stop pushing this.
>>
>> If every Googler started posting from monksofcool.net then there would
>> grow, over time, a population of people who understood that this was a
>> Googler domain and those people could potentially be a
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:25 PM Al Iverson via mailop
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:41 PM Ralph Seichter via mailop
> wrote:
> >
> > * Brandon Long:
> >
> > > If we leave googlers.com open, then phishers are going to use it to
> > > send messages looking like [...] "secur...@googlers.com" and
* Al Iverson via mailop:
> This is silly. Stop pushing this.
You may think it "silly", but that won't stop me from using and
promoting this method. It is a cheap and easy way to avoid existing
problems regarding mailing list use.
> If every Googler started posting from monksofcool.net then there
For OLC, aka "Hotmail" issues...
You know the answer to that, Al: No.
Now if something is broken with the process, like no follow-up with the
automatic mitigation, or if it's an issue with Office365, I can see what I can
do, but for, "Why can't my IP be unblocked for sending to Hotmail" ... N
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:41 PM Ralph Seichter via mailop
wrote:
>
> * Brandon Long:
>
> > If we leave googlers.com open, then phishers are going to use it to
> > send messages looking like [...] "secur...@googlers.com" and do what
> > they do best.
>
> One solution to that is not to use "googlers.
Hey Michael,
Are you an escalation point for Microsoft issues?
Is Mailop?
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 3:58 PM Rauf Guliyev via mailop
wrote:
>
> Hey Michael,
>
> I haven't gotten any response from you either (did my emails end up in the
> Spam folder? ;-) and there is nothing with the cases I have
Hey Michael,
I haven't gotten any response from you either (did my emails end up in the
Spam folder? ;-) and there is nothing with the cases I have submitted
either (SR1500907063 and SR1501411372). I'd appreciate a response.
Thanks,
Rauf
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:42 PM Marc Goldman via mailop
wr
In article
,
Tobias Herkula via mailop wrote:
>It is possible to do depending on the sacrifices you are willing to take:
>
>5321.MailFrom Domain = imp.ch
>5322.From Domain = breitband.ch
>5322.Sender Domain = imp.ch
>
>If you run with that you can set DKIM Domain to imp.ch and still send with
>b
> I recommend you try working with them vs calling them out as being
> bad actors - These teams (especially the Mailchimp team) works very
> hard, harder than most hosting companies i would imagine, to stop
> abusive behaviour from their networks sending billions of emails
> around the world. From
* Brandon Long:
> If we leave googlers.com open, then phishers are going to use it to
> send messages looking like [...] "secur...@googlers.com" and do what
> they do best.
One solution to that is not to use "googlers.com", but to use a domain
name with no visible ties to a particular company. Th
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:30 PM Daniele Nicolodi via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On 02/06/2020 02:41, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 28 May 2020, Daniele Nicolodi asked:
> >> The IT department of the organization that is pushing thins says that
> >> modern authenticat
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:16 PM Ralph Seichter via mailop
wrote:
> * Brandon Long:
>
> >> I recommend using separate domains, or subdomains, for regular
> >> business and for mailing lists [...]
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because something is definitely wron if an email from ra...@mycorp.com
> (an address o
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:30:23 -0700, David Carriger via mailop
wrote:
>I'm not saying this as an attempt to call anyone out, or start a fight, but
>my point is that those of us who are active in these industry mailing lists
>and conferences are the ones who care. We want to do better. We're up
>aga
Thanks for being a voice of reason, Matt.
ESPs don't always get things right, but the ESPs who are participating in
M3AAWG or joining forums like this one are trying to do the right thing.
Bounce handling is difficult because bounce messages are like an episode of
Whose Line Is It Anyway? - the s
On 2020-06-05 10:09 a.m., Atro Tossavainen via mailop wrote:
Furthermore, I explicitly indicated that it was the consensus that the
GDPR makes it effectively impossible for them to do what you believe I
said, which I did not. It has been discussed in so many M3AAWG meetings
and between meetings,
I have an automated system in place for our customers, partners, and friends
domains to catch that and then I make them aware. There’s currently about 108
on my list that are broken.
I’m not going to put a spotlight on everyone, but here’s a list of .edu domains:
ashland.edu
dmu.edu
sdst
Tim, I believe *X-MC-User* and *List-ID* should help you identify those
issues.
Matt, if you think we're not handling a hard bounce properly, I'd like to
get that worked out. Do please reach out off-list so we can troubleshoot
the issue.
Cool,
Matthew
delivery.mailchimp.com
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020
Fair question -- none of our infrastructure uses 10.15.194.x. In any offline
thread someone else believes this is a Dell device (based on the "EMC").
Frank
-Original Message-
From: mailop On Behalf Of Brandon Applegate via
mailop
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2020 7:50 PM
To: mailop@mailop
It is possible to do depending on the sacrifices you are willing to take:
5321.MailFrom Domain = imp.ch
5322.From Domain = breitband.ch
5322.Sender Domain = imp.ch
If you run with that you can set DKIM Domain to imp.ch and still send with
breitband.ch in your From. And alignment should be fine.
Luke, thanks for the reply,
> I appreciate the added perspective here. It sounded like you were
> suggesting that ESPs do not suppress invalid email addresses.
The evidence suggests this is the case.
> But it sounds like you are aware that ESPs do suppress invalid email
> addresses, but you beli
Atro,
I did not forget that we know each other. I remember meeting you and Pekka
for the first time in Dublin back in 2015.
I appreciate the added perspective here. It sounded like you were
suggesting that ESPs do not suppress invalid email addresses. But it sounds
like you are aware that ESPs do
On 04/06/2020 20:08, Matthew Grove via mailop wrote:
Of course, there is always a remote possibility that some
misconfiguration on our side is causing us to reclassify your specific
bounce message. You can compare our /X-MC-User/ header to verify that
we are not suppressing the address at the
On 5 Jun 2020, at 05:26, Daniele Nicolodi via mailop wrote:
> I don't see the gain as the same attacks are possible over a different
> protocol. I don't think that eliminating IMAP (and keeping SMTP
> submission as far as I know) reduces the attack surface. Am I missing
> something?
Very much so.
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 07:48:45AM -0700, Luke wrote:
> I cant tell if this the thing about ESPs not removing bounces is a joke or
> not. All of the major ESPs have logic for adding bad addresses to
> suppression lists. Of course their users can choose to unsuppress, but ESPs
> certainly remove bou
On Thu, 4 Jun 2020, Daniele Nicolodi via mailop wrote:
On 02/06/2020 02:41, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2020, Daniele Nicolodi asked:
The IT department of the organization that is pushing thins says that
modern authentication and disabling IMAP (over SSL) enhance secur
26 matches
Mail list logo
