On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 10:00 AM Alessandro Vesely via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On Mon 03/Feb/2020 11:18:15 +0100 Steve Atkins via mailop wrote:
> >> On Feb 3, 2020, at 5:03 AM, Tom Wong-Cornall via mailop <
> mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Given most small-scale personal/small-bus
On Mon 03/Feb/2020 11:18:15 +0100 Steve Atkins via mailop wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2020, at 5:03 AM, Tom Wong-Cornall via mailop
>> wrote:
>>
>> Given most small-scale personal/small-business server operators will
>> receive far more mail than they send, is sending out DMARC reports
>> likely to ha
On 2/2/2020 10:03 PM, Tom Wong-Cornall via mailop wrote:
As another (very) small-time personal/business server operator, I'm
intrigued with the above. I, too, had mail going straight to junk with
Gmail and Outlook despite doing my best to be a `good sender' with
SPF/DKIM and coming up clean on ev
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 14:01:40 +, Laura Atkins via mailop
wrote:
>No one who reads or posts to this list can effect the change youre looking
>for. This goes well beyond the technical interoperational issues that this
>list is intended to discuss.
In support of these remarks, I will add:
1.
> On 3 Feb 2020, at 10:16, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
>
> Dnia 3.02.2020 o godz. 09:27:26 Vittorio Bertola via mailop pisze:
>>
>> Well, there is a certain market share above which "my network my rules"
>> becomes "anticompetitive business practices",
>
> +1
>> but I guess this is not a
Dnia 3.02.2020 o godz. 09:27:26 Vittorio Bertola via mailop pisze:
>
> Well, there is a certain market share above which "my network my rules"
> becomes "anticompetitive business practices",
+1
> but I guess this is not a topic for this list anyway.
Why not? We are still talking about a mail d
> On Feb 3, 2020, at 5:03 AM, Tom Wong-Cornall via mailop
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 25 '20 at 08.26 NZDT, Alessandro Vesely via mailop
> wrote:
>> Sending out DMARC aggregate reports will increase your footprint. (This is
>> possibly controversial, as recipients may tag aggregate reports as
> Il 03/02/2020 06:03 Tom Wong-Cornall via mailop ha
> scritto:
>
> In the end I gave up and used a (hopefully reputable) smart host to
> handle delivery, as you can probably tell from my headers. This doesn't
> sit comfortably with me however; if nothing else, my engineer's
> efficiency it
On Sat, Jan 25 '20 at 08.26 NZDT, Alessandro Vesely via mailop
wrote:
> Sending out DMARC aggregate reports will increase your footprint. (This is
> possibly controversial, as recipients may tag aggregate reports as spam,
> especially those who thoughtlessly configure rua to their gmail address.
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 15:11:58 Brandon Long via mailop pisze:
>
> There is no way to guarantee that a first-time email arrives in the inbox.
>
> If there was, the spammers would all use it.
>
> The best you can do is "attach" your email to some existing source of
> reputation.
> Unfortunately,
Dnia 26.01.2020 o godz. 00:15:58 Ángel via mailop pisze:
> The problem is that it seems that Gmail is pulling your leg. A technical
> explanation ("We marked it as spam because the sender says any mails
> sent from that server are not from him [SPF and DMARC link]") would be
> fine, as it would exp
On 2020-01-24 at 15:11 -0800, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> This was for a classroom, however, so there's a very clear mechanism
> by which an out-of-band communication can occur to look into the spam
> label and fix it... presumably also obvious by the fact that the
> person knew it went to spa
On 2020-01-24 at 11:29 -0800, Brandon Long wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:32 AM Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>
> Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 12:44:56 M. Omer GOLGELI via mailop
> pisze:
> > Google usually displays why it thinks an email is spam when
> an email marked as s
On 2020-01-24 at 16:07 +0100, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
> In this day and age, mailing lists have no excuse for not rewriting
> the original envelope sender to one of their own (mailop does it
> correctly).
> Forwards between uncontrolled servers are also a very bad idea for
> multiple reas
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 03:11:58PM -0800, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:27 PM Gregory Heytings via mailop <
> > > sender in addressbook is definitely a whitelisting signal, as is
> > > replying to a message the user sent or on the same thread. They used to
> > > be muc
On 24 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?all" (or perhaps
"~all").
Using "-all" as the default in a SPF record does not have any readily
apparent effect on "Inbox" deliverability of SPF-authenticated mail
to GMail rela
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:27 PM Gregory Heytings via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> Brandon Long:
>
> >
> > sender in addressbook is definitely a whitelisting signal, as is
> > replying to a message the user sent or on the same thread. They used to
> > be much stronger whitelisting signal
Brandon Long:
sender in addressbook is definitely a whitelisting signal, as is
replying to a message the user sent or on the same thread. They used to
be much stronger whitelisting signals than they are now, but were abused
by spammers, so it's not a guarantee.
I stand corrected on tho
On 24 Jan 2020, at 3:33, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
Using +all is actually a giant, negative reputation hit according to
various folks I’ve talked to about filters. Using +all says “every
IP is valid” and this was (dunno about still is but definitely was)
used by spammers so they could h
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:42 AM Gregory Heytings via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> Laura Atkins:
>
> >
> > The OP asked for advice on delivery, not his SPF setup. His SPF setup is
> > fine and is absolutely not the problem here.
> >
>
> There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:32 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
> Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 12:44:56 M. Omer GOLGELI via mailop pisze:
> > Google usually displays why it thinks an email is spam when an email
> marked as spam is opened.
>
> Yes, and it's usually always the same reason: "The message
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:48 AM Gregory Heytings via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >> There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?all" (or perhaps
> >> "~all").
> >
> > Using "-all" as the default in a SPF record does not have any readily
> > apparent effect on "Inbox" delive
On Fri 24/Jan/2020 04:24:31 +0100 John Gateley via mailop wrote:
Hello,
I have run my own mail server for about 20 years.
It is postfix, and has DNS, SPF and DKIM set up correctly.
DMARC?
The mail server is too small (much much less than 100 messages per day) so I
cannot check Gmail's tool
For SPF, the "all" keyword is only reached if processing the previous
policy rules did not result in a positive answer, which means
"interpret this a sign that the email is likely not spam, but use the
other filtering mechanisms before taking a decision" (it's a "+1").
At that point:
"?al
There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?all" (or perhaps
"~all").
Using "-all" as the default in a SPF record does not have any readily
apparent effect on "Inbox" deliverability of SPF-authenticated mail to
GMail relative to "~all" based on domains whose mail and SPF records
I
In article <70d752f3-6aa3-cda0-28bd-6444e3d69...@allard.it> you write:
>> As I and others said, given in particular the case of forwards and
>> mailing lists, "-all" is seldom a good idea, and certainly not a good
>> idea for a small personal server.
>>
>
>In this day and age, mailing lists have
In article you write:
>There were 19 recipients on the To: line.
>15 of the recipients were gmail addresses.
Don't do that, smells like what a bot does.
The usual way to send a group message is to put your own address on the To: line
and everyone else as Bcc.
__
On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 14:02 +0100, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
>
> On 1/24/20 12:28 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> > In my opinion, "-all" is good only when it is the *only* entry in the SPF
> > record, ie. SPF record indicates that the domain does not send mail *at
> > all*.
> > In all
On 24 Jan 2020, at 9:31, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
In my opinion, "-all" is good only when it is the *only* entry in
the SPF record, ie. SPF record indicates that the domain does not
send mail *at all*. In all other cases, I think that even if
original SPF record specifies "-all", t
On 24 Jan 2020, at 7:40, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?all" (or perhaps
"~all").
Using "-all" as the default in a SPF record does not have any readily
apparent effect on "Inbox" deliverability of SPF-authenticated mail to
GMail relativ
On 1/24/20 3:31 PM, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
"-all" means "interpret this a sign that the email is certainly spam, do
not use any other filtering mechanisms to take a decision" (it's a
"-infinity").
As I and others said, given in particular the case of forwards and
mailing lists,
On 24 Jan 2020, at 8:02, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
For me, only -all makes sense, all others are just as meaningful as
having no SPF records at all.
The first 2 words there are the most important in the sentence.
An affirmative SPF result is very helpful to mid-sized receiving systems
For example, I see that your email address is @jfoo.org, and that you
have:
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".
Hogwash.
If you sa
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:37:56AM +, Paul Smith via mailop wrote:
> 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
>> mos
In my opinion, "-all" is good only when it is the *only* entry in the
SPF record, ie. SPF record indicates that the domain does not send mail
*at all*. In all other cases, I think that even if original SPF record
specifies "-all", the receiving server should override this and
interpret it a
On 24 Jan 2020, at 4:47, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
For example, I see that your email address is @jfoo.org, and that you
have:
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
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 12:44:56 M. Omer GOLGELI via mailop pisze:
> Google usually displays why it thinks an email is spam when an email marked
> as spam is opened.
Yes, and it's usually always the same reason: "The message is similar to
others identified by our filters as spam". I've never see
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 12:40:17 Gregory Heytings via mailop pisze:
>
> Sorry, but the OP experiences delivery issues with Gmail servers, so
> suggesting him to solve the issue by contacting the recipients of
> that particular email is just nonsense. It won't improve anything
> for the other emai
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 14:02:50 Renaud Allard via mailop pisze:
>
> I tend to disagree. If you allow every IP to send mail on your
> behalf, then why even bother putting an SPF record. For me, only
> -all makes sense, all others are just as meaningful as having no SPF
> records at all.
Well, I a
On 1/24/20 12:28 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
In my opinion, "-all" is good only when it is the *only* entry in the SPF
record, ie. SPF record indicates that the domain does not send mail *at
all*.
In all other cases, I think that even if original SPF record specifies
"-all", the receivi
Google usually displays why it thinks an email is spam when an email marked as
spam is opened.
As Laura says, that and possibly headers might be a better clue to identify it
rather than blindly arguing about SPF setup without actually even knowing the
domain and it's setup.
M. Omer GOLGELI
---
Laura Atkins:
The OP asked for advice on delivery, not his SPF setup. His SPF setup is
fine and is absolutely not the problem here.
There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?all" (or perhaps
"~all"). And by the way this wasn't the only advice I gave. I never
wrote "do this a
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 12:24:56 Johann Klasek via mailop pisze:
> The worst is using +all in any case just to try to prevent forwarding and
> mainlinglist troubles. In such case it would be better not to use SPF at
> all.
The problem is, Google (and probably other big e-mail providers too, I hav
> On 24 Jan 2020, at 11:24, Johann Klasek via mailop wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:59:53AM +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
> [..]
>> That's your opinion. My opinion is that "-all" is almost never a good
>> idea, and is certainly not a good idea for a small personal server.
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 10:59:53 Gregory Heytings via mailop pisze:
>
> That's your opinion. My opinion is that "-all" is almost never a
> good idea, and is certainly not a good idea for a small personal
> server. It breaks forwards and mailing lists. "?all" does not mean
> "we're not sure what
> On 24 Jan 2020, at 10:59, Gregory Heytings via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
>>
>>> This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all".
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> "v=spf1 mx ..." requires a DNS lookup which their existing SPF record
>> doesn't. Lots of people telling you how to
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:59:53AM +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
[..]
> That's your opinion. My opinion is that "-all" is almost never a good
> idea, and is certainly not a good idea for a small personal server. It
> breaks forwards and mailing lists. "?all" does not mean "we're
Hi,
This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all".
I disagree.
"v=spf1 mx ..." requires a DNS lookup which their existing SPF record
doesn't. Lots of people telling you how to set up SPF will say 'use
v=spf1 mx' because they don't want to explain the entire SPF record
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
On 1/24/20 11:14 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 09:37:56 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
The best thing is for the recipients to mark it as a good message.
That'll feedback to Gmail's systems that the sender is good.
The problem is, users almost never check their sp
On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 09:47 +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote:
> This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all".
This is incorrect advice. The original poster's existing SPF is fine.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
htt
Dnia 24.01.2020 o godz. 09:37:56 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
> The best thing is for the recipients to mark it as a good message.
> That'll feedback to Gmail's systems that the sender is good.
The problem is, users almost never check their spam folder. So this won't
work as expected.
--
Regards,
On Thu, 2020-01-23 at 21:24 -0600, John Gateley via mailop wrote:
> There were 19 recipients on the To: line.
> 15 of the recipients were gmail addresses.
>
> Any ideas why? Or how I fix it?
> The mail server is too small (much much less than 100 messages per day)
> so I cannot check Gmail's tool
Hi,
It is postfix, and has DNS, SPF and DKIM set up correctly.
Are you sure about this? Did you check your configuration, for example
with check-a...@verifier.port25.com (mail-based) or mail-tester.com
(web-based)?
Another way to check what happens is to send an email to a Gmail addres
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:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:02:56AM +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> The only difference is I was sending messages to individual recipients, not
> to 19 persons at once :) But they ended up in recipients' spam folder
> anyway.
And it will even end up in the "Spam" folder if you actually rep
Dnia 23.01.2020 o godz. 21:24:31 John Gateley via mailop pisze:
> I have run my own mail server for about 20 years.
> It is postfix, and has DNS, SPF and DKIM set up correctly.
> It is very small, just serving mail for my wife and I.
>
> She recently sent email to a group of students for a class s
Hello,
I have run my own mail server for about 20 years.
It is postfix, and has DNS, SPF and DKIM set up correctly.
It is very small, just serving mail for my wife and I.
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 t
58 matches
Mail list logo
