n): in rare occasion after a few loops I obtained
a "mitigation" but of course this is useless if you don't know what caused
the issue and you don't have issues with other providers.
I guess I used this (I reach it from my SNDS homepage):
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=61
sed the issue then
it will apear again over and over again.
Also I saw those errors are not related to SNDS IP color nor to JMRP
reports: you can get that block for green IPs and have red IPs sending
without issues. I'm not even convinced the green/red are related to the
spam folder ratio.
e problems (there wasn't even DKIM and DMARC
> configured!).
>
> I don't understand how to resolve these problems with the libero.it mailboxes
> (and more generally, with all Italiaonline mailboxes). Do you have a contact
> in Italiaonline who can help me?
> Any info wo
Google is receiving a lot of spam with a given URL domain in the body
it may start rate limiting that content from every source, including
you.
Stefano
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 00:01, Michael Peddemors via mailop
wrote:
> save.ca descriptive text "v=spf1 ip4:70.33.236.0/25 mx a
> include:sendgrid.net include:thestar.ca include:thestar.com
> include:spf.google.com include:spf.protection.outlook.com
> include:spf.yahoo.com include:spf.aol.com includ
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 18:10, Alexandre Dangreau via mailop
wrote:
> I see the issue is solved, but I’m interested of the solution you found.
The solution was writing to peer...@mcbone.net (the address I found in
the RIPE DB for their AS). The email had also n...@ovh.net as a
recipient.
When the
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 17:47, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> > Poking a few people, this looks like a return path issue on Freenet's
> > side; So they likely fnorded something on their side.
> > Guess the only way to get this fixed is for them to realize the issue.
> > ;-)
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 17:18, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote:
> Moin,
> to get a bit back to the networking part of things...
:-)
> Poking a few people, this looks like a return path issue on Freenet's
> side; So they likely fnorded something on their side.
> Guess the only way to get this fixed
st because freenet thinks OVH is spammy. We hardly see a similar
block when there is a war between 2 countries.
Stefano
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 14:49, Yuval Levy via mailop wrote:
>
> On 2024-03-08 07:48, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 13:04, Mark Alley wro
ot;Domain not found" error, so to confirm
>> the whole OVH network can't reach the freenet.de NS.
>>
>> I opened a ticket to OVH but they closed it telling me the traceroute
>> show the problem in outside their network (last working hop is a
>> cloudfl
the DNS or email servers in the OVH network.
The fact that they NS can't see each other let me think this is not
something done by purpose, but I don't know how to investigate it to
understand how is responsible for the issue and who can f
).
Peering/routing is not my field, so I'm looking for other people with
problems sending emails to freenet.de and for suggestions on how/who
to contact to fix the issue (maybe I should look for an NOC-op mailing
list?) .
Stefano
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache Jame
g you
> care about ?
I only receive bounces to those addresses, TLS is good enough. The
real replies are sent to domains not using CNAMEs.
Stefano
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
x27;t know if they simply found
the new rule was too aggressive or if it was a test and they will enable
the rule in future.
Stefano
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:00, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we are an ESP (a very small italian alternative to Mailchimp).
>
> Today an ital
MARC via DKIM.
Do you know other receivers refusing emails because the sender (smtp mail
from) domain is a CNAME?
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
xpected: who knows, maybe the fact they are not able to
handle the reputation transition from the shared DKIM to the additional
sender dkim is somehow related to this. Another technical problem.
Stefano
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:30 AM Stefano Bagnara via mailop <
> mailop@mailop.org
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 at 18:09, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> On 05.02.24 14:56, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
> >we are a small ESP and every email sent from our system has SPF+DKIM
> >authentication from our system and most email also have a second DKIM
> >signature (o
days is zero, but sometimes is 80%,
because of the tempfails above
My questions:
1) is it expected that the error does not report the DKIM domain but only
[ 36]?
2) how much is the "rate limit"? Does the rejected attempt count in this
rate?
3) when, how often, how long does Google exp
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 12:54, Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop
wrote:
> We're running the postfix-users ML on list.sys4.de, and all over a
> sudden we're being tempfailed by GMAIL:
I saw something similar happening on a couple of my IPs recently. I
thought Google is slowly applying more restrictive ru
On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 04:10, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Stefano Bagnara via mailop said:
> >Sounds like our standard senders using @e.example.com domain in their
> >RFC5321 are able to deliver to Yahoo while italian municipalities
> >using, e.g., @e.comune.bardo
ind the
CNAME to an host without a SOA while the SOA to the remaining domain
works.
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
itted the message?
If you get the error after the "DATA" and "." then maybe you just need
DKIM+DMARC compliance for your emails.
In this case look for an old thread here:
"DKIM+DMARC at t-online.de (Deutsche Telekom's ISP branche)" by
florian.kun...@telekom.de
Hi,
Since 4 hours we are experiencing slowness (e.g. connections timing
out, very slow responses), to Microsoft both sending to their SMTP and
reading via IMAP, from europe (checked from 4 different datacenters in
europe).
Do you see the same?
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail
the reason we didn't start with DMARC policy enforcement so far.
> it's to gamy to adhere the domain policy without regard of the source IP you
> see the message from.
Hi Florian,
do you have any update about this DMARC enforcement "experiment" @t-online.de ?
--
S
but I didn't ack
it, as I found it was a waste of time.
Stefano
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 11:02, Benoît Panizzon via mailop
wrote:
> We have a customer who orders software licenses via paddle.com
>
> He should get keys via Email. But they never arrive. I also don't see
> any trace of those emails in our logs.
Hi had an issue with missing email from them to me. No
ived Microsoft Office 365 invoices in the Junk folder of my
untrained/verbatim Office 365 inbox, because of SmartScreen.
No one likes invoices, i guess...
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs
___
mailop mailing list
mai
k' causing an avalanche of complaints
> being sent. I opened several cases with Microsoft about this, but never
> got any solution offered (as a sidenote rant)
>
> But no, there were no complaints about: 157.161.12.84 received.
>
> Does anyone know, how to get hold of the
tling", but the next time it will
happen I'll try that request to the support.
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
icket but I have no clue
what was the issue so I can't fix anything.
If you have abuses that you don't want to shared (and I understand the
listwashing issue) I would expect you to put the counters in SNDS
anyway: am I wrong?
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apac
rwarding.
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
/len-shneyder-twilio-sendgrid/
I didn't read anti-abuse and security advices in the article.
He's just talking about how DMARC evolved and the role of social
engineering in phishing.
He's not even trying to let people guess Sendgrid is good at preventing abuses.
no "Wow&q
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 18:16, Jim Popovitch via mailop
wrote:
> > Maybe you'll grasp the issue only when they will list Ramnode :-)
> > Or maybe you'll be happy to pay or to move to another ASN until they catch
> > up...
>
> You seem to be under the assumption that uceprotect is just looking for
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 17:37, Mary via mailop wrote:
> Linode blocks port 25 on all new accounts/servers. You need to talk to them
> and explain who and what you are, before they open it manually for you.
But this was not enough to prevent them being listed in level-3:
http://www.uceprotect.net/
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 15:04, Jim Popovitch via mailop
wrote:
> > "Pay us for protection", when it really means "pay us or we'll [break
> > your knees|set your house on fire|break your windows...]" isn't
> > insurance, and can get you arrested.
>
> Neither of those situations describe the reality
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 20:05, Simon Arlott via mailop
wrote:
> On 20/01/2021 10:50, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
> > I'm looking for brainstorming and updated industry "standards" from
> people
> > handling outgoing SMTP services or ESP exporting A
n before and
there was nothing suspicious in the request to decide to block it. I don't
care of that specific blacklisting, but I'd like to be responsible and
understand what most of us (postmasters) expect from each other in the real
world (where a system with 0 false-negatives does
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 11:54, Jim Popovitch via mailop
wrote:
> For me, it's "appreciate never seeing those emails". I outright block
> level 2 and level 3, and high score level 1. I've been doing that for
> years now and have never seen a reject log message that wasn't already
> listed in Zen,
il, so I'm guessing if your abuse desks are
flooded by this or there's something so bad about those 2 emails (again,
under investigation, I can't tell by looking at the content and I'm waiting
for answers from the sender).
Soun
for the past 3 days SNDS show "No data for specified IPs on this date":
does it work for you?
(I can see data for the previous days)
Stefano
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs
___
mailop mailing l
e42d0e4b6d3cd708d80996a9b4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637269889983169342&sdata=Iu%2Fpy3uZzW%2F2xTBOsvbCjQtM7QI41Hk7cqLXbYJQ%2Bog%3D&reserved=0
>
> And DNS Tools too!
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxnnd.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsof
equal to "no opt-in"), but I'm not sure that expecting ESP to force
reconfirmation so to only send COI emails would really fix any issue.
I know you asked for a list and not a COI discussion, but I think/hope
the above explains why you probably won't find such a list.
Stefano
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:30, Benjamin BILLON via mailop
wrote:
> ItaliaOnline is rolling out new rules, including the necessity of having a
> DMARC record (and also a valid DKIM signature), among other things.
> I believe those kind of delivery placement (on p=none) is a side effect of
> what t
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:13, Paul Smith via mailop wrote:
> 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
> >
ug, but I wanted to share
this finding/news with you.
What do you think about this? Do you know other providers making this
"deliberate guess"?
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs
___
mailop m
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 19:22, Jan-Philipp Benecke via mailop
wrote:
> currently we've delivery problems to hotmail/outlook/... O365 looks good.
> SNDS shows us just red for all our IPs since end of September.
> We haven't changed anything neither some crappy mailings nor new spamming
> customers.
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 10:17, Mathieu Bourdin via mailop
wrote:
> We just saw that Gmail Postmaster’s Tools shows a very unusual amount of our
> IP’s as « bad » in the graphs.
> Domain reputation seems unaffected, but basically we see around 50% of our
> IPs for July 2nd and 75% for July 3 going
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 12:13, Syed Alam wrote:
> Since 8th of March we determined an enormous global increase of below bounce
> message from Yahoo MX:
> 554 delivery error: dd Sorry, your message to x...@yahoo.com cannot be
> delivered. This mailbox is disabled (554.30). - mta4101.mail.bf1.yahoo
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 11:58, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop
wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 10:09 +0100, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> > So, before I propose to use local whitelisting I'd like to understand
> > the global blacklisting causes :-)
> > (If there is some malici
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 12:55, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop
wrote:
> From recollection, Sophos used to use McAfee's engine in some of their
> products so maybe try https://trustedsource.org/ but my info might be out
> of date.
Interesting! I checked the URL there and it says:
- Status: Categorized U
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 16:20, Laura Atkins wrote:
> Are you able to deliver mail to any other trendmicro.eu hosted domain?
> If so, this isn’t a trendmicro issue, it’s an individual company deciding to
> block specific senders.
> Asking each company to unbock / whitelist you is about your only ch
postmaster, but this happened with
another domain and a different IP some weeks ago and they manually
whitelisted us, so this new error make me think there's something else
I should take care.
Stefano
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs
___
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 06:27, Benjamin BILLON wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> This isn't supposed to be temporary, it's been like this for months
> (although they're enforcing this gradually, I've heard of senders throttled
> 6 months ago, in my case it only started this summer). They're just not in
> th
hat?
> There's really nothing else to say about Sender ID - it's dead.
The code seems still alive in microsoft server (and we're not talking
about some foobar company). At the very least, they keep it alive just
to fill in some headers so to keep us bother about it.
I prefer to care about it and be wrong, than to simply ignore it and
be wrong. Better safe than sorry.
Stefano
--
Stefano Bagnara
Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF
VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 18:55, John Levine wrote:
> Mail systems can do whatever they want internally. But I am pretty
> sure that even Hotmail/Outlook/Live/whatever will not ask your DNS for
> Sender-ID records any more.
How do you know that? Aren't they simple "TXT" records? How do you
know what
Wise
> Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
> "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
> Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ?
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: mailop On Behalf Of Stefano Bagnara
> > Sent: Thursday, 30 August, 2018 17:40
> > To:
because it is not blocked and
mitigation happens for blocks that are not depending from SmartScreen?
Or is it because they are actively seeing bad inbound flow from the IP
and the reputation is "so bad" that they can't mitigate it?
Michae
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 at 21:14, Jan Schapmans wrote:
>
> list is acquired by a webform where users request a valuation of their car
> customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only implement it
> for gmail & googlemail addresses.
> (do you think gmail is also monitoring other doma
On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 17:59, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> [...]
> The difference is that by ignoring "external destination verifications"
> the personal data is going to someone who had no reason to expect it
> and has not indicated that they have procedures for handling it safely.
>
> If you do D
example.net" data is not
considered "personal" and is not regulated by the GDPR, so I don't see
how GDPR impact the use of the "verification record" in case of
external reporting addresses.
"ePrivacy" law, that currently is only a draft, may change something
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 14:54, Bill Cole
wrote:
> What I actually do not understand is why anyone (like BOTH of these
> senders) is bothering to DKIM-sign mail in ways that CANNOT align for
> DMARC and don't even match any domain in any header other than a
> signature. e.g.:
Providers are actively
78K publishes a DMARC record, 60K
use a third-party domain in their rua, 1060 use the "!sizelimit"
directive.
Half of them are from a single (French) ESP that suggests its users to
add that sizelimit when configuring their domain authentication.
Stefano
> Brandon
>
> On Wed, Jul 2
gt; Gmail doesn’t know anything about that, so it offers the warning.
>>
>> All in all, quite a sensible implementation from Gmail.
>>
>> What’s the problem you’re trying to solve?
>>
>> laura
>>
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2018, at 8:52 AM, Emanuel Gonzalez
by receivers based
> on your DKIM signatures, make sure they don't align to your From header
> and so cannot pass DMARC.
>
> --
> Bill Cole
> b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
> (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
> Currently Seeking
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 at 11:36, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 22:28, John R Levine wrote:
> > [... about "v=DMARC1" vs "v=DMARC1\;" ]
> > When you put in the missing semicolon, what happened?
Update: DNS propagated and I started receiving repor
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 at 09:19, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop
wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 00:30 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> > And still I'm honestly looking for stats about how many domains are
> > really currently sending DMARC reports to senders (I get reports for
&g
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 23:50, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> you
> write:
> >On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 20:16, Steve Atkins wrote:
> >> > On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> > Otherwise we keep weakening DMAR
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 20:16, Steve Atkins wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> > [...]
> > Otherwise we keep weakening DMARC to a point where it is not useful anymore.
>
> For many senders it's not useful; it's actively harmfu
t sign?
>
> Insight much appreciated!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Autumn Tyr-Salvia
> tyrsalvia@gmail
> atyrsalvia@agari
> _______
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
nd why it only
> appears to affect one of my IP ranges. (Also, if anyone from Microsoft cares
> to get in touch, I'd love to hear from you.)
>
> Josh Campbell, Deliverability Engineer
> MailChimp
>
> ___
> mailop mailing list
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 at 09:20, Philip Paeps wrote:
> A disturbing number of "ordinary people" (who don't live in SMTP land)
> also believe that + is an "invalid character" in email addresses.
I have found a LOT of inboxes unable to redirect email to an address
that uses a "+" while being happy to
(sorry for the previous empty message)
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 20:50, Michael Rathbun wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:13:35 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith
> wrote:
> >(I'm probably measuring read rates differently than you. I use IMAP's
> >"message read" flag, not an open tracking pixel or click-track
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 20:50, Michael Rathbun wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:13:35 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith
> wrote:
>
> >if Microsoft's filters were aggressively moving heaps of *wanted* email out
> >of
> >the inbox, I'd expect Outlook's read rates to be lower, but my metrics show
> >that r
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 10:25, Andy Onofrei via mailop wrote:
> [...]
> I wanted to ask you if someone is experiencing misleading clicks ( caused by
> spam filters or something similar and not by bot farms ).
Hi,
Here are some of the IPs doing more "non-humans" clics in my list:
199.19.249.196,
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 18:14, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 17:53, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> > [...]
> > And while using that as feedback might seem the logical conclusion, in
> > the real world we still see more feedback reports from legitimate email
&g
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 at 17:36, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> I'm curious.
> If a domain has no MX record, do all servers deliver to an record,
> as required by (at least) RFC3974,
required?
"This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of an
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 19:31, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> On 18-06-08 09:14 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> > [...]
> > In fact I still have to understand how spam reports and false positive
> > reports are collected in the whole plesk world (I guess you know what
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 17:53, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> [...]
> And while using that as feedback might seem the logical conclusion, in
> the real world we still see more feedback reports from legitimate email
> the customer should have wanted, vs emails tagged as spam that are spam.
Well, this is
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 16:47, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 10:27 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
> > there has to be some justified level of "collateral damage" these
> > days, due to the very high frequency of hijacked accounts, hijacked
> > websites, and spamming ESP customers
nly works if you send blocked email to spam and you get
the "not-spam" reports.
IMHO this is GDPR compliant, not so different from IP RBL: they deal
with clear-text IP addresses and IP addresses are not even
pseudo-anonymized.
That said GPDR in the end doesn't make much differences betw
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 11:53, David Hofstee wrote:
> [...]
> I also think that there is space for a reputation provider which can:
> - Identify more than just IP addresses and domains from an email.
This is what CloudMark Authority does about this, but you enable a new
set of issues that have been
ne wih the same problem? Can we consider it a False Positive?
It is listing everything... sounds like the domain expired.
So it is an issue for the receiver: they probably want to remove that
DNSBL from their configuration or they won't receive anything anymore,
from anyone.
Stefano
--
Stefano
On Fri, 25 May 2018 at 13:03, Paul Smith wrote:
> On 25/05/2018 11:22, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 at 11:55, Paul Smith wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> If someone sends a message from the UK to someone in the USA, by
>>> definition, we must send that e
On 9 May 2018 at 18:38, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Sorry - i just noticed that the hand-typed message we had sent you was from
> 2017 - I had quickly copied and pasted the date and mistakenly assumed it
> was from 2018 - so ignore that part. (but that doesn't change what I stated
> above very much)
The
On 9 May 2018 at 18:21, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Stefano,
>
> (can't speak for spamauditor... but regarding invaluement...)
>
> (1) To answer the question about "no false positive reports" - The general
> []
> - and while that is just one factor - and other things are considered, too -
> when weeks
On 4 May 2018 at 11:27, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> [...]
> If I understand correctly, the GDPR doesn't provide the same protection for
> companies as it does for individuals, so I don't see how it
> can affect role email addresses and registered corporate adddresses;
> those should be able to sta
On 21 April 2018 at 18:24, John Levine wrote:
> In article you write:
>>Am I missing a case where there is a negative outcome to a legitimate,
>>by-the-book sender?
>
> Spammer forges header with address of unrelated network, that network
> gets listed even though it has never sent spam and has n
According to Talos it could be safe to block the whole /19 as I can't
see other senders that could be involved:
https://www.talosintelligence.com/reputation_center/lookup?search=63.250.0.0%2F19
Thousands of IPs in the block follow the same naming patterns...
According to Arin:
https://whois.arin.n
On 8 March 2018 at 16:14, Laura Atkins wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2018, at 1:18 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> PS: that trendmicro article is a bit the opposit of Laura answer I got
>> yesterday about "dealing with it offline because making it public is
>> not the way to fix t
On 8 March 2018 at 02:43, Steve Atkins wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 4:38 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> Let's take into consideration that spamtrap network have to do their
>> homework to avoid being identified easily, so if they never do
>> opens/clicks they already
On 8 March 2018 at 01:02, Laura Atkins wrote:
> [...]
> Sure, we agree. But there are folks who don’t agree with us. Some of those
> folks run spamtrap networks that feel blocklist data. I think it’s important
> to acknowledge that. At one point you could do COI and still get on a
> blocklist beca
On 8 March 2018 at 00:08, Laura Atkins wrote:
> [...]
> I don’t either, but I am not fighting language with folks.
I'm sorry Laura. My mother language is not english and your "tone" is
unexpected to me, so I probably used wrong translations for my
questions.
No need to fight anything.. I'm just d
On 7 March 2018 at 22:52, Laura Atkins wrote:
> There are companies that have commercialized spamtraps and at least 2 of the
> delivery monitoring companies will tell you when you’ve hit a trap.
Sure I know.. that's why I'm asking what is the network.
If someone sells spamtrap hits data and the s
On 7 March 2018 at 20:48, Tony Rose wrote:
> Does anyone on the list know how much creedence the Outlook Deliverability
> Support Team puts into the Spam Confidence Level?
>
> I have seen quite a few messages still get filtered into the junk folder
> with a SCL of 1.
AFAIK an High SCL may cause y
On 7 March 2018 at 20:25, David Carriger
wrote:
> In the worst examples I've seen, the domain went from a legitimate mail
> server to a trap network in the same day, with no time for bounces in
> between.
Are you 100% sure? Which trap network? How did you find it was a trap?
Can you share anythin
On 7 March 2018 at 13:20, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote:
> There are some industries where offline data acquisition is the norm and
> validation is seen as part of the data quality process.
"norm" is not so good as a "valid" reason:
- what's the point of *validation* for these industries?
- wha
On 2 March 2018 at 21:45, John Johnstone
wrote:
> [...]
> It seems somebody gave some fairly purposeful thought into coming up with
> the algorithms to generate these. I'm curious to know what peoples thinking
> is as to the hat color of these attempts. Particularly if there are any
> opinions o
On 22 February 2018 at 17:00, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> We ignore certificate issues and lowered the cypher requirements as
> much as possible.
> We settled to 0.01% failures converting the socket to TLS: most common
> domains involved in the failure are uni-kl.de and univie.ac.at
Ju
On 21 February 2018 at 09:44, Philip Paeps wrote:
> [...]
> Following JavaScript redirects is probably all but impossible except for the
> simplest case because of the halting problem. Unless you want to execute
> the JavaScript ... and down that road lies madness.
>
> Seems a lot more expedient
ally if they are. Signing
> is done in Java (and not on the mta). No hands needed anymore.
Then maybe you use my opensource Apache jDKIM library? ;-)
Stefano
>
> Yours,
>
>
> David
>
>
> On 18 February 2018 at 00:53, Dave Warren wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-02-17 0
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
