On 4/13/2022 10:27 PM, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
we've had somebody complain
That's another discrepancy which I forgot to mention in my earlier
response to Al's post - the type of "silent" blocks I was discussing -
are often situations where, by their very nature, the user isn't even
awa
On Wed, 13 Apr 2022, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Why on earth is gmail checking the IP address of the message sender (ISP
assigned home address, for instance) against the sender's domain SPF
I've mentioned it before to which got a "I don't think we do that" when
it was plain they did (their own SPF re
On 4/13/2022 11:32 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
Or, in Paul Vixie's defense, maybe Paul is thinking about the fact
that gmail's outbound spam has been absolutely INSANE the past several
months, with no end of slowdown in sight. It's insane that this has
gotten so little attention in recent months, and
Al,
fwiw, I've confirmed at some point within the past couple of years -
directly with Brandon Long of Google - that, yes, Google does have this
extra after-connection filtering, where a message can potentially be
spam filtered even though the sender's mail server received a "250 OK"
response
I've seen it happen perhaps twice in twenty years, from what I can
non-scientifically recall. 99.9% of the time we've had somebody
complain they can't find the mail in their Gmail account, it is
because it's in their spam folder. I'm not particularly worried that
there's some new outbreak of th
>> that google is provably wrong and provably non-transarent in how they
>> decide what inbound e-mail to reject.
>
> Unless you have a solution which ensures that only good senders are able to
> send email, then yes, you will find that receivers will be mostly
> non-transparent on how they decid
I've seen Microsoft do that very thing many times over the years,
accepting an email but never delivering it. I have to admit, I have not
once witnessed this with Gmail. Given how much volume we do where
customers bring their own domains, I would find it strange to have not
run into it, if it i
If you can take the activist hat off and think like an average person with
average objectives, Google is the right answer. There is nothing wrong with
suggesting this. There are pros and cons. As a grown up, I understand that
everything is a trade off. But for most people, Google is the right answe
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 2:58 PM Paul Vixie via mailop
wrote:
> that google is provably wrong and provably non-transarent in how they
> decide what inbound e-mail to reject.
>
Unless you have a solution which ensures that only good senders are able to
send email, then yes, you will find that rece
On 4/13/2022 6:58 PM, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote:
Out of the 140,244 emails delivered to Google by my customers today,
not a single one has complained of issues with Google rejecting
legitimate email.
Even so, keep in mind the following:
(1) Their most egregious false positives - ARE d
heho,
thanks for bringing this up. i am currently digging a bit in the whole scape of
centralization, especially in academia (see page 4-7 here for the perspective
of mail-hosting in academia: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.09462.pdf ); things
are... dire, especially in the us. universities used to
If you find an email provider that has no opinion or detractors in
relation to how to reject emails or which emails to reject, you'll find
a wealth of other complaints that stem directly from this. Out of the
140,244 emails delivered to Google by my customers today, not a single
one has complai
On 2022-04-13 14:43, Paul Vixie via mailop wrote:
it's troubling me that in a recent thread asking where to host
mailboxes, google was recommended several times, in spite of the fact
that google is provably wrong and provably non-transarent in how they
decide what inbound e-mail to reject.
of
it's troubling me that in a recent thread asking where to host
mailboxes, google was recommended several times, in spite of the fact
that google is provably wrong and provably non-transarent in how they
decide what inbound e-mail to reject.
of all constituencies, this one, mailop, is one i wou
This is in fact how they do it, and it is quite objectively wrong. SPF
is only useful when checking the connecting IP, but since they're not
receiving the mail they miss out on that transaction. Reasonable logic
would dictate that one should give up attempting to check SPF at that
stage or, at
On 14/04/2022 01:02, Paulo Pinto via mailop wrote:
Hi all.
Why on earth is gmail checking the IP address of the message sender
(ISP assigned home address, for instance) against the sender's domain
SPF without the ability of checking if that original delivery was done
using SMTP authentication
Hi all.
Why on earth is gmail checking the IP address of the message sender (ISP
assigned home address, for instance) against the sender's domain SPF
without the ability of checking if that original delivery was done using
SMTP authentication ( hence voiding the need for that IP being part of the
This isn't Pardot or Salesforce support so I don't know what good it
does to post about it here, to be honest.
Pardot clients can/should implement SSL on their tracker domain (which
includes the list-unsub domain):
https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=000318025&type=1
I just read a blog p
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> Return-Path:
>
>
> Click on the unsubscribe link, and it goes to an insecure pardot page.
Envelope-senders are not links, though.
--
Atro Tossavainen, Chairman of the Board
Infinite Mho Oy, Helsinki, Finland
tel.
Return-Path:
Click on the unsubscribe link, and it goes to an insecure pardot page.
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
A Wiz
20 matches
Mail list logo
