In the confirmation message, there is a link (which looks like a button) to
click to confirm you want to be on the list. That link is being followed
and the addresses activated. My working theory is that some mail filtering
software is fetching the URLs it sees.
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Mi
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Al Iverson
wrote:
> I've heard John Levine propose the "hidden link to catch scanning
> robots" solution but I've never heard of an email system implementing
>
I'm running through my head how that would work, and makes for some very
complicated state transition d
This opens up for an interesting discussion.
We experienced the very same issue in the past for few customers and
enabling a captcha was the only viable option.
The "bots" (don't really know actually) managed to complete a COI
process with several free accounts.
Ip ranges were different some on CB
We seem to be receiving disconnects and "451 Internal queueing error" when
trying to deliver to them today.
Seems a bit sporadic, so what to make sure it's not just our servers here.
Sincerely,
Eric Tykwinski
TrueNet, Inc.
P: 610-429-8300
_
Are there any negative consequences to consider before excluding message-id
from our signature?
I'm working towards p=reject on bombbomb.com and found that Securence /
usinternet.com (A forwarder) gets a measurable percentage of our mail and
modifies the message-id in the process. This breaks our
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>>
>>> Some explanation for my deep curiosity Mailman (which I hack on
>>> here and there) and other MLMs had problems
> On May 26, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Joel Beckham wrote:
>
> Are there any negative consequences to consider before excluding message-id
> from our signature?
>
> I'm working towards p=reject on bombbomb.com and found that Securence /
> usinternet.com (A forwarder) gets a measurable percentage of o
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Joel Beckham wrote:
> Are there any negative consequences to consider before excluding
> message-id from our signature?
>
> ...found that Securence / usinternet.com (A forwarder) gets a measurable
> percentage of our mail and modifies the message-id in the process
Thanks for the input!
Steve -- I've been on a couple calls with Securence and they're not willing
to stop the message-id modification. They did offer to tack on .invalid to
the FROM address to bypass our DMARC, but I'm not a big fan of that idea.
They said they're handling each p=reject on a case-
Okay, the External Facing messaging is along the lines of:
Skinny: Issue resolved. ☺
“Yer Bug Is Fixed!”
Some references were made to Han Solo on the intercom when they were trying to
rescue the Princess, but were removed.
Can’t really say more, but they tell me the Root Cause has been addresse
10 matches
Mail list logo
