On 2022-06-15 14:08, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
On 2022-06-15 12:50, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
Haven't been keeping up on these, figured it is time to put one out,
even though it isn't the end of the week...
(see attach)
This one really bugs me Gmail, why should we have t
On 2022-06-07 11:11, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
it's probably no surprise to anybody, but Leaseweb is a confirmed
spammer haven.
Sadly, this is where my mail server is hosted. Due to their acquisitions
rather than by my choice, but it hasn't been enough of a problem to make
any effo
On 2022-03-02 09:56, Brie via mailop wrote:
So, are we all still under the conclusion that it's a waste of time to
hope that something might be done about abuse from their network?
If nothing was fixed last year, why would anything be fixed this year?
Maybe next year!
On 2022-01-11 03:29, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 10.01.2022 o godz. 19:30:02 Dave Warren via mailop pisze:
How would it know the difference if it was Thunderbird, or the user?
You can guess by timing.
If the message is moved to spam folder immediately after being fetched by
client
On 2022-01-11 09:11, Lukas Tribus via mailop wrote:
in my opinion Office 365 does it right (in the browser).
When marking an email as Junk, it will ask the user whether the
message should*ALSO* be reported. This hints at the possibility that
this will land at a human person (can be true for abu
On 2022-01-11 03:29, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 10.01.2022 o godz. 19:30:02 Dave Warren via mailop pisze:
How would it know the difference if it was Thunderbird, or the user?
You can guess by timing.
If the message is moved to spam folder immediately after being fetched by
client
On 2022-01-10 15:27, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 2:01 PM Matt Vernhout via mailop
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:
Also check which email client they are using. For example
Thunderbird, or another plugin, may move mail from the inbox to the
junk folder w
On 2022-01-10 15:32, Mark Fletcher via mailop wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 11:24 AM Douglas Vought via mailop
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:
Does anyone have any tips on handling abuse complaints on legit email?
When we (Groups.io) receives an FBL report, we automatically unsubscribe
On 2021-12-26 18:44, Ángel via mailop wrote:
On 2021-12-23 at 21:02 -0700, Dave Warren via mailop wrote:
Even just verifying a phone number adds a real world cost to
switching identities which makes blocking far more effective.
There is certainly a cost for casual users wishing to switch
On 2021-12-26 19:23, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 02:44:35 +0100, Ángel via mailop
wrote:
I wonder however if that's still the case for "professional" spammers,
as I expect they would be able to buy phone numbers more easily and
cheap than common users.
What is this
On 2021-12-18 08:39, yuv via mailop wrote:
On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 15:13 +0100, Alexey Shpakovsky via mailop wrote:
On Sat, December 18, 2021 13:50, yuv via mailop wrote:
What makes the difference between [the smoothly running messaging
systems] and internet email?
I believe answer is centraliz
On 2021-12-19 08:01, Daniele Nicolodi via mailop wrote:
Hello,
does anyone have experience in using SMTP2GO Free tier service for
sending tiny volume of emails from personal domains?
Being grumpy about the failure of SMTP as a federated protocol does not
help have email delivered, thus I am
On 2021-08-05 09:47, John Levine via mailop wrote:
It appears that Luis E. Muñoz via mailop said:
Out of curiosity, and recognizing that this would be a separate thread,
what makes email non-compliant, considering that fax seems to be
compliant? Just in case, this is a serious question of mine.
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021, at 09:14, Xavier Beaudouin via mailop wrote:
> Hello,
>
> >> But it seems they never trys the best preference first.
> >>
> >
> > Are you greylisting or running pregreet tests on your MXes?
> >
> > Here's what I think is happening. MS first tries the priority 10 MX,
>
On 2021-04-30 08:50, Chris Kolbenschlag via mailop wrote:
I got an email from a small receiver that they are blocking one of our
/24s because of spam. I looked up the email address they referenced and
found the contact signed up on their website 2 years ago, has a 41% open
rate, a 17% click ra
On 2021-04-21 13:34, John Levine via mailop wrote:
It appears that Peter Nicolai Mathias Hansteen via mailop
said:
Greylisting implementations tend to expect retries to come from the same IP
address as the original one. Some of us are still quite cross that
the writers-of-RFCs did not care to
On 2021-04-20 03:24, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
Another possibility, which would for example apply to the mail systems for
which I'm responsible, is that temp rejection
is used to defer mail from questionable sources until a manual check shows that
they're likely genuine (or in some
c
On 2021-02-09 14:47, Chris via mailop wrote:
On 2021-02-08 21:09, Dave Warren via mailop wrote:
\
You could always turn on + addressing on M365...
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/recipients-in-exchange-online/plus-addressing-in-exchange-online
Admittedly it is fairly new, and opt
On 2021-02-10 12:08, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
The much larger address space makes it too easy for a bad actor to
jump around and, therefore, not develop a bad reputation associated
with the address. So non-history features are ma
On 2021-02-08 16:14, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
On 8 Feb 2021, at 17:03, Richard Bewley via mailop wrote:
The critical feature in '+' tagging (and equivalents using other
characters or patterns) is the ability to create aliases on-the-fly in a
namespace that the user controls such that the m
On 2021-02-08 15:03, Richard Bewley via mailop wrote:
Only this weekend I was trying to help an old colleague with a migration from
Gsuite to M365. The #1 complaint... was some of his minions were seemingly
crippled by the lack of this function.. and I was thinking err aliases?
Aliases?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, at 11:32, Mark E. Jeftovic via mailop wrote:
> Hey all, we're looking to deploy some user-configurable options in our mail
> filtering such as being able to select which RBLs and RHSBLs they want to
> apply to their inbound messages.
> We already subscribe to some on a syst
On 2020-10-30 08:25, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 1:11 AM Atro Tossavainen via mailop
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:
Why does Google bounce after accepting a message? At Google's scale,
the potential to become the world's biggest spammer simply through
On 2020-08-03 17:39, Jerry Cloe via mailop wrote:
It could also be argued as case law against other blacklist providers.
As I understand US law, defaults do not provide any form of precedent or
other form of useful case law.
There might well be exceptions, of course.
___
A bit late, sorry.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 04:55, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 13:35 -0600, Daniele Nicolodi via mailop wrote:
>> Does anyone know if there is any alternative to Outlook to access
>>
>> Exchange Online mailboxes that require modern authentication?
>
>
Looks good from what I can see from here, thanks!
On 2019-05-07 12:31, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
This should be fixed now.
Brandon
*From: *Dave Warren mailto:d...@thedave.ca>>
*Date: *Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:40 PM
*To: * mailto:mailop@mailop.org>>
__
Thanks, s
On 2019-04-22 08:11, Michael Rathbun wrote:
Neither you nor your customer are customers of the freemail provider.
Agreed.
The provider has close to zero economic incentive to pay attention to your needs
and desires.
I strongly disagree here, the freemail providers have a product (your
e
Thanks, sent off-list!
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, at 17:09, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> If you send me the header of a message we responded to, I can file a bug.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:53 PM Dave Warren wrote:
>> I've had a couple users complaining
I've had a couple users complaining about receiving a bunch of unexpected
bounce messages recently, since we filter bounce messages pretty carefully I
dug into it and the messages are being pulled from Gmail accounts via our POP
retrieval system which bypasses bounce filtering. We don't get the
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019, at 19:40, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Oh, I love focused. It works exactly as intended. I'll dig around in the
> Office 365 I admin and then relay to the one with the problem where to look.
>
You might, but to less technical users it is just another spam folder that they
don't c
On 2019-01-26 16:24, Paul Ebersman wrote:
ebersman> And if the server doesn't give the same complete answer every
ebersman> time (regardless of order), it's technically violating the DNS
ebersman> RFCs.
dw> I'm not sure that this is really true from a client's standpoint.
dw> Just because you g
On 2019-01-24 09:29, Paul Ebersman wrote:
And if the
server doesn't give the same complete answer every time (regardless of
order), it's technically violating the DNS RFCs.
I'm not sure that this is really true from a client's standpoint.
Just because you get a different answer from my authori
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018, at 19:29, Noel Butler wrote:
> Problem with letsencrypt is their preferred and insisted " certbot "
> - does not run (easily at least) on all flavours..> I gave up with it on
> slackware which is what my servers run, tried
> using Crypt::LE and voila instant success, it was p
On 2018-09-11 11:00, Mike Hammett wrote:
Most platforms have a password per account. Not a password per
account-service combination.
Yes, and?
This isn't an overnight switch or even possible on all platforms, but it
is a viable way to move forward. Most of the major consumer platforms
(Googl
On 2018-09-07 15:09, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 9/7/18 12:32 PM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
* Do you enforce 'tough' passwords?
Most formula-based "tough" passwords are only "tough" for the legitimate
user, not an attacker.
Consider that with email protocols, this doesn't necessarily apply.
Whi
owed by contact from a mortgage broker
with documents attached for one of the properties.
In one case I called a doctor's office and asked them to remove my
address, they did and were very apologetic, then a couple weeks later
they re-added my address. Apparently that Dave Warren gave the
On 2018-07-13 08:53, Mihai Costea wrote:
At the other side of the spectrum there are one off mails that go ignored due
to the signal to noise ratio of the long tail. There’s tons of folks with
weird complains (from “I think Xbox live is too expensive” to suggestions on
what billGates should d
Keep in mind that "no human will likely ever read..." does not mean that
the mailbox is ignored. At this scale abuse handling is automated in one
fashion or another.
I have no knowledge of what specifically Microsoft is doing.
On 2018-07-12 14:28, Eric Tykwinski wrote:
I really hope your wro
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, at 13:27, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> Been seeing an awful lot of these lately on one of my email servers
> (exim based):
>
>
> 2018-06-11 14:15:44 no host name found for IP address 157.25.104.90
> 2018-06-11 14:15:47 rejected HELO from [157.25.104.90]: syntactically
> invalid
On 2018-04-18 17:49, Al Iverson wrote:
In the past I've had to deal with DNSBL listings based on faked
received headers-- IMHO, it's not safe to parse IPs beyond connections
that you yourself have verified.
I've always considered this a feature, not a bug. Spammer forges their
way into getting
On 2018-03-01 16:26, David Carriger wrote:
Yes, I'm still seeing this. So, an open question:
As an ESP, how am I supposed to tell my users to practice good list
hygiene and remove unengaged recipients from their lists when my data is
being tainted by Google/Microsoft/etc triggering all of my e
On 2018-02-27 21:17, Philip Paeps wrote:
You're posting as an alias in a domain from a server that's not
authorized to send mail for that domain and isn't dkim signing for
that domain, and posting to a public group in that domain. It's kind
of a spammy set of circumstances, but really it's the
On 2018-02-17 03:48, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Unfortunately there are still some server accepting everything and
sending bounces without headers or malformed bounces.
This is not a small group. Every few months I get massive floods of
bounces from some spambot that decided forging my domain is a
On 2018-02-13 03:33, G. Miliotis wrote:
Hi,
For a moment there I thought that there was a banner ad in your
signature. May I suggest you make it animated, it'll be a lot more catchy.
That and I wonder what MimeCast pays for a sponsored email footer?
_
On 2018-02-09 14:20, John Levine wrote:
In article
you write:
I'm confused, the first post said valid credentials, is that what everyone
else is seeing?
Nearly all valid creds seems weirder than mostly invalid... modulo whatever
amount of hijacked or reused creds there are.
Remember that Ou
On 2018-02-06 16:34, Laura Atkins wrote:
Putting a URL in a List-Unsubscribe header is an entirely reasonable
thing to do, and lots of ESPs do it.
Lots of non-ESPs do it, too.
Heck, I do it for virtually all automated messages, even on some
internal stuff, basically anything that is automat
That seems excessive and gross. Any reason you wouldn't just buy a new
license and call it a day?
That actually sounds more like they accidentally hired a commissioned
sales rep from a competitor. But maybe that's just me.
On 2018-02-06 14:14, Marc Goldman via mailop wrote:
I appreciate that
On 2018-02-06 15:49, John Levine wrote:
In article <7e12d5ff-f770-b5db-f913-18dafcd03...@thedave.ca> you write:
Also URLs in mail headers, which is perhaps reasonable, except that
...many ESPs now put unsub URLs in the headers.
Are the results any more harmful than the same unsub URL in the
On 2018-02-05 10:27, Marc Goldman via mailop wrote:
I received an email telling me I would need to pay RETROACTIVELY for the
years I did NOT receive support in order to upgrade.
Has anyone ever heard of a policy like that?
What is cheaper, paying retroactively or buying a new license?
At $DA
On 2018-02-02 15:18, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Charles McKean wrote:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop
wrote:
On Sat, 2018-01-20 at 11:14 +1100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
One can only conclude, they either have a leak in their API, or they
altered the permissions to giv
On 2018-02-02 10:47, Chris wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:52:16 +
Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote:
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 17:26 +0100, Chris wrote:
I'm a bit surprised, that on a small mail server, 77 % of the
rejected mails are rejected because of invalid recipient adresses.
22 % because of
On 2018-02-06 10:12, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote:
Also URLs in mail headers, which is perhaps reasonable, except that
...many ESPs now put unsub URLs in the headers.
Are the results any more harmful than the same unsub URL in the foot (or
otherwise in the visible body of the message)?
On 2018-01-21 09:40, Charles McKean wrote:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop
wrote:
On Sat, 2018-01-20 at 11:14 +1100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
One can only conclude, they either have a leak in their API, or they
altered the permissions to give out emails when specific
I'm not actually seeing how this is DHL's fault. DMARC requires either
DKIM *or* SPF to pass, if you're misconfigured such that you're breaking
SPF that would seem to be your issue more than DHL's.
In an ideal world, senders would aim to pass both DKIM and SPF, but if
you're intentionally breaking
On 2017-11-08 12:20, Warren Volz wrote:
All,
One of my users has their account setup to forward mail to Gmail.
Recently I've started to see lots of rejects that look like the following:
(expanded from ): host
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2607:f8b0:400e:c04::1a] said: 550-5.7.1
[ipv6 address 18
On 2017-10-10 08:20, John R Levine wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, David Hofstee wrote:
Didn't Google mention they wanted the age of the keys to count in the
spam
score?
I'll check but I would be surprised if it made much difference.
I rotate my keys every month, which seems to be more often tha
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017, at 13:48, Paul Witting wrote:
> Anyone from Gmail here? Hopefully I’m not off topic.
>
> CEO was complaining about mail not getting to clients (not mail campaigns,
> just day to day business). He sent a simple Subject: Test w/ Body Test (+
> signature) to his personal G
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017, at 09:05, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
>> Il 26 luglio 2017 alle 19.10 Brandon Long ha scritto:>>
>> Why can't smtp software being expected to maintain a list of trusted CAs?
>> Or at least run on an OS that is expected to do so.> There is a standard
>> explanation (liter
Starr wrote:
> Then what does "unmanaged" mean in this context?
>
> -Tim
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Dave Warren wrote:>> __
>> As far as #2, because users of said servers often want to send email.>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017, at 12
As far as #2, because users of said servers often want to send email.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017, at 12:05, Tim Starr wrote:
> An overall admirable response, keep up the good work. Just 2 questions:>
> 1) Why not put TLDR at top?
> 2) Why allow email to be sent at all from "unmanaged servers"?
>
> -T
On Mon, May 22, 2017, at 18:59, frnk...@iname.com wrote:
> Just starting last week we started seeing our outbound queues fill up
> with undeliverable client messages generated because of this one-click
> unsubscribe feature. Since this Apple feature has been in place for
> over six months, I’m sur
On Mon, May 1, 2017, at 22:07, Carl Byington wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Sat, 2017-04-29 at 00:01 -0700, Mark Milhollan wrote:
> > But some have an X-Forefront-Antispam-Report header with SFV:SPM which
> > has been said is their indicator of a message they con
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017, at 09:15, Laura Atkins wrote:
>
>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 9, 2017 13:07, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq."
>> wrote:
>>> This brings up a good point...back in 'the day' folks would report
>>> spam on NANAE; is there a managed, moderated m
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017, at 05:15, Vick Khera wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Dave Warren
> wrote:
>> I'm feeling like the rep has absolutely no idea what DKIM is
>> or how it
>> works. As I don't have access to an AWeber account, can anyone
>
Howdy! We push a DMARC reject policy for our clients unless they have a
need to do otherwise, especially for new projects/domains, so that we
can proactively help clients move toward authenticating all mail as they
add external services rather than building an ongoing technical debt of
unknown send
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017, at 13:58, John Levine wrote:
> In article <20170326220333.3c517c48@quill> you write:
> >If I want to be able to give people information for being able to
> >contact me via the Internet, so that I can have a reasonable expectation
> >of being able to make sure that this will st
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017, at 13:34, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
> *PLEASE JOIN THE ICANN GROUP* and help us fight back against people
> who are fighting *in favour* of crime.
Please also take the time to understand that your needs are not my
needs. I would be in favour of a WHOIS system that doesn't exp
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017, at 13:03, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2017 00:20:17 -
> "John Levine" wrote:
>
> > Of course. But the fraction of domains registered by natural people
> > is quite low. And, of course, the claim that you need your own second
> > level domain to communicate on the
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, at 17:38, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> <1489684655.3176120.913642288.0d732...@webmail.messagingengine.com> you
> write:
> >You can make a rule against sending credit cards by email, but if
> >customer service reps know it works they might still encourage a
> >customer to
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, at 07:37, Paul Smith wrote:
> On 16/03/2017 14:18, Kevin Huxham wrote:
>> they probably sell fax machines.
>
> Their response is a bit like someone sending them credit card details
> on a postcard, and them tearing it up (because you shouldn't send
> confidential informa
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017, at 16:19, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:52:21AM +0800, ComKal Networks wrote:
> > I have noticed the scrapping of whois and dns records
> > appears to have increased dramatically over the past
> > 2 years.
>
> Both of those are poor sources of email addres
On 2017-02-09 01:16, Paul Smith wrote:
I never understand why users won't just collect mail from the 'proper'
mail server rather than having to forward it all to gmail/hotmail. A
large portion of our support issues are to do with this forwarding.
In my experience, it's because Gmail/Hotmail/wha
On 2017-02-09 12:25, John Levine wrote:
I never understand why users won't just collect mail from the 'proper'
mail server rather than having to forward it all to gmail/hotmail. A
large portion of our support issues are to do with this forwarding.
Bad reason: setting up POP collection takes two
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017, at 17:57, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2017 21:30:20 +, "John Levine" said:
>
> > That led to great merriment, since that's Blue State Digital and mail
> > from mainstream political groups went into spamtraps that tested the
> > URLs, some of which were "Cli
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017, at 17:53, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> Having a bad credit score is 100% of your problem if you can't get a
> loan, and 99% of the time your bad credit score isn't the fault of the
> credit bureau. You earned that bad credit score (or RBL listing).
This is a good analogy though, as
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 13:27, Vick Khera wrote:
> 1) Is the remote IP listed in CBL? Yes -> force CAPTCHA
> 2) Is the remote IP listed in CleanTalk.org/blacklists? Yes -> force
> CAPTCHA
> 3) Is the remote IP listed in minFraud open proxies? Yes -> force CAPTCHA
>
> Then proceed with the normal
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 23:41, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
> At least they could forward all spam complaints they receive to the
> hoster of the origin on the content. But in my observation, they don't
> do that.
Truthfully, forwarding complaints is a bit of a messy business as this
could easily forwar
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 22:04, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> You're the one who said "CloudFlare will serve your website's static
> pages from our cache...that falls into my definition of being a host,
> even if it's only short term". So will your browser. /nitpick
There is a difference: CloudFlare
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 21:44, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Dave Warren
> wrote:
>> They
>> can yell and scream all they want about not being a host, but
>> they also
>> advertise that "CloudFlare will serve your website's s
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 06:17, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
<...>
> Unfortunately that redirector service is run by cloudflare. So the
> complaints reach the cloudflare abuse desk. And their usual reply is:
>
> We accept the following kinds of reports:
>
> Copyright infringement & DMCA violations
>
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016, at 02:16, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
> I used to discuss issues on their NNTP Server:
>
> news://news.spamcop.net/
>
> But it is down at the moment (or has it been put out of service? I
> haven't connected for a long time)
http://forum.spamcop.net/topic/14438-spamcop-groups-on-g
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016, at 15:22, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> On 16-08-30 12:43 PM, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
> > We could use one to call out the location of colo servers that should never
> > be connecting on port 443, for instance.
>
> Um, I can think of a reason why that might not be perfec
Worse still is the silent discards... It makes you beg for a "possible
spam detected".
The BOFH in me has always wanted to adjust my rejection messages to show
the lowest scored DNSBL in the rejection message, then add a bunch of
useless, high-false-negative DNSBLs with trivially low scores just
s a sloppy mess of things that are valid but their UI won't permit.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
the fault really is on their side of the
line.
Either way, yes, your candor is greatly appreciated!
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
to expose
that to the user and give them a chance to reconsider.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
alking about mailing list subscriptions here, not missile launch
codes; unless one's company depends on mailing lists, the overall
resources available to combat a generally-minor problem will be equally
minimal and a captcha will defeat the entirety of the types of
adversaries wh
require subscription
requests to either have valid SPF, DKIM, or some matching of
MX/rDNS/something to indicate it might be legitimate.
But of course this would require users to actually want to join lists
enough to take action, and we can't have friction.
--
Dave Warren
I might do so again after compromising the corporate bank account so
that wire transfer confirmations are not seen and acted upon in a timely
fashion.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mail
ands.
Given that RFC 821 is from August of 1982, I would wholeheartedly
recommend unplugging them until they catch up to at least 1984, or if
that's not possible, at least disable the SMTP-breaking "feature". Even
Microsoft published a how-to article on the topic:
https://support
ars with solid anti-fraud / anti-abuse
processes tend to present few abuse incidents — at the same price point.
While true, how can I pragmatically determine the registrar during the
SMTP session in a way that scales?
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.li
ected business model is not my problem.
I'm not saying a TLD can't run promotions, but rather, that the upfront
cost shouldn't be it, I'd be fine with a TLD doing second-year-free or
similar.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.co
quot;https://www.bankname-online.example"; type URL, it just
might hit a lot of otherwise smart issues.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/
I have the old one with 50 accounts. And "hobbled" might be a bit of an
exaggeration, but I do run my own servers and I am used to having all
sorts of flexibility :)
However, hobbled feels right since the features already exist, they're
just... well...
--
Dave Warren
http://w
I would, if I could pay for just the actual users. Sadly, I have too
many other things that need mailboxes and/or accounts for other purposes
and I just can't justify paying for each of them.
Instead, I just keep Gmail disabled and only use the features that
aren't hobbled.
On 2016-04-05 11:
thank you for that!
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
using freemail domains, yet paying
for ESP services? For realsies? And if so, wouldn't this be an obvious
upsell opportunity or partnership to get these customers using their own
domain?
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejw
ocks3.google.com ~all"
It's a lot of ranges, and I'm not sure if Google uses them all for mail
today, but they well might tomorrow -- I don't see much point in
greylisting mail from Google, other than perhaps to allow for URIBLs to
learn of new hosts.
--
Dave Warren
http
, etc) I trigger a greylisting, and I've had
good luck replacing the IP in a greylist entry with "SPF:PASS"
indicator, such that a retry from any other IP that passes SPF is
considered the same -- This works for any large sending farm that has
valid SPF records.
--
Dave Warren
ht
gistry, this is the whole
point of HKEY_CURRENT_USER (and obviously if the user doesn't have
access to the right parts of the registry, neither will Outlook have the
ability to create or modify anything)
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.co
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
