I have just had a message sent to spam by gmail for no obvious reason
(yes, I know that gmail has many unobvious reasons, but clients will
insist on using it).
I sent my test gmail account a message, which went to inbox ok, but
looking at "Show original" displays the following weird set of
securit
On 2025-03-08, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> Am 08.03.2025 um 11:56:56 Uhr schrieb Alessandro Vesely via mailop:
>> I read that since v0.10 fail2ban supports the matching of IPv6
>> addresses. I don't use it, so I don't know how it works.
>
> It can check for IPv6 addresses in the log and ban
Anybody know how to contact talktalk.net ? (A British ISP well known
for lack of technical support capability.)
I'm getting bounces from them because they've enabled DMARC with
p=reject, without setting up DKIM. Consequently any simply re-sent
message without header munging (e.g. my organization m
On 2024-09-08, Simplelists - Andy Beverley via mailop wrote:
> On 05/09/2024 14:53, Julian Bradfield via mailop wrote:
>> I've had a bounce from a mimecast hosted domain that I don't
>> understand, and should be grateful for any help. I'm redacting
>> localpar
On 2024-09-07, Ángel via mailop wrote:
> On 2024-09-05 at 14:53 +0100, Julian Bradfield via mailop wrote:
>> I've had a bounce from a mimecast hosted domain that I don't
>> understand, and should be grateful for any help. I'm redacting
>> localparts, but nothi
I've had a bounce from a mimecast hosted domain that I don't
understand, and should be grateful for any help. I'm redacting
localparts, but nothing else.
The message is sent From: x...@btinternet.com, to a private mailing
list y...@bcrc.org.uk .
That list simply distributes the incoming message to
On 2024-07-15, Jeff Pang via mailop wrote:
> When I deploy a new mailserver, I consider postfix, exim and qmail.
> From practical experience, what are the advantages, disadvantages, and
> adaptation scenarios of postfix, exim, and qmail?
I run exim on my servers and postfix on my laptops. I fin
On 2024-07-09, Ralph Seichter via mailop wrote:
> * Philip Paeps via mailop:
>
>> With such low volume, you will really struggle to get email delivered
>> to the larger mailbox providers, whose filtering is largely based on
>> reputation. It's almost impossible to build up (and maintain) a
>> repu
On 2024-03-31, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> Dňa 31. marca 2024 15:02:31 UTC používateľ Odhiambo Washington via mailop
> napísal:
>
>>> Something bad seems to have gained the ability to use that IP...
>>>
>>
>>Not that easy unless there is some recent exploit that I am not aware of.
>
> Don't seems
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.
That's a fairly aggressive retry strategy. If there's something about
that message gmail doesn't like, then retrying that often might be
enough to
On 2024-03-14, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Yesterday I replied somebody directly on debian-users (he uses a crappy
> mailer and sends to the author and the mailing list...).
>
> Gmail doesn't like this mail, but rejects it with a tempfail. I've now
> deleted it from mqueue.
>
> Mar
On 2024-03-08, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On 2024-03-08 at 12:07:23 UTC-0500 (Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:07:23 +)
> Julian Bradfield via mailop
> is rumored to have said:
>> Is there any reason not to use the old routing character '%' instead?
> Yes: it is an old r
An idle question: people who do SRS or similar things usually use
'=' as the replacement for '@' in the rewritten address
localpart=origdomain@mydomain
Is there any reason not to use the old routing character '%' instead?
I did this some years ago when I hacked in SRS to keep gmail happy
with one
On 2024-03-07, Sebastian Nielsen via mailop wrote:
> Exactly, but when the mail client tries to display the crap in the name
> field, it causes it to crash. Guess it tries to render Emoji in a field that
> is not designed to accept Emoji, thus it just silentcrash into desktop.
> So people can't
I just had a bounce, when a member of the list posted, from what is
presumably a mimecast served company, to one of my club lists.
The member's own copy of the list posting was bounced by his provider
with
550 Rejected by header based Anti-Spoofing policy:
[member's address redacted] -
http
On 2024-03-01, Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop wrote:
> @Julien Bradfield:
> I've initially shared the exact line in the code on what Aiosmtpd - not my
> software - is doing, which it is saying is following the RFC by removing
> the first character if it's a dot. I could share emails that went
I did
On 2024-03-01, Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop wrote:
> Upon further investigation, we realized that GMail does NOT respect that
> RFC. They keep the dot. And if you add two dots, as per the RFC, GMail will
> keep the two dots, making the URL broken.
What *exactly* did you do to realize thi
On 2024-02-29, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
> Today an italian mailvox provider started refusing our emails with this
> message
>> 550 5.1.0 sender rejected:
> domain does not have neither a valid MX or A record
>
> The "e.#customerdomain" is a CNAME record that points to app.mailvox.it and
On 2024-02-09, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> I don't know if any MTA out there supports [DKIM] directly or supports
> Milter.
Exim supports it, even in the rather old version in Debian 10 that I
use.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://l
On 2024-02-08, Archange via mailop wrote:
[...]
> No, I agree with you (I’m running two forwarders that have no issues so
> far). And having a DMARC enforcing policy without DKIM is a bad idea.
>
> I would have wished that DMARC would require both SPF and DKIM, but now
> it is too late for that.
I run some small mailing lists for a club, and there's one member with
an address at icloud.com that rejects (with a generic "policy"
message) many of the messages sent to the club lists. Sometimes it's
possibly explicable because the message was sent by somebody whose
provider doesn't DKIM-sign.
On 2023-06-11, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> Now i did search in both, the my MX's SPAM archive and
> my own maildir. I found really small amount of multipart/related
> with type= argument in my maildir, all was pointing to text/html.
> I found relative many multipart/related nessages in SPAM
> archi
On 2023-06-11, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> from time to time i get SPAM with Content-Type with extra
> type= argument, eg.:
>
> Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; ...
>
> I spend a lot of time to find where that type= argument is
> defined. I guess, that they try do
On 2023-05-12, Jenny Nespola via mailop wrote:
> Hope you are well. I was wondering what else I may be missing when
> researching a Gmail/Workspace placement issue. I have a client that
[ snip ]
> Once you engage, the mail will stay in the inbox or if you pull from spam,
> but anyone new (with
On 2023-03-24, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop wrote:
> fh--- via mailop (Fr 24 Mär 2023 03:56:53 CET):
>> > does anybody from mailgun read here?
>> > Your messages are tmprejected at our systems, w/o any chance to pass
>> > ever.
>> b/c they were sending spams?
>
> I can't tell, because we reject
On 2023-02-28, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> Dnia 28.02.2023 o godz. 11:10:05 Julian Bradfield via mailop pisze:
>> Maybe worth pointing that people do greylisting, and with
>> greylisting it's helpful to retry quite soon. Immediately isn't
>> useful,
On 2023-02-28, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> Another nonsense thing for me is that some senders - again, mostly the big
> ones - retry almost *immediately* (often from a different IP address) if
> they encounter a 4xx, and after a few such unsuccessful retries (within only
> a few minutes) the
On 2023-02-22, Taavi Eomäe via mailop wrote:
>> Why should I need to use a program registered to the service provider
>> in order to read my email? (Or in my case, register myself as a
>> developer with Microsoft in order to allow me and my colleagues to
>> read our own mail.)
>
>
> You are confus
On 2023-02-22, Taavi Eomäe via mailop wrote:
> This discussion is getting awfully close to reinventing OAuth2.
>
> It's quite clear by now that long-lived tokens that are nearly
> impossible to properly revoke just don't work well in any human-operated
> contexts.
>
> Hopefully we'll see an incr
For the last couple of decades, I've been running Exim, using
long-lived self-signed certificates for TLS, and since the last but
one upgrade a couple of years ago, these certificates haven't even
been for the right machine:)
Almost everybody seems happy to talk to me, including gmail and
microsof
On 2022-10-21, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
[ in reply to a poster who had pain setting up new mxes ]
> To stay ontopic here, the question is: _why_ were you getting "blocks left
> and right"? And what were they?
>
> Was it a "fresh & clean" IPv4 address or one that had been abused in
31 matches
Mail list logo
