On 2021-02-16 4:26 p.m., Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop wrote:
On 16/02/2021 21:25, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
FYI, you might want to check your outbound spam filter ;)
X-Spam: Yes
One thing to note, and maybe should be something to actually take up
with RFC's, but wonder if flags like t
On 16/02/2021 21:25, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> FYI, you might want to check your outbound spam filter ;)
>
> X-Spam: Yes
>
> One thing to note, and maybe should be something to actually take up
> with RFC's, but wonder if flags like this should some how become trace
> headers..
>
> E
Proxmox Mail Gateway is very good
> Le 17 févr. 2021 à 00:12, Tim Bray via mailop a écrit :
>
> On 16/12/2020 10:50, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
>> we switched over to rspamd quite a while ago and will not look back.
>
> I switched on the back your suggestion. rspamd seems way better.
On 16/12/2020 10:50, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
we switched over to rspamd quite a while ago and will not look back.
I switched on the back your suggestion. rspamd seems way better.
And switching on the dmarc module sends away the scammers.
--
Tim Bray
Huddersfield, GB
t...@kooky.org
FYI, you might want to check your outbound spam filter ;)
X-Spam: Yes
One thing to note, and maybe should be something to actually take up
with RFC's, but wonder if flags like this should some how become trace
headers..
Eg, which system put that header into the header list..
Especially now
On 16/02/2021 17:31, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2021, at 3:39, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
>
>> On Mon 15/Feb/2021 22:07:20 +0100 John Levine via mailop wrote:
>>> In article <463b0950-7b4e-d81d-7abc-0cf5120f6...@tana.it> you write:
> https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/
On 16 Feb 2021, at 3:39, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
On Mon 15/Feb/2021 22:07:20 +0100 John Levine via mailop wrote:
In article <463b0950-7b4e-d81d-7abc-0cf5120f6...@tana.it> you write:
https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/807/using-our-public-mirrors-check-your-return-codes-now
It
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
rcode[*], such as FORMERR/
REFUSED, possibly followed by a more precise extended error code[†].
Except that REFUSED means something else,
When Spamhaus sends REFUSED, it means you're trying to query a server than
only paying customers can use, bu
Well I am using Hetrix and I am seeing the same exact thing as MXToolbox
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:19 AM Blake Hudson via mailop
wrote:
>
> On 2/14/2021 10:00 AM, Chris via mailop wrote:
> > On 2021-02-14 01:42, André Peters via mailop wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > 2) Securi.net used mxtoolbox. It has
You know.. yes, the 'Too Big to Block' (TBTB) providers say they can't
effectively handle the abuse complaints, which of course I have a
problem respecting given the amount of revenue they have, they simply
don't want to allocate the funds.. and the few guys left to do the job,
they have to end
Hi Andre, I work for Salesforce -- but only on one of their multiple
platforms. Feel free to send me an example header and I'll see if I
can figure out who to route it to.
Regards,
Al Iverson
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 5:29 AM Andre van Eyssen via mailop
wrote:
>
>
> Mail from salesforce.com is get
On 2/16/21 1:06 AM, Byron Lunz via mailop wrote:
> Support form is still broken.
>
> [...]
>
> https://support.microsoft.com/supportrequestform/8ad563e3-288e-2a61-8122-3ba03d6b8d75
I managed to submit a support request last week, however the support
form itself, and the response I got was quite br
On 2021-02-16 3:45 a.m., Vittorio Bertola via mailop wrote:
Il 14/02/2021 07:42 André Peters via mailop ha
scritto:
Hi,
Have you guys already read this?
https://blog.sucuri.net/2021/02/uceprotect-when-rbls-go-bad.html
I have seen the discussion and found it fits. Will you remove UCL fro
On 2/14/2021 10:00 AM, Chris via mailop wrote:
On 2021-02-14 01:42, André Peters via mailop wrote:
...
2) Securi.net used mxtoolbox. It has problems of its own of
synthesizing it's own queries, and jumping to conclusions and
misleading you. For example, if you do a domain lookup, you can en
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021, Vittorio Bertola via mailop wrote:
Il 14/02/2021 07:42 André Peters via mailop ha scritto:
Hi,
Have you guys already read this?
https://blog.sucuri.net/2021/02/uceprotect-when-rbls-go-bad.html
I have seen the discussion and found it fits. Will you remov
> Il 14/02/2021 07:42 André Peters via mailop ha
> scritto:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Have you guys already read this?
> https://blog.sucuri.net/2021/02/uceprotect-when-rbls-go-bad.html
>
> I have seen the discussion and found it fits. Will you remove UCL from
> your servers?
>
I am w
Mail from salesforce.com is getting scored up here for no DKIM in mail
despite DKIM in DNS. bounces, of course.
--
Andre van Eyssen. Phone: +61 417 211 788
mail: an...@purplecow.org http://andre.purplecow.org
About & Contact: http://www.purplecow.org/and
please ignore this message
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
mailauth (https://github.com/andris9/mailauth) library and cli utility can
also be used to both verify and sign using Ed25519 DKIM keys. Can't see
those keys to become mainstream any time soon though. RSA signature already
verifies the message so double signing is basically just for testing
purpose
On Mon 15/Feb/2021 22:07:20 +0100 John Levine via mailop wrote:
In article <463b0950-7b4e-d81d-7abc-0cf5120f6...@tana.it> you write:
https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/807/using-our-public-mirrors-check-your-return-codes-now
It would certainly have been less error-prone to return an approp
> On 15 Feb 2021, at 22:29, Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop
> wrote:
> On 15/02/2021 21:02, John Levine via mailop wrote:
>> In article <20210215085929.76srgtpbaqbms...@sys4.de> you write:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> is anyone using ed22519 for DKIM signatures yet and what do you see? Any
>>> interop pro
21 matches
Mail list logo
