On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Brandon Long via mailop
wrote:
> In a perfect world, there would be an aliases interface as a simpler way
> to set this up. Using this maintains the sender, doesn't add list-*
> headers, lets DKIM still pass, etc.
No kidding! 99.44% of my groups are just there
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:52 PM, G. Miliotis
wrote:
> On 6/4/2016 20:27, Vick Khera wrote:
>
>> I use google groups for those things. You can have as many of those as
>> you like, and they can be configured as shared mailboxes or even a simple
>> ticketing system.
>>
> Jut noting that I have done
On 6/4/2016 20:27, Vick Khera wrote:
I use google groups for those things. You can have as many of those as
you like, and they can be configured as shared mailboxes or even a
simple ticketing system.
Jut noting that I have done this and the spam controls for google groups
are not the best. You
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
> I would, if I could pay for just the actual users. Sadly, I have too many
> other things that need mailboxes and/or accounts for other purposes and I
> just can't justify paying for each of them.
>
I use google groups for those things. You can
Well, free edition should be limited to 5 accounts, but yeah, $300/year is
pricey for consumers, no doubt about that.
And I wouldn't call Gmail hobbled, it's just more similar to the consumer
version, doesn't add the bells & whistles of the paid version. Though,
when you're used to running your o
I have the old one with 50 accounts. And "hobbled" might be a bit of an
exaggeration, but I do run my own servers and I am used to having all
sorts of flexibility :)
However, hobbled feels right since the features already exist, they're
just... well...
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
I would, if I could pay for just the actual users. Sadly, I have too
many other things that need mailboxes and/or accounts for other purposes
and I just can't justify paying for each of them.
Instead, I just keep Gmail disabled and only use the features that
aren't hobbled.
On 2016-04-05 11:
I've tried to make the argument before, I can ping the thread again, but I
wouldn't bet on it. I'd probably get the consumer version out first, we'll
have to make sure that works with free apps domains as well.
I know I'm paying for full Google apps for my personal domain after missing
too many o
On 2 April 2016 at 00:59, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> Google Apps admins can specify incoming gateways, and we will treat the mail
> from them differently because we know it is being forwarded.
"This feature is not available in the legacy free edition of Google Apps."
I know us freeloaders
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sat, 2016-04-02 at 09:58 +1000, Ted Cooper wrote:
> Is this another one of those fun DNSSEC issues? I'm not particularly
> good at reading these, but it looks like the PTR lookup is denied
> existence at 136.in-addr.arpa.
> http://dnsviz.net/d/25
On 02/04/16 07:51, Michael Wise wrote:
> Well, from **MY** perch, everything looks good…
> No SPF record, but that’s not what they appear to be complaining about.
> Dunno, sorry.
>
> $ host 136.243.119.250
> 250.119.243.136.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer web11.kk-software.de.
>
> $ host web11.k
>
>
> *From:* Brandon Long [mailto:bl...@google.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 1, 2016 4:45 PM
> *To:* Michael Wise
> *Cc:* Pascal Herbert ; m...@pixelgate.net;
> mailop@mailop.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [mailop] Gmail rate limit
>
>
>
> Hmm, I thought the new ser
n-us/download/details.aspx?id=18275> ?
From: Brandon Long [mailto:bl...@google.com]
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 4:45 PM
To: Michael Wise
Cc: Pascal Herbert ; m...@pixelgate.net;
mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail rate limit
Hmm, I thought the new server went out with the updated error mes
he Junk Mail Reporting Tool
> <http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=18275> ?
>
>
>
> *From:* mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] *On Behalf Of *Pascal
> Herbert
> *Sent:* Friday, April 1, 2016 2:45 PM
> *To:* m...@pixelgate.net; mailop@mailop.org
>
p.org] On Behalf Of Pascal Herbert
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 2:45 PM
To: m...@pixelgate.net; mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail rate limit
Forgot to mention that. The server only uses ipv4. No ipv6.
Pascal
On Apr 1, 2016 23:42, "Mark Milhollan"
mailto:m...@pixelgate.net&g
8275> ?
From: Pascal Herbert [mailto:pascal.herb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 2:48 PM
To: Michael Wise
Cc: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: RE: [mailop] Gmail rate limit
Domain is
web11.kk-software.de<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fweb11.kk-softw
ail Reporting Tool
> <http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=18275> ?
>
>
>
> *From:* mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] *On Behalf Of *Pascal
> Herbert
> *Sent:* Friday, April 1, 2016 2:20 PM
> *To:* mailop@mailop.org
> *Subject:* [mailo
Forgot to mention that. The server only uses ipv4. No ipv6.
Pascal
On Apr 1, 2016 23:42, "Mark Milhollan" wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016, Pascal Herbert wrote:
>
> >Google is currently rejecting mails from some of our servers with:
> >The IP address sending this message does not have a PTR record.
Did you check the DNS remotely (there are lots of public servers to probe)
vs at your own DNS servers?
Providing a real example would help others help you, as clearly something
is wrong somewhere.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Pascal Herbert
wrote:
> Hallo,
> Google is currently rejecting mai
ailop@mailop.org
Subject: [mailop] Gmail rate limit
Hallo,
Google is currently rejecting mails from some of our servers with:
The IP address sending this message does not have a PTR record. To protect our
users from spam, mail sent from your IP address has been temporarily rate
limited.
t
Hallo,
Google is currently rejecting mails from some of our servers with:
The IP address sending this message does not have a PTR record. To protect
our users from spam, mail sent from your IP address has been temporarily
rate limited.
the IP has an PTR (webX.example.org) and matches the a-record.
21 matches
Mail list logo
