> On Jul 9, 2024, at 2:11 PM, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
>
> On 2024-07-09 at 13:53:47 UTC-0400 (Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:53:47 -0600)
> Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> Receivers don't block email from new IPs by default; they block them when
>> they notice som
rk Stone, Founder
North America's Leading Zimbra VAR/BSP/Training Partner
For Companies With Mission-Critical Email Needs
- Original Message -
| From: "Scott Mutter via mailop"
| To: "mailop"
| Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 3:38:07 PM
| Subject: Re: [mailop] [E] Re: AT&
On 2024-07-09 at 13:53:47 UTC-0400 (Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:53:47 -0600)
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop
is rumored to have said:
Receivers don't block email from new IPs by default; they block them
when they notice something amiss with the email (be it improper
authentication, spam complaints, o
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:53 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> Instead of grumbling, if you can give us information, perhaps someone here
> can help you.
>
>
You are right - if an IP is blocked, it's likely blocked for a reason. The
question is whether that reas
* Matt Vernhout:
> I'd say my usual experience is different, having worked with dozens of
> organizations moving to new Dedicated IPs for sending marketing emails
> [...]
I have not yet had dealings with customers who were in the business of
sending email for marketing purposes. I can imagine tha
On 09.07.2024 at 20:33 Ralph Seichter via mailop wrote:
* Anne P. Mitchell:
Receivers don't block email from new IPs by default; they block them
when they notice something amiss with the email (be it improper
authentication, spam complaints, or something else).
That looks like a too generalise
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 2:32 PM Ralph Seichter via mailop
wrote:
> * Anne P. Mitchell:
>
> > Receivers don't block email from new IPs by default; they block them
> > when they notice something amiss with the email (be it improper
> > authentication, spam complaints, or something else).
>
> That lo
Dnia 9.07.2024 o godz. 11:53:47 Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop pisze:
>
> Receivers don't block email from new IPs by default;
Some certainly do.
Perhaps the most known example is T-Online, as mentioned here in another
email. It's their official policy. Every new (unknown) sending IP is bloc
It appears that Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop said:
>Receivers don't block email from new IPs by default; they block them when they
>notice something amiss with the email (be it
>improper authentication, spam complaints, or something else).
Actually, they do. I recently renumbered my network
* Anne P. Mitchell:
> Receivers don't block email from new IPs by default; they block them
> when they notice something amiss with the email (be it improper
> authentication, spam complaints, or something else).
That looks like a too generalised assessment to me. As I mentioned in a
different thr
> blocking our IP address for no reason
In my 20+ years experience, there is never "no reason". The reason may not be
clearly revealed, the rejection message may be lacking in useful information,
and the reason may be wrong, but blocks are there for a reason, even if not
discernible by the se
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 20:24:28 -0500, Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
>I do suspect that John Von Essen's opinion has some merit. I wish this
>information was posted on a trusted third party website. Something to
>point customers to when they complain about being unable to send mail to @
>att.net e
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 3:23 PM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Scott Mutter via mailop said:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 7:54 AM Alessandro Vesely via mailop <
> >In my opinion this is where the industry could use some oversight. As you
> >say there is nothi
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:27:10 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop"
wrote:
>A thing to remember is that after Harris filed the lawsuit they had a change
>of management, and Harris approached us and actually asked for help in
>reforming their mailing practices (and then did so), and so they d
It appears that Scott Mutter via mailop said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 7:54 AM Alessandro Vesely via mailop <
>In my opinion this is where the industry could use some oversight. As you
>say there is nothing to stop a large operator from blocking a small
>operator simply
> On Jul 8, 2024, at 11:46 AM, Michael Rathbun via mailop
> wrote:
>
> (One of life's lovely moments came when I discovered that one of my
> deliverability support clients at my new employer was Nielsen, who had
> acquired Harris Polls a while back (the spammers who sued MAPS).
A thing to rem
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:31:45 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop"
wrote:
>Just a point of order (that's not quite the right term but you get the gist):
>
>> As you say there is nothing to stop a large operator from blocking a small
>> operator simply because they can.
>
>I'm not sure where
Just a point of order (that's not quite the right term but you get the gist):
> As you say there is nothing to stop a large operator from blocking a small
> operator simply because they can.
I'm not sure where the OP is from, but this has actually been litigated and is
settled law in the U.S.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 7:54 AM Alessandro Vesely via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> It seems to me that large operators don't care a tinker's cuss about
> blocking
> small operators. If I'm unable to send to Outlook users, it is my fault
> by
> definition, certainly not Outlook's.
>
>
In m
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 10:54 AM Marcel Becker via mailop
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 9:27 AM Scott Mutter via mailop
> wrote:
>
> We're all on this mailing list to learn (aren't we?). Maybe take some of
>> the input you see from the messages on this mailing list and work to
>> improve the
On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 9:27 AM Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
We're all on this mailing list to learn (aren't we?). Maybe take some of
> the input you see from the messages on this mailing list and work to
> improve the systems you offer.
>
Just in case that "you" is referring to me: I am also
Am 07.07.24 um 14:54 schrieb Alessandro Vesely via mailop:
(a bit of understandable ranting)
Is that anyhow related to democracy?
No. But mail interoperation isn't govered by democracy.
Idealized history: Initially (when there were a few dozen mailhosts), there was mutual understanding that e
On Sat 06/Jul/2024 18:22:15 +0200 Scott Mutter via mailop wrote:
If we're all tired of seeing "Anyone from BLANK able to help with the IP BLANK
being blocked?" Then perhaps this is a nod to BLANK that they need to do
better at handling these inquiries or that their means of blocking IPs is too
On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 10:26 AM Marcel Becker via mailop
wrote:
>
> ATT runs their own inbound servers. Lili is not ATT. Please always use
> official support channels first.
>
> That's kind of the issue.
Nobody responds when you write abuse_...@abuse-att.net
Why is that address included in the
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 15:26 Jeff Pang via mailop wrote:
>
> BTW, you may contact Lili directly who is on this list.
ATT runs their own inbound servers. Lili is not ATT. Please always use
official support channels first.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop
25 matches
Mail list logo
