Re: [mailop] Mail to outlook and S3150 ?

Hi! > It looks we had two issues. 1) no DMARC policy published > and 2) bug in the DKIM d=<...> field. > > Fixed, let's see how it goes. Well, not according to the plan. It looks like the mail is still rejected with the same error messages. Is there a delay until hotmail/outlook takes up the up

Re: [mailop] Mail to outlook and S3150 ?

Hi! [Udeme wrote:] > I believe the error message is explanatory - and FWIW, they’re enforcing > stricter sending guidelines (see > https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/microsoftdefenderforoffice365blog/strengthening-email-ecosystem-outlook%e2%80%99s-new-requirements-for-high%e2%80%90volume-sen

[mailop] Mail to outlook and S3150 ?

Hi! A mail server I'm happen to manage has lots of problems with rejects from outlook/hotmail mailservers. The error message looks very generic: Reason: 550 5.7.1 Unfortunately, messages from [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx] weren't sent. Please contact your Internet service provider since part of their netwo

Re: [mailop] gmail SPF check fail ?

Hi! > Wouldn't DKIM signing the OOF messages help? I tried that (see discussion on exim-users list), and no, it did not help. https://lists.exim.org/lurker/thread/20240815.084640.af299dec.en.html > That way the authentication at gmail's side would not fail. That's what I assumed from the initi

Re: [mailop] gmail SPF check fail ?

Hi! > > Is it possible that gmail finds the <> envelope-from cheesy and > > choose to reject ? > > No. If you use MAIL FROM: <>, the SPF doesn't work for MAIL FROM. > > It will use the SPF (TXT) record for the domain name of the sending > SMTP server. Ah, oh! > If that mail gets out by mail.ex

Re: [mailop] gmail SPF check fail ?

Hi! > Am 15.08.2024 um 14:20:09 Uhr schrieb Kurt Jaeger via mailop: > > > > We have another (customer) domain, vhs-tuebingen.de, and > > > it also reports our SPF/DKIM records as 'failed'. > > > > The error when a mail is sent from that domain to

Re: [mailop] gmail SPF check fail ?

Hi, > We have another (customer) domain, vhs-tuebingen.de, and > it also reports our SPF/DKIM records as 'failed'. The error when a mail is sent from that domain to gmail is: 550-5.7.26 SPF [] with ip: [212.71.211.41] = did not pass -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372

[mailop] gmail SPF check fail ?

Hi, we are a google postmaster tool user, and regularly check our setup. Recently, there's a new dashboard at the google postmaster tool, and it reports our (nepustil.net) SPF record as 'failed'. We have another (customer) domain, vhs-tuebingen.de, and it also reports our SPF/DKIM records as 'fa

Re: [mailop] Email System Testing Methodologies?

Hello, > >One item to be aware of is that the outgoing servers (which return the > >messages) do DANE validation, and thus will not deliver to any servers with > >failed DANE. > > pleaee, is no DANE considered as failed DANE? (Only to be sure...) No -- I just tested and I have no DANE on my mail

[mailop] nabble.com admin contact ?

Hi! I'm from the postmaster@ team of FreeBSD.org and look for some contacts from the nabble.com team. We have approx. 75 subscribers on our mailman instance, of the form lists+n-...@nn.nabble.com where the mail to those addresses fails (in a way that our mailman will not unsubsc

Re: [mailop] Any chance that Microsoft would tell it's customer that the 'junk' folder creates complaints?

Hi! > Is there any chance such incidents could be avoided by Microsoft > showing a pop up or similar, that a complaint to the sending ISP is > being generated when moving an email to the 'junk' folder? We receive those mails as well. Many times the mails from Microsoft contain sensible personal i

Re: [mailop] [External] dcc down / dead?

Hi! > Vernon has emailed me that everything is renewed. Can you confirm it > looks good now? Yes, confirmed. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372Now what ? ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.o

Re: [mailop] [External] dcc down / dead?

Hi! > On 5/23/2020 7:23 AM, Stefan Bauer via mailop wrote: [...] > > seems like the main DCC servers are down (dcc1-6.dcc-servers.net), > > also the website. > Stefan, hi, I run a DCC mirror and not aware of anything. And > https://www.rhyolite.com/dcc/ is online for me. Forwarded your email

[mailop] contact to freenet.de mail admin here on the list ?

Hi! For a mailserver I'm operating we see rejections when the connecting IP is from IPv6, with the error message: 550-Inconsistent/Missing DNS PTR record (RFC 1912 2.1) I've checked forward/reverse/SPF records for that domain and set of IPs and everything checks out. Is there some freenet.de ma

Re: [mailop] Certified Senders Alliance

Hi! > What is the general opinion of the Certified Senders Alliance? I had one case with them in 2009, which ended *very* unpleasent. We had some spam case from one of their members, complaint by phone and a few minutes later one of our internal addresses got subscribed via some Tor relay to som

Re: [mailop] Message Store on NFS in a high available setup

Hi! > is there anyone working in a larger/'more demanding' environment, using > NFS for his/her message store, where there is a business requirement of > High Availability? If so, what commercial or open source storage > solution is used? I have a similar requirement for a project and am > loo

Re: [mailop] SPF record

Hi! Steve wrote: > "~all" is the smart policy to use; ignore those who tell you to > use "-all" or "?all". Can you tell more about this ? Why is '-all' bad ? -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go ! ___ mail

Re: [mailop] Is Yahoo! breaking the RFC 5321 for an Implicit MX?

Hi! > have an explicit null MX record in the DNS, e.g.: > > foo MX 0 . > > See RFC 7075. That's RFC 7505. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go ! ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chil

Re: [mailop] 'abuse@' a hosting company - was this a valid response?

Hi! > We received spam from a leased/hosted server (195.154.62.181) to an > email address which has never been used legitimately (ie it was a > scraped email address) > > We reported it to abuse@ the hosting company with headers, message, etc. > > The response we got back was essentially "We'r

Re: [mailop] Mails to microsoft

Hi! > There's what, 3 major providers? Hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo. > > That's not a lot to sign up for. baidu, web.de, gmx.de, t-online.de, the french players, . There's a lot out there... -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 3 years to go !

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Hi! To jump into the NetManager debate: > If a company/ISP is registered with us for NetManager, and have chosen > to receive reports, they get emails upon listing and by default they > will have access to additional (but heavily munged) information that any > good sysadmin should be able to u

Re: [mailop] domain research tools?

Hi! > Do you do any domain research in the course of your work? If so, what tools > do you use for research [...] http://www.domaintools.com/ has some services, for some EUR/$. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go !

Re: [mailop] I trust my candor is appreciated...?

Hi! > My hint to german law wasn't meant to offend anyone and of course this > doesn't apply for every other country - i just wanted to provide > information on the local situation. I'm from Germany too, I ran a small ISP operation and we're vaguely aware about this. But to further the discussion

Re: [mailop] Old users' brute force

Hi! > I was wondering how others deal with failing login attempts related to > deleted accounts. Is there a particularly good way to convince old > users to update their configurations? Re-open the account, feed it hge useless noise and a telling subject/short README. Users will notice and

Re: [mailop] Delivery to A record if MX exists ?

Hello, > I think I remember a rule that says that delivery to a domain's > A record SHOULD NOT happen, if an MX exists. > > Does that kind of rule really exists ? Or do I mis-remember ? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-5.1 5.1. Locating the Target Host can be read that MX records ha

[mailop] Delivery to A record if MX exists ?

Hello, I think I remember a rule that says that delivery to a domain's A record SHOULD NOT happen, if an MX exists. Does that kind of rule really exists ? Or do I mis-remember ? -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 5 years to go !