Re: [mailop] Some Days I think that Gmail isn't even trying to stop outbound spam..

If you received say... a million ab...@gmail.com emails a day, how would you handle that? In a previous life, I worked on an email support tool, and 300 tickets a day was a really high number for a single agent, and that was mostly reading and responding with templated responses. Actually doing a

Re: [mailop] Autoresponder for EAI mail

In article you write: >> Also, has anyone ever written down in one place the best practices for >> doing a non-annoying autoresponder? Things like only respond if you're >> on the To: or Cc: line, don't respond to anything with a List-* or >> Precedence header, and rate limit responses. > >there's

Re: [mailop] Autoresponder for EAI mail

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021, at 08:20, John Levine via mailop wrote: > Also, has anyone ever written down in one place the best practices for > doing a non-annoying autoresponder? Yes, RFC 3834 : Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail. See also some

Re: [mailop] Autoresponder for EAI mail

On 2021/02/04 16:20, John Levine via mailop wrote: > Is anyone aware of autoresponder code that works with UTF8SMTP mail? It's > not hard > to write one, but why reinvent a wheel if I can steal the code. Not sure about this, but.. > Also, has anyone ever written down in one place the best pract

Re: [mailop] Some Days I think that Gmail isn't even trying to stop outbound spam..

Am 04.02.21 um 17:43 schrieb Luke via mailop: > Preventing outbound spam on a large system is a far greater challenge than > stopping inbound spam. The technical > challenges are similar, but the logistical challenges of preventing outbound > spam without pissing off customers is > /far/ greater

[mailop] Autoresponder for EAI mail

Is anyone aware of autoresponder code that works with UTF8SMTP mail? It's not hard to write one, but why reinvent a wheel if I can steal the code. Also, has anyone ever written down in one place the best practices for doing a non-annoying autoresponder? Things like only respond if you're on the

Re: [mailop] +addressing ... any reason to NOT use it? {dkim-fail}

In article <01rv5k2v2lw2005...@mauve.mrochek.com> you write: >Speaking as someone who has been using +subaddress forms extensively for >25 >years, the main problem is broken web forms that don't handle +'s well. Maybe >now that Exchange online supports it there will be some impetus to fix them. Or

Re: [mailop] +addressing ... any reason to NOT use it? {dkim-fail}

On 2021-02-04 12:56 p.m., Ned Freed via mailop wrote: PITA, still not sure if its worth it. It's wonderful when dealing with political campaigns. Use a different subaddress for each, and you can tell who is buying/selling lists. And if they don't support it, well, you didn't really to donate

Re: [mailop] +addressing ... any reason to NOT use it? {dkim-fail}

> I try to use +addressing whenever I sign up for something new. I'd say at > signup it works like 95% of the time. Plenty of forms still don't think > the + is a valid thing to find in an email. I've had 3-4 retailers so far > (LandsEnd was one of them I think) who originally let me setup an acc

Re: [mailop] +addressing ... any reason to NOT use it?

I try to use +addressing whenever I sign up for something new. I'd say at signup it works like 95% of the time. Plenty of forms still don't think the + is a valid thing to find in an email. I've had 3-4 retailers so far (LandsEnd was one of them I think) who originally let me setup an account wit

Re: [mailop] Some Days I think that Gmail isn't even trying to stop outbound spam..

I don't think that is true.. As a provider for hundreds of Telco's and ISP's across North America, I think we understand the challenges in both cases.. If the inbound server can detect that it is spam, it is easier for the outbound server to do so, they have better insight and more data about

Re: [mailop] Some Days I think that Gmail isn't even trying to stop outbound spam..

On 2021-02-04 17:43, Luke via mailop wrote: Preventing outbound spam on a large system is a far greater challenge than stopping inbound spam. The technical challenges are similar, but the logistical challenges of preventing outbound spam without pissing off customers is /far/ greater than the c

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

On 4 Feb 2021, at 15:26, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: > But I also think EXIM is screwing up the order of the received messages > in pipelining mode. Please open a bug at https://bugs.exim.org/ and/or subscribe to the Exim Dev mailing list at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-de

Re: [mailop] Some Days I think that Gmail isn't even trying to stop outbound spam..

/ Preventing outbound spam on a large system is a far greater challenge than stopping inbound spam. The technical challenges are similar, but the logistical challenges of preventing outbound spam without pissing off customers is far  greater than the challenge of preventing inbound spam without p

Re: [mailop] Some Days I think that Gmail isn't even trying to stop outbound spam..

Preventing outbound spam on a large system is a far greater challenge than stopping inbound spam. The technical challenges are similar, but the logistical challenges of preventing outbound spam without pissing off customers is *far* greater than the challenge of preventing inbound spam without piss

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

Hi > Replying to my own message. Went back and looked at the exim log from > OP... seems the ordering was correct - so that means exim is screwing > it up. I'd still recommend disabling pipelining on the client side. I have added: smtpd_discard_ehlo_keywords = pipelining To our postfix to preven

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

On 04/02/2021 14:57, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 12:03:45PM +, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: On 04/02/2021 11:39, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: It sounds like you are using PIPELINING when the remote doesn't support it (properly). See if you can turn off pipelining (

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

On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 02:57:43PM +, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 12:03:45PM +, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: > > On 04/02/2021 11:39, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: > > >It sounds like you are using PIPELINING when the remote doesn't support it > > >(properly). > >

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

On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 12:03:45PM +, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: > On 04/02/2021 11:39, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: > >It sounds like you are using PIPELINING when the remote doesn't support it > >(properly). > >See if you can turn off pipelining (at least to that endpoint) on your > >clie

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

On 04/02/2021 10:37, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: > So how to reproduce... The focus is on the MAIL FROM / RCPT TO lines in > the SMTP dialogue. Can you now reproduce this with your own installation of Exim and with addresses that do not need to be redacted? It's not going to be practical to

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

On 04/02/2021 11:39, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: It sounds like you are using PIPELINING when the remote doesn't support it (properly). See if you can turn off pipelining (at least to that endpoint) on your client side. What is the server doing incorrectly with the pipelining? -- Paul Paul

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

On 04/02/2021 10:37, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: So how to reproduce... The focus is on the MAIL FROM / RCPT TO lines in the SMTP dialogue. Exim is sending the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO lines in one go, without waiting for the reply of the recipient server. That's OK. That's 'Pipelining' - h

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

On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 11:37:05AM +0100, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: > Hi List > > We managed to reproduce the issue while sniffing the SMTP connection. > > From my observation, I suppose it's a bug in EXIM as it encounters a > situation which probably is somehow unique with our spamfilter

Re: [mailop] How does one operate mailman3 with correct From & Sender Address - like this list?

I wrote: > On 2021-02-04 11:32, "Stefan Bauer via mailop" wrote: > >> I'm planning to operate a mailman list and want to make sure, that Reply-To >> is untouched (seems to be default on MM3) and From is list-address and >> Sender is list-bounce address. > > For all mails: Sorry. You asked for

Re: [mailop] How does one operate mailman3 with correct From & Sender Address - like this list?

On 2021-02-04 11:32, "Stefan Bauer via mailop" wrote: > I'm planning to operate a mailman list and want to make sure, that Reply-To > is untouched (seems to be default on MM3) and From is list-address and Sender > is list-bounce address. For all mails: General Options from_is_list: "Munge F

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

Hi List We managed to reproduce the issue while sniffing the SMTP connection. From my observation, I suppose it's a bug in EXIM as it encounters a situation which probably is somehow unique with our spamfilter. So how to reproduce... The focus is on the MAIL FROM / RCPT TO lines in the SMTP dial

[mailop] How does one operate mailman3 with correct From & Sender Address - like this list?

Hi, I'm planning to operate a mailman list and want to make sure, that Reply-To is untouched (seems to be default on MM3) and From is list-address and Sender is list-bounce address. However i do not see a simply way in MM3 to specify that. The settings - per list - only offer Anonymous