On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 at 10:24, Tapio Peltonen wrote:
>
> Yeah, I guess I need to apply for free DQS with another e-mail address.
This was the key. So, if any of you already have a "free trial"
account on Spamhaus, you can't apply for the free service while you're
logged in. You need to log out and
Yeah, I guess I need to apply for free DQS with another e-mail address.
As an aside, their blacklist tester is a bit cumbersome to use. I have
greylisting in place for mail without dkim signatures, and they do not
sign their test messages. To use the tester properly, I would have to
make exception
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 00:06, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
> But IMHO, DQS usage is safer. And free at the small end.
The apply form of the free DQS was really hard to find on their
website, I only found it when it was linked here.
I'm not even sure if I qualify, since I represent a (small) comm
> https://www.spamhaus.com/terms-of-use-fair-use-policy-for-free-data-query-service/
Oh, thanks, Kirill and Atro. That clarifies the issue.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Not really free, looks like, although they do seem to imply that, e.g. here:
https://submit.spamhaus.org/resources/query-the-legacy-dnsbls-via-hetzner/
There's 30 day free trial, but no actual free option, at least I can't find one.
Or is there any free tier functionality available after the 30
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 23:29, Atro Tossavainen via mailop
wrote:
> Let me point out something that may interest you.
>
> $ host -t txt 115.147.173.62.bl.suomispam.net
> 115.147.173.62.bl.suomispam.net descriptive text "20240124 defenderse.de"
Thank you, this is a very helpful resource. I'm addin
Is it just me or has the volume of SPF passing spam where the sending
IP is not known by Spamhaus gone up in recent weeks? I used to get
these very infrequently, but during last few weeks I've gotten new
ones almost daily. Many of the sender addresses look legitimate, with
tlds such as .com or .net
I've used ECC certificates for years and have had no problems whatsoever.
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 at 14:38, Fehlauer, Norbert via mailop
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> is using ECC certificates for SMTP TLS (sending/receiving) something thats a
> common thing nowadays or does that involes the risk of no
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 at 10:42, Carsten Schiefner via mailop
wrote:
>
> On 03.11.2024 09:12, Tapio Peltonen via mailop wrote:
> > xyz is the only tld I block totally, there was just too much spam
> > coming from xyz domains and I've yet to see a legitimate message from
> &g
xyz is the only tld I block totally, there was just too much spam
coming from xyz domains and I've yet to see a legitimate message from
those.
I'm willing to unblock a xyz domain if an admin of one of those asks
me to. But the general rule stays.
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 at 01:00, Andy Smith via mailop
After all this discussion my solution to the original problem would be
"just reencode and break DKIM".
The reasoning: If a system does not support 8BITMIME it would probably
be some legacy system and not understand DKIM either. If there are a
few odd exceptions to the rule, that should not be a hu
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 at 21:41, Michael Orlitzky via mailop
wrote:
>
> The killer feature of SPF is that I can tell somebody how to set it up
> over the phone. Most small businesses send mail from one or two places,
> and usually, I can google the appropriate "include:" for them. Once SPF
> is passi
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 02:05, Michael Peddemors via mailop
wrote:
> Return-Path:
>
Hm, isn't the local part supposed to be max 64 characters?
That's 112 characters, almost twice the RFC 5321 max length.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https:
Are you also blocking outbound connections on port 587?
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 13:57, Sebastian Arcus via mailop
wrote:
>
> I hope this is within the allowable topics for this list. I tried
> searching the archives, but haven't found an answer for the issue below
> yet. If anyone could shed some
14 matches
Mail list logo
