Dnia 17.06.2020 o godz. 15:31:40 John Levine via mailop pisze:
>
> For most of us, the only time we take "-all" seriously is if it's the
> only thing in the SPF record, to state that a domain sends no mail at
> all. Other than that, treat it the same as ~all or ?all because as
> you have found a
Hi Michael,
It is clear, but what must we do when the front door is closed too?
I used the Support Funnel but didn't get any responses, not even the first
response from the robot giving me the SRX#.
It is not a spam classification issue, I have checked the postfix logs and
found no email coming
Hello,
we host hundreds of dedicated servers on VMs and our customers send
thousands of mail to t-online.de mailboxes every day.
a new customer uses an ip, which has been offline for months or even
years wanted to send mails to t-online.de boxes.
the usual blacklisting happened, but now the help
On Wed 17/Jun/2020 21:15:57 +0200 vom513 via mailop wrote:
I run my own personal mail server, Linux, usual open source bits… One of my
many layers/checks for inbound is SPF. Insofar as I reject at the “front
door” (SMTP connection) if SPF fails (example is a domain using “-all”). I
would imag
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 13:00, Abuse via mailop wrote:
> It is clear, but what must we do when the front door is closed too?
> I used the Support Funnel but didn't get any responses, not even the first
> response from the robot giving me the SRX#.
We use an outlook.com/hotmail.com email address t
Allow your customers to set an additional PTR.
Kind regards,
/ Tobias Herkula
Manager Detection Anti Spam
Cyren (Berlin)
From: mailop on behalf of Andreas Bueggeln - NOC -
Profihost AG via mailop
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 12:57
To: mailop@mailop.o
> Allow your customers to set an additional PTR.
AFAIK only one PTR per RR is allowed, even if most DNS allow to set
multiple ones.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
-Benoît Panizzon- @ HomeOffice und normal erreichbar
--
I m p r o W a r e A G-Leiter Commerce Kunden
___
Hai!
Allow your customers to set an additional PTR.
AFAIK only one PTR per RR is allowed, even if most DNS allow to set
multiple ones.
Besides that you dont want to create ddos vectors dont you?
I request thousands of pointers back...
Amplification plus plus.
Bye, Raymond.
_
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Andreas Bueggeln - NOC - Profihost AG via mailop wrote:
Hello,
we host hundreds of dedicated servers on VMs and our customers send
thousands of mail to t-online.de mailboxes every day.
a new customer uses an ip, which has been offline for months or even
years wanted to sen
On 6/18/2020 7:11 AM, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 13:00, Abuse via mailop wrote:
>> It is clear, but what must we do when the front door is closed too?
>> I used the Support Funnel but didn't get any responses, not even the first
>> response from the robot giving m
On 2020-06-17 11:31 p.m., Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote:
Hi
Anybody else seeing increase phishing through sendgrid? They look
fairly convincing.
I suspect the IP Ranges of Sendgrid are bound for a global blacklisting
if they keep ignoring abusive behaviour of their customers.
We have
On 2020-06-18 4:37 a.m., Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote:
Allow your customers to set an additional PTR.
AFAIK only one PTR per RR is allowed, even if most DNS allow to set
multiple ones.
And when you say 'only one PTR per RR' is "allowed", could you explain
that further? "allowed" by whom
On 2020-06-18 3:57 a.m., Andreas Bueggeln - NOC - Profihost AG via
mailop wrote:
- the ptr to the server ip hast to resolve to the customer domain and
vice versa
But they need to do a more sophisticated PTR <<>> A record matching, to
handle multiple PTR records..
- the mails are not allowed
Dnia 18.06.2020 o godz. 08:55:35 Michael Peddemors via mailop pisze:
>
> >- the web pages of the domain must have an correct imprint
>
> This is one that people forget about, and I agree with.. And I wish
> I could find the old MAAWG recommendations on this to quote, but if
> you have a PTR recor
There's been some confusion around this requirement from T-Online for
a while now, and it seems to be unevenly enforced. And perhaps not
even clearly defined.
Couldn't hurt if you want to reach out to t...@rx.t-online.de and ask
for clarification. Like I did about their filtering over all. I don't
On 6/18/20 07:52, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
From: "Netflix"
How is that not already a check on egress after a couple of months.. Do
you REALLY think you are going to have a customer who named themselves
that using your service?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Follow the money.
On 2020-06-18 9:43 a.m., Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 18.06.2020 o godz. 08:55:35 Michael Peddemors via mailop pisze:
- the web pages of the domain must have an correct imprint
This is one that people forget about, and I agree with.. And I wish
I could find the old MAAWG recommendati
Dnia 18.06.2020 o godz. 09:57:58 Michael Peddemors via mailop pisze:
>
> WHO do I contact when I have problems related to a domain..
"postmaster@domain" is required by the RFC.
--
Regards,
Jaroslaw Rafa
r...@rafa.eu.org
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: on
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Benoît Panizzon wrote:
AFAIK only one PTR per RR is allowed,
Incorrect. Whether others will process them in a way you want might be
the larger concern.
/mark
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal
on Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 09:57:58AM -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> WHO do I contact when I have problems related to a domain..
I've been creating patterns based on PTR records and associating
classifications with them as an anti-spam and anti-abuse mechanism for
almost eighteen years,
On 6/17/20 11:15 PM, Dave Warren via mailop wrote:
> A bit late, sorry.
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 04:55, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote:
>> On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 13:35 -0600, Daniele Nicolodi via mailop wrote:
>>> Does anyone know if there is any alternative to Outlook to access
>>>
>>> Exchang
On 6/18/20 5:46 PM, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
On 2020-06-18 4:37 a.m., Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote:
Allow your customers to set an additional PTR.
AFAIK only one PTR per RR is allowed, even if most DNS allow to set
multiple ones.
And when you say 'only one PTR per RR' is "a
Hi Michael
> And when you say 'only one PTR per RR' is "allowed", could you
> explain that further? "allowed" by whom, or what policy.
I recall we ran into some problems with systems that attempt to match A
and PTR records and only considered the first PTR returned and that
while looking if that
Hi Team
I was made aware that a Google IP is listed in one of the blacklists we
operate.
Strangely this hinted that Google was attempting to send an email to an
IP address which is running a spamtrap/honeypot and for sure is not
used as MX.
Normally this is only being hit by bots scanning for op
24 matches
Mail list logo
