On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:17:39PM +0100, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> D??a 14. 3. o 12:03 Marco Moock via mailop napísal(a):
>
> > Is there any standard that defines the retry rates or at least a best
> > practise?
>
> RFC 5321, sect. 4.5.4.1:
>
> In general, the retry interval SHOULD be at l
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:03:46PM +0100, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> Am 14.03.2024 schrieb Julian Bradfield via mailop :
>
> > On 2024-03-14, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> > > sendmail tried to deliver it 20 times during the night - this
> > > morning I deleted the mail from mqueue.
> >
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 05:24:37PM +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 13.03.2024 um 17:06:03 Uhr schrieb Johann Klasek via mailop:
>
> > Is it not condescending to question to reason why someone has not
> > already the opportunity to switch to TLS 1.2?
>
> Can you name som
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:45:08PM +, Michael Irvine via mailop wrote:
> I'm in agreement. I don't see an issue. All the largest providers are
> minimum TLS. 1.2. We have had many years to migrate.
The internet does not consist just out of the "largest provider".
Is it not condescending to
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 09:30:25PM +, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> D??a 4. marca 2024 21:15:23 UTC používate?? John Levine via mailop
> napísal:
[..]
> >Agreed. My MTA uses "NORMAL:-VERS-SSL3.0"
>
> Then why you are disabled SSL3? And why you do not build own openssl
> with SSL2 support?
Why
Hi Michael!
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 06:07:13PM +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
>
> That's volume throttling, not IP blocking.
> Did you recently bring a new block online, or ... someone sending out an
> abnormally large volume of mail?
> If it's going out thru shared IPs, that could also b
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 09:25:54AM +0200, Camille - Clean Mailbox via mailop
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I didn't changed anything in Postfix configuration. But yes, over the last
> months, we upgraded from Debian 11 (OpenSSL 1.1.1n) to Debian 12 (OpenSSL
> 3.0.9).
> I don't see anything in openssl.cnf that
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 01:08:36PM +0300, Lena--- via mailop wrote:
> > I don't know where
> > to buy the brand of LSD that they did at UC Berkeley when they wrote this,
> > in order to make m4 make sense.
>
> They chose incomprehensible m4 in order to coerce you to buy support from
> them.
Wi
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 02:44:50PM -0700, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) via mailop wrote:
[..]
> Thus the questions:
>
> * Does anyone know of an OS packager that's choosing to build with gnutls
> instead of openssl. (It would simplify autoconf a lot to remove the
> gnutls support, as there are AC macros
On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:12:01AM -0700, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 10:07 AM Brandon Long wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 7:47 AM Otto J. Makela wrote:
[..]
> >> I know of a couple of similar cases -- to me it seems Google's Bayesian
> >> heuristic (if there is suc
Has anyone else seen this from Microsoft sites?
Recently, I stumbled over a rejection in our logs that came from a
Microsoft site with the source mta48.email.microsoftemail.com
[13.111.32.222]. The SPF entry of the from domain contains an "all"
which includes the entire Internet as permitted sende
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 02:48:23PM -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> It appears that Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop said:
> >Glad to hear that they could help you but I'm of the stubborn kind - we're
> >not doing anything wrong, we're not spamming,
> >we're not in a spammy neighborhood (afaik
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:36:36PM +, Tom Perrine via mailop wrote:
> I???d be interested in chatting with anyone who has rolled out (or failed to
> rollout!) Dovecot in a cluster. Especially if you???re using an object store.
It might not fit into this category but we are using for a dedicat
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:58:05PM -0500, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> In article <469F9E736EE5DB4A8C04A6F7527268FA01CA03E20B@MACNT35.macro.local>
> you write:
> >Where we have multiple internet connections, we setup MX records for both
> >connections. If one connection is down,
> >email flow
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 09:21:20AM +0200, Felix Zielcke via mailop wrote:
[..]
> Deutsche Telekom uses a whitelist which IPs can send mails to @t-
> online.de accounts. They block every IP by default.
>
> So if you got some cloud vm with a new IP address, which never before
> sent mail to a @t-onl
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 07:10:11AM -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> One thing not mentioned so far in this thread, is data collection..
>
> While many D'oh providers claim NOT to log or track, simply by using
> HTTPS opens up the door to exposing personal browsing habits..
>
> It is v
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:25:39AM +, Laura Atkins wrote:
>
> > On 12 Feb 2020, at 11:15, Johann Klasek via mailop
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:03:52AM +, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
> >>> On 11 Feb 2020, at 17:01
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:03:52AM +, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
> > On 11 Feb 2020, at 17:01, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote:
[..]
> > Your statement is certainly valid, and I don't mean to sound whiny. But it
> > is also frustrating when providers (usually large providers, like AT&T)
>
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 03:11:58PM -0800, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:27 PM Gregory Heytings via mailop <
> > > sender in addressbook is definitely a whitelisting signal, as is
> > > replying to a message the user sent or on the same thread. They used to
> > > be muc
Hi John,
fine that this is solved in some way.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:07:51PM -0500, John Covici via mailop wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 20:30:36 -0500,
> John Covici via mailop wrote:
[..]
> > I first want to thank everyone who has been helping me on this
> > problem. Well, I found somethin
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 01:07:30PM -0500, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2020, at 12:09, John Covici via mailop wrote:
[..]
>>> On 23 Jan 2020, at 18:01, John Covici via mailop wrote:
Hi. I am using sendmail from my own server and using a virtual
machine in the cloud as a relay.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 07:00:04AM -0500, John Covici via mailop wrote:
> Thanks a lot for responding.
> hmmm, I put the cipherlists you mentioned in my access database using
> tls_clt_features CipherList= ... and I even put tls_server_features
Better put it in the configuration file, .mc/.cf.
>
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:37:56AM +, Paul Smith via mailop wrote:
> On 24/01/2020 03:24, John Gateley via mailop wrote:
>>
>> She recently sent email to a group of students for a class she is
>> teaching, she had
>> e-mailed none of them before. Most of them had gmail addresses, and
>> mos
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:59:53AM +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
[..]
> That's your opinion. My opinion is that "-all" is almost never a good
> idea, and is certainly not a good idea for a small personal server. It
> breaks forwards and mailing lists. "?all" does not mean "we're
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 09:15:18AM -0400, Tom Kulzer via mailop wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 2019, at 10:24 PM, Jay Hennigan via mailop
> > wrote:
> >
> > "If you want to continue to receive email from us, click here or reply to
> > this email leaving the subject unchanged."
>
> Vacation autoresponde
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 09:08:34AM +0200, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
[..]
> We have a lot of students forwarding their emails to external mailboxes
> (usually freemailers even though they have more options here).
Same problem here...
and it was very annoying and support consuming.
[..]
> I c
On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 03:01:42PM -0500, Scott Mutter wrote:
> So I'm back, because I'm getting absolutely no where with Outlook Support.
>
> Here is a log of the SMTP transaction:
[..]
> 550 5.7.1 Unfortunately, messages from [67.222.128.248] weren't sent. Please
> contact your Internet service
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 05:23:47PM +, Mathias Ullrich wrote:
> A bounce could be called ???Rückläufer??? but a ???bounce??? works totally
> fine, never saw a ???Rückläufer Rate??? in a reporting of a German sender
I'm also (located in Austria) commonly using "bounce" as an assimilated
fo
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:47:13AM -0500, Michael Rathbun wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:42:16 +, Michael Wise via mailop
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Office365 and Hotmail/Outlook/Live/MSN are very much distinct systems,
> >even thought they are now running on the same hardware.
> >Sort of like BAS
nth names for the local language. However, these might be
out-dated installations ...
It would be great if all developers of MUAs, MTAs and other message
generating stuff test their software against an Amavis environment
before they start distributing it ...
Johann Klasek
__
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 01:01:50PM -0800, Carl Byington wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 15:41 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> > Did you do anything to specifically identify Yahoo's routers as the
> > offenders?
>
> > Hint: If there's a tunnel in the path, it will be *your* end of the
> >
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 06:01:33PM -0800, Franck Martin via mailop wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
> > I thought that POODLE required a specific type of fallback that tended to
> > be browser specific (ie, prevent a tls connection, forcing the browser to
> > fall ba
Dropbox has started some promotion activities in educational area,
called Campus WM (probably others too). They get attention to this, but
some of our students never get any response to their registration
(despite password renewal e-mails are coming through). The support
people are just replying wi
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 01:05:28PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:47:25AM -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> > While you are absolutely right that network operators and email
> > server operators should be the place that the majority of the work
> > is done (at the source),
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:33:00AM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150620_logjam_openssl_and_email_deliverabili
> ty/
>
> FYI, just a heads up.
OpenSSL now rejects handshakes using DH parameters shorter than 768 bits
as a countermeasure against the Logjam attack (CVE-20
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 10:30:36AM -0400, chris wrote:
> I have a few linux webservers and which each send out SMTP directly .
> Currently, the webservers all relay the message directly to receipient and
> if it cant then it sends back a NDR to the sender advising the sender the
> message could not
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:03:51AM -0400, chris wrote:
> What do MX records have to do with outbound SMTP delivery? Do you mean that
> if the webserver cant relay to to first MX record then try the secondary mx
> records? This still has the primary server trying and many recipients dont
> have mult
37 matches
Mail list logo
