On 2024-08-27 12:35, Atro Tossavainen via mailop wrote:
There's life at Google. Just pay for GSuite.
Is this the generic advice that all Android device users should take
in order to ensure they will be able to continue to use the Google
account which is essentially mandatory to have in order t
Dnia 27.08.2024 o godz. 17:54:05 Colin Johnston via mailop pisze:
> Have you tried an normal android phone without a sim as Google should send
> the 2fa to that as well as sms ?
How do you expect anybody/anything to send a SMS to a phone without a SIM
card, which means no phone number and no cell
Dnia 27.08.2024 o godz. 22:35:41 Atro Tossavainen via mailop pisze:
>
> Is this the generic advice that all Android device users should take
> in order to ensure they will be able to continue to use the Google
> account which is essentially mandatory to have in order to use said
> device? If so, h
Google does 2fa to phone or tablet so long as the device has WiFi regardless of
sim
Sent from my iPod
> On 28 Aug 2024, at 09:03, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
>
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Dnia 28.08.2024 o godz. 09:11:28 Colin Johnston via mailop pisze:
> Google does 2fa to phone or tablet so long as the device has WiFi regardless
> of sim
And how does it do this, if there's no Google account logged in?
--
Regards,
Jaroslaw Rafa
r...@rafa.eu.org
--
"In a million years, when
Hi Laura (and all),
You are absolutely right. The trick is to set the SPF not for the domain
but for the full EHLO string. Following the redacted information, I had
the SPF for "maildomain.net", but not for "mailhost.maildomain.net".
Emails coming from "dumbu...@maildomain.net" worked, but the
For me.. the only reason for logging in to Google was to download Syngic and
Torque Pro…. The two apps on my remote dashboard.
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
If we don't find a way out of this soon, I'm gonna lose it. Lose it... It means
go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in posses
Hello,
Yes I already noticed that MS is adding plenty of headers but 64 kB seems a bit
high, I check on an email I retrieved from my FBL the headers are something
like 15 kB (more than half of it being from headers starting with X-MS or
X-Microsoft).
So 64 kB seems rather high (I think it is o
On 27.08.2024 at 19:48 A. Schulze via mailop wrote:
> today a became aware of messages deferred by our MX. I could nail down the
> issue to "all headers excced 64k bytes". This limit was enforced by OpenDKIM
> [1] Deferring is questionable. I would prefer reject but that's an other
> story.
> T
On 27.08.2024 at 20:37 Robert Giles via mailop wrote:
> On the topic of free services that Google provides (with no support or abuse
> contact whatsoever), has anyone else noticed an uptick in Google Groups spam
> lately?
>
> I'm wondering what SpamAssassin rule to boost, but it seems like this
On 8/28/2024 at 07:27, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
We have seen an increase of spam and phishing emails from Google
Groups since 21.08. It seems the spammers are adding large amounts
of collected addresses to groups and then sending their spam messages
to the group address. While the spam
Hello,
>> I'm wondering what SpamAssassin rule to boost, but it seems like this
>> operator
>> has mostly covered their bases? KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ might be worth boosting.
>
> We have seen an increase of spam and phishing emails from Google Groups since
> 21.08. It seems the spammers are adding lar
On 28.08.2024 at 14:47 Robert Giles via mailop wrote:
> On 8/28/2024 at 07:27, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
>> The only ways to block them which I have come up with is to either
>> create a custom script that adds the return path domain to a blocklist
>> as soon as a spam message from Google
On 28.08.24 07:46, Robert Giles via mailop wrote:
So dropping Google Groups entirely: since Google's infrastructure is
"unblockable", I'd suspect keying on a Google Groups-specific header,
but how are you (and other folks) accomplishing this?
I put into local rhsbl:
groups.google.com
googleg
On 8/28/2024 at 08:08, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
Well, entirely for everyone who is not using Google Groups himself. If you have a small
user base this might be actually "everyone".
You can use the header X-Google-Group-Id. I have so far not seen any other
emails from Gmail or Gsuite wh
Gellner, Oliver via mailop:
Usually I only see such large headers in mail loops.
yes, a loop is probably the reason.
I wrote a patch (1) for OpenDKIM to
- reject such messages insead of deffering them
- give a meaningfull logmessage and SMTP response
I'll get that in production soon.
And
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024, Robert Giles via mailop wrote:
> On 8/28/2024 at 08:08, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
> > You can use the header X-Google-Group-Id.
> Thanks! That looks like an excellent header to use for a Postfix REJECT
> action.
Be aware that some "important" mailing lists switched
It appears that Tapio Peltonen via mailop said:
>On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 02:05, Michael Peddemors via mailop
> wrote:
>
>> Return-Path:
>>
>
>Hm, isn't the local part supposed to be max 64 characters?
>That's 112 characters, almost twice the RFC 5321 max length.
Yeah, that's a problem and I know
I'm not sure exactly what flow you're hitting, and it's been a while since
I've been in any loops about this stuff...
Typically, the phone number use in cases like this is part of trying to
prevent bulk operations.
If you think about a mass password exposure, there are cases where someone
is tryi
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 07:46:36AM -0500, Robert Giles via mailop wrote:
> So dropping Google Groups entirely: since Google's infrastructure is
> "unblockable", I'd suspect keying on a Google Groups-specific header, but
> how are you (and other folks) accomplishing this?
As somebody else mention
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 10:35 PM Viktor Dukhovni via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 06:18:01AM +0200, Bryan Holloway via mailop wrote:
>
> > The password is correct, but it insists on verification from this user's
> no
> > longer existing cellphone. Yet the back-up ac
On 8/28/2024 at 13:48, Mark E. Mallett via mailop wrote:
I'm on (I think) 7 such lists. At least one of them (beancount) is quite
active. Only one (redo, a build system) is getting flooded with spam,
and that just recently.
FWIW, these are *new* Google Groups lists, expressly created for SPAM:
I presume some wires are getting crossed.
It is true that you can have an Android phone without a Google Login.
You can use any phone as 2FA via SMS, including a logged out Android phone.
Or any device that supports a VOIP number.
Or any device that can run a TOTP authenticator app.
None of these
Am 27.08.2024 um 12:42:38 Uhr schrieb Michael Peddemors via mailop:
> Uptick no.. It's been crazy levels for over a year now...
>
> The team has a whole slew of custom filters for this type of spam, it
> would be easier of course if Google took care of them but..
Be strong enough and block it b
In some countries, the phone seller creates a gmail account and logs into
the phone, and the customer
never knows the account or password, and yeah, such accounts are definitely
disposable.
As pointed out, such an account is not actually required to use Android
devices, and there are about
a billi
Am 27.08.2024 um 12:56:18 Uhr schrieb Eduardo Diaz Comellas via mailop:
> I think that sending the vacation messages with null sender is an
> standard practise and the best way to avoid loops. I've found no
> problems with any other email providers: only gmail is blocking this
> messages.
SPF
This is why you use IP's and not DN;s in your spf record :-)
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:42 AM Marco Moock via mailop
wrote:
> Am 27.08.2024 um 12:56:18 Uhr schrieb Eduardo Diaz Comellas via mailop:
>
> > I think that sending the vacation messages with null sender is an
> > standard practise and
more fool them
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 1:33 AM ml+mailop--- via mailop
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024, Robert Giles via mailop wrote:
> > On 8/28/2024 at 08:08, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
>
> > > You can use the header X-Google-Group-Id.
>
> > Thanks! That looks like an excellent header t
nobody is unblockable - we have blocked gmail before, and will do it again
if need arise, we are only small in hosting side of business, and our cable
and dsl base is also small with customer numbers in 7 figures range, maybe
our rejecting google had tiniest blip on them radar, maybe none at all, b
On 2024-08-28 13:45, Edwardo Garcia via mailop wrote:
nobody is unblockable - we have blocked gmail before, and will do it again
if need arise, we are only small in hosting side of business, and our cable
and dsl base is also small with customer numbers in 7 figures range, maybe
our rejecting goo
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 11:51:24 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop
wrote:
>Typically, the phone number use in cases like this is part of trying to
>prevent bulk operations.
All I can personally say is that, when I recently tried to log in to Google to
retrieve some articles I had saved in Google News,
31 matches
Mail list logo
