Re: [mailop] Mandated Email Terms of Service (ToS) announcement

On 30/01/2025 07:20, Scott Q. via mailop wrote: Don't you think that democracy itself has its own weaknesses ? A benevolent ruler can be much more efficient than what we have now in much of the world, including democracies. There have been some cases in history where societies advanced by leaps

Re: [mailop] Outlook IMAP implementation

On 27 October 2024 18:51:49 "Scott Q. via mailop" wrote: Or bad engineering. Or intentionally sabotage the IMAP experience, because it's a really bad experience with this behavior It wouldn't surprise me if it was the former but cynical me suspects the latter (or at least the former, with no

Re: [mailop] Outlook IMAP implementation

On 27/10/2024 09:40, Scott Q. via mailop wrote: Has anyone else noticed that Outlook doesn't seem to make use of (UID) COPY commands in IMAP ? When you copy/move messages it downloads them and appends them instead which makes the entire process quite slow. Usually when it does that it also seem

Re: [mailop] SPF fragility vs. utility

On 18/10/2024 15:00, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: Am 18.10.24 um 15:16 schrieb Paul Smith* via mailop: A spammer can send SPF-authenticated mail 'From: "b...@microsoft.com" ', but any spam filtering knows that it's not really from Microsoft. What they

Re: [mailop] SPF fragility vs. utility

On 18/10/2024 13:09, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: Dnia 18.10.2024 o godz. 10:20:46 Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop pisze: In any case, spammers aren't dumb, and they can set up perfectly valid SPF and DKIM for their domains conveniently hidden behind That's the most important point against SPF

Re: [mailop] Mailserver accepts ssl/tls only

On 18/07/2024 13:36, Jeff Pang via mailop wrote: Can I setup mailserver to accept messages via sdl/tls only from other MTA? How to disable peer MTA send me plaintext mail? You can certainly do that. But don't be surprised if some other mail servers can't send mail to you. Why would you want

Re: [mailop] Why an SPF hard bounce on ~all ?

That would be an SPF fail, but the sender domains are ~all Why the hard bounce? It's entirely up to the receiver what they do with a message. If they've decided to hard fail messages with soft SPF fails, that's their choice... ___ mailop mailing

Re: [mailop] DKIM / slippery slope gmx.de

On 18/12/2023 10:18, ml+mailop--- via mailop wrote: And it seems none of the extra requirements do anything against spam, because the spammers can (and do, see above) easily implement all of those. DKIM (and SPF) aren't anti-spam measures, and have never been promoted as such. They're anti-for

Re: [mailop] outlook.com 421 try again later S77719

On 11/10/2023 10:12, Andreas via mailop wrote: since a few hours we have problems with sending to Microsoft. We get hundreds of messages like in the subject with the reference to S77719. Also colleagues from other companies in germany are seeing the same in their logs. All mails that are blo

Re: [mailop] outlook.com 421 try again later S77719

On 11/10/2023 10:48, Urban Loesch via mailop wrote: Hi, same here in north Italy. Also users on Reddit encounter the same: https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/1755npg/anyone_else_seeing_outlook_mail_delivery_problems/ That points to an issue in the M365 admin -> Healt -> service statu

Re: [mailop] Guide for setting up a mail server ?

On 14 July 2023 18:24:45 Dave Crocker via mailop wrote: We need to 'encourage' people to run their own mail servers, not scare them away.. We also need to encourage people to do all the servicing for their car, to build their own house, and to grow their own food. Or we might take a somewha

Re: [mailop] IP to country?

Try https://dev.maxmind.com/geoip/geolite2-free-geolocation-data On 24 April 2023 16:54:33 Mary via mailop wrote: Hello, Is there a place that provides IP to country location information for free? Preferably in CIDR format. I am not interested to query a service, I am interested to block w

Re: [mailop] How do I break Gmail forwarding?

The worse thing is with forwarding of non-geographic phone numbers... (0345,etc, in the UK). We've had people ring us when they were trying to get through to the tax office, ambulance service (not 999), etc, etc. It's pretty much impossible to fix that. The dialer is calling the correct publici

Re: [mailop] Reject vs spam folders

On 15/09/2022 22:51, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: I already described what I think is best. Only *mark* messages as spam and let the users decide if they want *themselves* filter the marked messages into the spam folder. Don't *preconfigure* such filtering for them. OK. I'm sorry for casting

Re: [mailop] Reject vs spam folders

On 15/09/2022 21:30, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: folders. If it actually worked this way, spam folders wouldn't be any issue. But this assumption failed: the reality is that 99% of users don't check their spam folders at all, so directing a message to spam folder effectively equals blackholi

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On 14/09/2022 15:49, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote: If I send someone an email and get a reject, I know they didn't receive it. It's my job to make sure they get the email then or contact them using other means. That only works if someone reads, and acts on, delivery failure reports. When yo

Re: [mailop] Disabling TLS 1.0 and 1.1 for MTA to MTA communication

On 3 August 2022 23:43:36 Taavi Eomäe via mailop You can't consider it a lie if nobody is asking the question in the first place. Gmail might show when an email was delivered in plaintext as insecure it does not display transport-encrypted emails as secure. What displays transport encryption

Re: [mailop] Interesting question from a team member, MX chaining, list-manage.com

On 01/07/2022 09:52, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: It has a single MX record pointed at: mail.admin.mailchimp.com That hostname exists, but it doesn't have an A RECORD. Again, what’s the problem? Not every mailserver needs to have a corresponding website.

Re: [mailop] Understanding specific issue with from header field in google bounce reply

Read section five of RFC 2047 which explains where MIME encoded words can be used https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2047#section-5 They cannot be used in addr-specs, which is where you're using them On 2 May 2022 09:07:22 Alexander Neilson via mailop wrote: Hi Team Please feel free t

Re: [mailop] Who Do You Recommend for Small Business Regular (Non-Bulk) Email?

On 03/03/2022 23:13, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: (or is that a pipe dream?) I am just guessing that you also need it to be price and feature-competitive with 2 of the world's largest tech behemoths too? That is the big challenge. I cannot in good conscience recommend either of the mailbox

Re: [mailop] Feasibility of a private DNSBL

On 03/11/2021 09:42, Nicolas JEAN via mailop wrote: Unfortunately, it seems that it would require modifications to e.g. postfix, or other software, in order to add that identifying string to the DNS query. Still an idea to keep in mind. Because of how DNS works, the source IP address isn't av

Re: [mailop] SMTP AUTH harassment

On 17/07/2021 21:13, Slavko via mailop wrote: Please, i want ask others if are these (mostly) Brasil attempts know to others too or am i "special" target? In case you don't know about it already, have a look at https://www.abuseipdb.com/ . Some people have scripts to report things like auth a

Re: [mailop] Help debugging an outlook.com reject

On 27/05/2021 13:14, Fernando MM via mailop wrote: I'm experiencing a similar problem. Did you get a reply or found a solution? The IP is only used to send invoice emails to customers. Basically 3 lines of text + attached pdf. Very low volume ( less than 1.000 invoices per month are sent to @

Re: [mailop] paypal.com issues

On 20/05/2021 15:40, joemailop--- via mailop wrote: Maybe it was a temporary issue? Right now I only see one entry - dig paypal.com txt | findstr "spf" paypal.com. 3444IN TXT "v=spf1 include:pp._spf.paypal.com include:3ph1._spf.paypal.com include:3ph2._spf.paypal.com i

Re: [mailop] Greylisting never passing on retry

On 20/04/2021 10:06, Neil Youngman via mailop wrote: I have observed that messages from our system are temporarily rejected as greylisted by one destination but they are never accepted on retry. The response is logged as "DATA: 451 0.0.0 1 recipients being greylisted for 5 minutes". We retry aft

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On 04/02/2021 14:57, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 12:03:45PM +, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: On 04/02/2021 11:39, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: It sounds like you are using PIPELINING when the remote doesn't support it (properly). See if you can turn off pipel

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On 04/02/2021 11:39, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote: It sounds like you are using PIPELINING when the remote doesn't support it (properly). See if you can turn off pipelining (at least to that endpoint) on your client side. What is the server doing incorrectly with the pipelining? -- Paul Paul

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On 04/02/2021 10:37, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: So how to reproduce... The focus is on the MAIL FROM / RCPT TO lines in the SMTP dialogue. Exim is sending the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO lines in one go, without waiting for the reply of the recipient server. That's OK. That's 'Pipelining' - h

Re: [mailop] RFCs on quoted pairs in From:?

On 28/01/2021 13:17, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote: No, it does not. And that is exactly the problem. If I reply to the above email, it is sent to 'Some Person ' which is neither the Envelope-From, not the Header-From, but the address in the quoted display-name. FWIW, I've just tested it here

Re: [mailop] Weird 'tempfail too many recipients' bug/incompatibility EXIM => Postfix?

On 22/01/2021 07:24, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: What I observed is that EXIM keeps on trying every recipient even after receiving 452 which signals that we reached the maximum recipients. So there would be no point in EXIM trying all remaining recipients after hitting the first such error.

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

On 21/01/2021 14:38, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote: That's orthogonal to the point at hand.  The point is that honest customers can have their WordPress website hacked.  This might indeed happen because of apathy on the part of that customer, but a server provider cannot do anything to de

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

On 20/01/2021 11:36, Martin Flygenring via mailop wrote: As mentioned by Hans-Martin, you can pay them to be whitelisted, which means that you will no longer appear in level 2 or 3 according to http://www.whitelisted.org/. So if you have sent so much bad mail you end up in their level 2 or 3,

Re: [mailop] What's the point of secondary MX servers?

On 18/12/2020 08:38, ml+mailop--- via mailop wrote: This is somewhat off-topic here, but I guess you would use multiple A records for such a case. Not really. You can't set precedence for that and there is no fallback system defined, so if you set multiple A records for a web site, the browse

Re: [mailop] What's the point of secondary MX servers?

On 18/12/2020 01:19, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote: I use the secondary MX as spammerbait...  If a client connects to a lower priority MX before talking to the higher priority MX, I probably don't want to hear from them. There's also the opposite anti-spam trick that I've heard of: have two

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: What's the point of secondary MX servers?

On 18/12/2020 08:22, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote: Personally I'd use two A records for one name, but whatever. That's round robin, not "backup"? Systems will "randomly" connect to both connections and fail if one line is down - which was not the intention here. No. It should try both. The or

Re: [mailop] Effeciveness (or not) of SPF

On 08/12/2020 10:27, Rich Kulawiec via mailop wrote: - It's no help with phishing: thanks to ICANN, registrars, and the proliferation of TLDs, phishers have their choice of hundreds of millions of typographically similar domains. Or they can just use freemail providers and rely on the gullibilit

Re: [mailop] Effeciveness (or not) of SPF

On 07/12/2020 21:47, John Levine via mailop wrote: Forwarders are one of the things that don't respond well to SPF. But honestly, it's 2020 ... why are we forwarding mail to external services? SRS might be a bandaid for this, but isn't the easiest solution to just tell people that forwarding m

Re: [mailop] Effeciveness (or not) of SPF

On 06/12/2020 13:12, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: In your experience, where does SPF really help? What are the use cases that I don't see in my spam-blocker tunnel vision? One thing we still encounter occasionally is where a spammer has decided to send email from one of our customers'

Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

On 27/08/2020 16:53, Tim Bray via mailop wrote: The same kind of regulations exist in the UK, but everybody forgets about them.    You often see business names on websites that don't match their legal entity; confusions between sole trader (just a person) and a registered company (limited, un

Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

On 27/08/2020 12:39, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: It's rather strange that you are comparing this to SPF. 1) SPF has no "default deny" policy; if a domain has no SPF record at all, then mail is (or at least should be) accepted by default. No, but it's possible for a receiver to have a policy

Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

On 27/08/2020 11:22, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: So if you got some cloud vm with a new IP address, which never before sent mail to a @t-online.de address, mails will be rejected. You need to write their postmasters so it gets added to their whitelist. And for this process you need to have

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Block list (S3150)

On 29/06/2020 13:08, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: > On the advice of their lawyers Microsoft doesn’t share that information with senders. And I understand the reasons for that.  But... can't you see how this turns into a "he said / she said" argument? Without giving any message/sender/reci

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT-Level1 listing

On 08/06/2020 16:26, Ewald Kessler | Webpower via mailop wrote: Hello, One of our IP addresses (91.197.72.142) got blacklisted at UCEPROTECT-Level1 with a "Last Impact" timestamp of 06.06.2020 16:57 CEST +/- 1min. But the peculiar thing is, no mail was sent from that IP in at least the 48 h

Re: [mailop] keeping rejected mails in queue for second attempt acceptable?

On 06/06/2020 19:40, Stefan Bauer via mailop wrote: keeping rejected mails in queue for second attempt acceptable? Hi, once in a while, some of our outgoing customer mails are rejected by remote sites with a 500 code because one of our sending IPs are temporary blacklisted. or due to other r

Re: [mailop] Microsoft MSN JMRP SNDS support

On 27/03/2020 14:05, Dima Gomonyk via mailop wrote: Hello, does anyone have contacts for the JMRP SNDS support? We need to change the complaint address for the JMRP FBLs, but the SNDS service doesn't allow us to do that for some reason (no option edit or manage the existing feed), nor it allow

Re: [mailop] [External] Re: Horrible week for email deliverability - Looking for help with RackSpace/Emailsrvr

On 27/03/2020 09:58, Laura Atkins wrote: I understand why you consider yourself an ESP. That’s not how i would refer to you. You’re an email hosting provider, because you host both the inbound and the outbound piece of mail. ESPs handle outbound, and the necessary bits of inbound to make SMT

Re: [mailop] [External] Re: Horrible week for email deliverability - Looking for help with RackSpace/Emailsrvr

On 27/03/2020 08:32, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: You have folks using a bulk ESP to send friends and family email? Do you have a free package or something that makes it appealing for individuals to go through all the work of setting up an ESP account just to send personal mail to their frien

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid strikes again; zendesk, actually

On 26/02/2020 12:21, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: I guess the confusion may come from the fact that one would usually not expect a ticket acknowledgment to be ONLY the exact copy of the message you have sent and pretty much nothing more. I still think they misconfigured something. But it isn

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid strikes again; zendesk, actually

On 26/02/2020 11:12, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: That looks remarkably like Sendgrid use ZenDesk for their abuse desk platform, and they’re replying to or otherwise acknowledging your ticket. That they include the original email body isn’t that surprising for an abuse desk. Sorry, I

Re: [mailop] Recipe vs fake From: header?

On 18/02/2020 09:47, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: I thought DKIM was supposed to flag such messages; do these phishing emails satisfy DKIM ? DKIM checks that the message matches the DKIM signature - ie that it hasn't been modified since sending. That's it. So, for instance, your me

Re: [mailop] Suggestions for mailops.org website - forum?

On 17/02/2020 19:03, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: Regarding the suggestion for "content/questions/answers/links to put on the website" - have you ever considered making this mailing list into a forum? I just like discussion forums a lot better than I do discussion mailing lists. In my opini

Re: [mailop] Recipe vs fake From: header?

On 18/02/2020 09:03, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: SPF would block the From email addresses if also used as envelope sender. But the, from the customers perspective 'hidden' envelope sender is different and does match SPF. Has anyone come up with a clever recipe for this issue? This is on

Re: [mailop] How long to retry?

On 03/02/2020 22:43, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote: Since recently – heh, let's call it 5-6 years – I've observed more and more that senders are unable to connect the first NDR ("your mail is stuck, we're still trying") with their original message. There's some cognitive dissonance at play h

Re: [mailop] Abandoning self hosting and moving to Protonmail - experiences?

On 27/01/2020 14:55, Lennert Van Alboom via mailop wrote: I was looking at Protonmail because the company doesn't have access to the mail it hosts Have you looked at how to send emails to non-Protonmail recipients? It doesn't look usable at all to me for anything beyond very trivial use...

Re: [mailop] Messages from small personal SMTP server being marked as junk by Google

On 24/01/2020 09:47, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote: jfoo.org. 6 IN MX 0 mx.oustrencats.com. jfoo.org. 6 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:50.116.29.164 ip6:2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe6e:7287 -all" This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all". I disagree. "v=spf1 mx ..." requires a DNS

Re: [mailop] Messages from small personal SMTP server being marked as junk by Google

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 most, if not all, had my wife's e-mail sent to junk. There were 19 recipients on the To:

Re: [mailop] Reasons to add plain text alternative to email?

On 09/12/2019 08:50, Maarten Oelering via mailop wrote: Multipart messages with html and text alternatives are generally considered best practice. Senders with html templates should add a text version is the common believe. But it's almost 2020, and we were wondering if there's still a good re

Re: [mailop] Microsoft JMRP problem

On 03/12/2019 13:17, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: On 03/12/2019 13:15, Stephan Fourie wrote: Hi Paul, I've had success with mailing msn-s...@microsoft.com for support. Thanks, I'll try that and see how it goes. Hey ho, I tried that and the response was basically "prove that y

Re: [mailop] Microsoft JMRP problem

On 03/12/2019 13:15, Stephan Fourie wrote: Hi Paul, I've had success with mailing msn-s...@microsoft.com for support. Thanks, I'll try that and see how it goes. Kind Regards, Stephan On 2019/12/03 14:33, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: Hi, does anyone know any contact details f

[mailop] Microsoft JMRP problem

Hi, does anyone know any contact details for someone who can fix Microsoft's JMRP. I seem to have broken it... I added various DigitalOcean IP addresses that we used to the SNDS and JMRP and all was fine. Then I added various of our leased line IP addresses to the SNDS and JMRP and all was fin

Re: [mailop] ItaliaOnLine (@libero.it, +) now interpreting DMARC p=none as p=quarantine

On 26/11/2019 12:41, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote: I don't know if ItaliaOnLine postmaster follow this list and if they consider this new behaviour a feature or a bug, but I wanted to share this finding/news with you. What do you think about this? Do you know other providers making this "del

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Reasons ISPs (Microsoft) ignore DMARC policy?

On 22/11/2019 08:46, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: Plain forwarding, that is without changes except trace header fields, needs no From: munging. Only if the original message is also DKIM signed. I see quite a few people using DMARC with only SPF. I guess that they haven't worked out how

Re: [mailop] Reasons ISPs (Microsoft) ignore DMARC policy?

On 20/11/2019 13:17, Jon Burke via mailop wrote:  I know ISPs can enforce a stricter policy (e.g. reject although policy is p=quarantine) but I don’t often see ISPs applying a more lenient response than stated in the DMARC policy. I can think of one reason for doing so (user added the sender to

Re: [mailop] reputation with DKIM when d= differs from sender domain?

On 14/11/2019 16:38, Stefan Bauer via mailop wrote: reputation with DKIM when d= differs from sender domain? Is it bad - in terms of reputation - when domain in dkim-header (d=...) differs from senders address? signing is done correctly and pub-key is present at domain of corse - specified w

Re: [mailop] Avoiding bounces - custom spamfilter behind real-spamfilter that reject mails

On 24/10/2019 14:12, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: I also considered hacking together a small 'relay' MTA which would receive the email but not reply OK to the final DATA command (RFC states you can take up to 60 seconds to reply to the DATA command) 60 seconds? I thought the timeout there

Re: [mailop] FW: Junk filtering as a tool for unfair competition

On 24/10/2019 04:56, Noel Butler via mailop wrote: On 24/10/2019 05:16, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: Also, trivial messages look like probes, and are probably going to be junked. Therein lies the problem, what if we all decided to junk everybodys email because it looks trivial, we migh

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On 16/10/2019 12:30, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: Second case is when you want to*send* mail to someone. Someone is selling something on the Internet, you want to buy it, but in order to do it, you have to send e-mail to the seller's address provided in the ad. If the person is wanting to r

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On 14/10/2019 19:39, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote: On 2019-10-14 06:07:31 (-0700), Thomas Walter via mailop wrote: Do we even need Junk/Spam-Folders? I mean how much mail gets through the first "block directly" level on your site? Every now and then a wave comes through and results in a bad

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

On 14/10/2019 10:17, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: When we closed down our colo and moved to a VPS I was slightly concerned about delivery of our mail, given the history of the last time we moved IPs. This time, we saw no interruption or problems with email. Small senders do just fine gett

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

On 10/10/2019 13:43, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: However, if you announce your e-mail address publicly, by eg. putting it on a website as your contact address, or participating in a mailing list like this one using this address, you are actually inviting people to contact you at this address Indeed. S

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

On 10/10/2019 13:10, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: It's a basic mistake to operate on whole netblocks and not individual senders. It's like you would ban all citizens of a particular country X from coming to another country Y, because a lot of people from country X are terrorists. If 99.9% of

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

On 09/10/2019 20:36, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: Dnia 9.10.2019 o godz. 13:23:16 John Levine via mailop pisze: If you're not willing to pay 10€ for a real domain name, why should anyone put any effort into accepting your mail? Just because you should by default accept mail from everyone *u

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

On 07/10/2019 15:47, Graeme Fowler via mailop wrote: Also you're on OVH, about which a quick look through the list's archives will possibly prove instructive. It's reasonably likely (as likely as not) that you're running on an IP in a neighbourhood with some poor neighbours. From personal ex

Re: [mailop] Weird blocking by outlook.com (S3150)

On 22/08/2019 16:08, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: One of our mail platform IP has once more been hit by an outlook.com blocking: host outlook-com.olc.protection.outlook.com[104.47.4.33] said: 550 5.7.1 Unfortunately, messages from [157.161.12.116] weren't sent. Please contact your Internet

Re: [mailop] live.fr admin required

> > I've had people do that to my Gmail account. After a few rounds of > politely asking them to stop which they ignored, I started using the > notices to close accounts and cancel plane tickets. > > I realize that's rude, but what do they expect if they insist on > sending their mail to an unw

Re: [mailop] Hotmail: Moving Email to 'spam' folder generates ISP complaint?

On 16/08/2019 09:47, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: Yes, this is exactly the 'feature' one of the customers described to me. He moves read emails he does not want to keep to the 'spam' folder, because they disappear after a couple of days. Don't 'deleted' messages disappear after a few day

Re: [mailop] SPF: What happens if includes specify different 'all' settings?

On 27/06/2019 11:15, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: For RFC7208, section 5.2    In hindsight, the name "include" was poorly chosen.  Only the    evaluated result of the referenced SPF record is used, rather than    literally including the mechanisms of the referenced record in the    first