Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

I for one welcome the explicit blocks of email. They tell me simply what is wrong so I can (let people) fix things. What I really hate is the "possible spam detected"-like messages. I don't have time to check all 40 domains in the email and all IPs involved for those domains (and then usually no

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

Worse still is the silent discards... It makes you beg for a "possible spam detected". The BOFH in me has always wanted to adjust my rejection messages to show the lowest scored DNSBL in the rejection message, then add a bunch of useless, high-false-negative DNSBLs with trivially low scores just

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

I used to run a whitelist, and it was predicated upon FBL reports as one metric for list purity. I saw, and continue to see to this day, error in reporting from *all* such sources (they are myriad, probably numbering in a couple of dozen these days), they are no more endemic to AOL than any oth

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

Rob McEwen wrote: But, otherwise, I'm having a hard time working up the motivation to spend any more time trying change your mind about those things I said with which you disagreed--because the world would be a worse place if SORBS tried to be an invaluement clone, AND a worse place if inval

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

On Aug 30, 2016 05:10, "Neil Schwartzman" wrote: > > Users, like all humans, make errors. Are sys admins the sole tranche immune to such things? Somehow, I doubt it. > But what should be done about those who repeat their errors...within 5 months of their last error... -Jim P. ___

[mailop] SNDS data missing

Hi, Do more people see SNDS weirdness? On Sunday I only see the results for half of a day (Sunday 8 PM to Monday 8 AM CEST). Saturday is not displayed at all. Met vriendelijke groet, David Hofstee Deliverability Management MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP)

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

Le Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:08:21AM -0400, Neil Schwartzman [n...@cauce.org] a écrit: [...] > I saw, and continue to see to this day, error in reporting from *all* > such sources (they are myriad, probably numbering in a couple of dozen > these days), they are no more endemic to AOL than any other

Re: [mailop] SNDS data missing

I noticed similar for Saturday August 27th (New York/EST time zone). Udeme On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:14 AM, David Hofstee wrote: > Hi, > > Do more people see SNDS weirdness? On Sunday I only see the results for > half of a day (Sunday 8 PM to Monday 8 AM CEST). Saturday is not displayed > at al

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

The Live.com Spam-butten, in Dutch, translates into 'unwanted mail'. Ok... Sure. Whatever. Met vriendelijke groet, David Hofstee Deliverability Management MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP) - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "Dominique Rousseau" Aan: mailop@mailop.org Verzonden: Dinsdag

Re: [mailop] SNDS data missing

Hello, I also see some SNDS weirdness on my side. This is the second time this year. Basically, the amount of messages seen by Hotmail per IP is wrong and ridiculously low. Usually less than 400 messages per IP instead of 20 k. Sometimes the amount is so low that some IPs are just not displayed

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

I did a survey of iconography and words for different mail ui's several years back, and i think hotmail and yahoo used the same iconography, one for spam the other for trash. The desire to use "junk" in place of spam is probably partially to blame, as well. ahh, from 2011, here, it was Apple Mail

Re: [mailop] SNDS data missing

The Issue Has Been Resolved. Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." | Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ? From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

What if you have a secret, pretty much foolproof test, but you don't want to reveal that you know it's spam...? I think it would be good to put some descriptive (to the Abuse desk, at least) code in the reject message, and get the senders to contact the desk and request for clarification. Most

Re: [mailop] SNDS data missing

Thanks Michael! Appreciate the insight. Udeme On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Michael Wise wrote: > > > The Issue Has Been Resolved. > > > > Aloha, > > Michael. > > -- > > *Michael J Wise* | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Has > Been Processed." | Got the Junk Mail Reporting To

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

On 16-08-30 12:43 PM, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: We could use one to call out the location of colo servers that should never be connecting on port 443, for instance. Um, I can think of a reason why that might not be perfect.. For instance cloud services which monitor your email box for yo

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

We are working on the Azure issue. Ran into a few hiccups on the way. But the issue is being worked. Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." | Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ? -Original Message- From: mailop [mailto:mail

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016, at 15:22, Michael Peddemors wrote: > On 16-08-30 12:43 PM, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > > We could use one to call out the location of colo servers that should never > > be connecting on port 443, for instance. > > Um, I can think of a reason why that might not be perfec

Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need?

Until such time as we have the data, we can't know if it would be useful or not. Such a list would need exclusions (both globally and locally, much like the PBL for instance), and "Well-Known" NAT IPs would be excluded as well. But I've seen far too much abuse coming from Colocation facilities

[mailop] A lot of spam/malware from cox.net (68.230.241.0/24)

We're seeing huge amounts of spam coming from cox.net (68.230.241.0/24) over the past few days. Going to our filtering system but also getting through to Office 365 and Gmail accounts without any issue at all. They are all the well written, formatted "please remit" type emails with a Word Doc a