Hi there,
Since a few weeks from now, I'm having some results I don't really
understand with Google Postmaster Tools.
When I take a look at the Authentification page, my SPF and DKIM compliancy
are always 100% but my DMARC compliancy is variation from day to day (from
5.9% to 77.3%) without chang
Hi Yves-Marie,
My guess, and it's just a guess, is that the discrepancy might be down to
the "alignment" of the SPF and DKIM records.
DMARC requires that the domain of the SPF approved email source in the
envelope header (return-path) matches the domain in the From address. It
also requires that
Significant increases in spam from them, but the reason our team wants a
contact for them, is the strange case of missing received headers for
mail processed via their systems that started a few months back..
eg..
Received: from smtp07.smtpout.orange.fr (HELO smtp.smtpout.orange.fr)
(80.12.24
Hi,
(I’m not in orange’s mail staff, just a customer of the ISP part, I’m
not enough crazy to use another mail server than my own ;)
On mar. 1 août 08:54:45 2017, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> We would expect that the actual SMTP servers themselves should be inserting
> a received header.. and that
Seems you have the same problem when using the outbound SMTP..
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: ala...@swordarmor.fr
Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp07.smtpout.orange.fr
[80.12.242.129])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate req
Michael, please contact me directly, offlist. We have contacts at Orange.
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell,
Attorney at Law
CEO/President,
SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance
http://www.SuretyMail.com/
http://www.SuretyMail.eu/
Attorney at Law / Legislative Consultant
I see these disparities for domains that are used in MAIL FROM / envelope
header / return-path (for SPF), and that sometimes are used for DKIM
signing (so it's not 0%), but not always (so it's not 100%).
With no more detail about your settings, content and traffic it would be
hard to help, but add
It's nice, from time to time, to be able to Telnet to port 25 and type in the
commands manually for testing.
I know, I should write some simple scripts. ☹
Aloha,
Michael.
--
Michael J Wise
Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
"Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
Got the Junk Mail Reportin
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Michael Wise via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> It's nice, from time to time, to be able to Telnet to port 25 and type in the
> commands manually for testing.
> I know, I should write some simple scripts. ☹
http://www.jetmore.org/john/code/swaks/ is what you want for t
On 7/31/17 4:21 PM, Ryan Harris via mailop wrote:
Optimizing for connection reuse since the overhead of creating
connections is actually high for us. So we want to send as many messages
as we can over a single connection before closing it.
So do that. When you have no more messages to deliver
Thanks!
I ❤ BASH on Ubuntu on Windows, BTW.
I do rather like to keep my hand in... At least from time to time.
The only thing that gives me fits is IMAP.
Aloha,
Michael.
--
Michael J Wise
Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
"Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
Got the Junk Mail Report
Anyone from Gmail here? Hopefully I'm not off topic.
CEO was complaining about mail not getting to clients (not mail campaigns, just
day to day business). He sent a simple Subject: Test w/ Body Test (+ signature)
to his personal Gmail account and Gmail flagged it as spam based on "content".
I d
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017, at 13:48, Paul Witting wrote:
> Anyone from Gmail here? Hopefully I’m not off topic.
>
> CEO was complaining about mail not getting to clients (not mail campaigns,
> just day to day business). He sent a simple Subject: Test w/ Body Test (+
> signature) to his personal G
Thanks to everyone for the quick responses -- issue has been addressed.
--Jaren
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Jaren Angerbauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not sure if anyone is here from 1&1 -- looking for someone within that
> organization that I can work with on an abuse issue.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Ja
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Paul Witting wrote:
>
> Anyone from Gmail here? Hopefully I’m not off topic.
>
> CEO was complaining about mail not getting to clients (not mail campaigns,
> just day to day business). He sent a simple Subject: Test w/ Body Test (+
> signature) to his personal
Anyone have a good suggestion to research domain reputation? IP ratings are
easy, but domain seems to be much more difficult (there's one or two go tos
for me).
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Laura Atkins
wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Paul Witting
> wrote:
>
> Anyone from Gmail here?
Hi,
We have a potential customer in the business of doing penetration testing, and
they want to send penetration testing phishing emails authorized by a target
company to that company's own employees.
If we allowed this in our network, I would require:
(1) Evidence to our satisfaction that thi
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 2:26 PM, Brett Schenker wrote:
>
> Anyone have a good suggestion to research domain reputation? IP ratings are
> easy, but domain seems to be much more difficult (there's one or two go tos
> for me).
When I’m looking into domain reputation I look for answers to the follo
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 2:37 PM, David Harris wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We have a potential customer in the business of doing penetration testing,
> and they want to send penetration testing phishing emails authorized by a
> target company to that company's own employees.
>
> If we allowed this in our
While some pen testing companies who do that want to make it as
realistic as possible (phishing emails, eg in the same manner a villain
would do) it depends on the target employees that they are trying to
'phish' test..
Normal employees are not sophisticated, and the content alone is enough.
Hi Steve,
On Aug 1, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>> (2) An X- header explaining what they are doing with a link to find more info
>
> Reasonable. I might also require the contact information for someone inside
> the target company - if the security people go into lockdown mode, why shou
Be interesting to know if they made changes, but no matter what..
"Kudos' and hats off.."
Now if we can only convince them to have tighter SPF records ;)
Return-Path:
Received: from aton.hk (HELO mail.aton.hk) (58.64.196.210)
(Dont' worry, still goes to spam folder but.. would make it easier
Tighter how?
spf_checker_util: output header: softfail (google.com: domain of
transitioning ptp...@gmail.com does not designate 58.64.196.210 as
permitted sender) client-ip=58.64.196.210;
You want it to just fail? That would be silly, we expect people to
forward email.
I'll pass on your compli
Aside from the evil's of forwarding, and the methods that are available
to do that without running afoul of SPF.. that is an argument for
another day. Every modern email client now supports checking multiple
mailboxes don't they ;)
...
host -t TXT gmail.com
gmail.com descriptive text "v=spf1
So, yes, our records covert our entire IP space, which is way more
than we have servers for, and that is unfortunate. I've had an open
bug for a couple of years to fix this, but the _netblocks thing is
used by things other than SPF, so it's complicated.
-all is just plain silly.
If you want to r
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:37:55 -0500, David Harris wrote:
>Thoughts? Are there best practices for something like this?
I will note that, when Microsoft Global Security tried their own version of
this a few years back, intending to gauge the degree to which the employee
population would fall for phi
26 matches
Mail list logo
