On Mon, May 22, 2017, at 18:59, frnk...@iname.com wrote:
> Just starting last week we started seeing our outbound queues fill up
> with undeliverable client messages generated because of this one-click
> unsubscribe feature. Since this Apple feature has been in place for
> over six months, I’m sur
As far as #2, because users of said servers often want to send email.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017, at 12:05, Tim Starr wrote:
> An overall admirable response, keep up the good work. Just 2 questions:>
> 1) Why not put TLDR at top?
> 2) Why allow email to be sent at all from "unmanaged servers"?
>
> -T
Starr wrote:
> Then what does "unmanaged" mean in this context?
>
> -Tim
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Dave Warren wrote:>> __
>> As far as #2, because users of said servers often want to send email.>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017, at 12
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017, at 09:05, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
>> Il 26 luglio 2017 alle 19.10 Brandon Long ha scritto:>>
>> Why can't smtp software being expected to maintain a list of trusted CAs?
>> Or at least run on an OS that is expected to do so.> There is a standard
>> explanation (liter
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
On 2017-10-10 08:20, John R Levine wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, David Hofstee wrote:
Didn't Google mention they wanted the age of the keys to count in the
spam
score?
I'll check but I would be surprised if it made much difference.
I rotate my keys every month, which seems to be more often tha
On 2017-11-08 12:20, Warren Volz wrote:
All,
One of my users has their account setup to forward mail to Gmail.
Recently I've started to see lots of rejects that look like the following:
(expanded from ): host
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2607:f8b0:400e:c04::1a] said: 550-5.7.1
[ipv6 address 18
I'm not actually seeing how this is DHL's fault. DMARC requires either
DKIM *or* SPF to pass, if you're misconfigured such that you're breaking
SPF that would seem to be your issue more than DHL's.
In an ideal world, senders would aim to pass both DKIM and SPF, but if
you're intentionally breaking
On 2018-01-21 09:40, Charles McKean wrote:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop
wrote:
On Sat, 2018-01-20 at 11:14 +1100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
One can only conclude, they either have a leak in their API, or they
altered the permissions to give out emails when specific
On 2018-02-13 03:33, G. Miliotis wrote:
Hi,
For a moment there I thought that there was a banner ad in your
signature. May I suggest you make it animated, it'll be a lot more catchy.
That and I wonder what MimeCast pays for a sponsored email footer?
_
On 2018-02-17 03:48, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Unfortunately there are still some server accepting everything and
sending bounces without headers or malformed bounces.
This is not a small group. Every few months I get massive floods of
bounces from some spambot that decided forging my domain is a
On 2018-02-27 21:17, Philip Paeps wrote:
You're posting as an alias in a domain from a server that's not
authorized to send mail for that domain and isn't dkim signing for
that domain, and posting to a public group in that domain. It's kind
of a spammy set of circumstances, but really it's the
On 2018-03-01 16:26, David Carriger wrote:
Yes, I'm still seeing this. So, an open question:
As an ESP, how am I supposed to tell my users to practice good list
hygiene and remove unengaged recipients from their lists when my data is
being tainted by Google/Microsoft/etc triggering all of my e
On 2018-04-18 17:49, Al Iverson wrote:
In the past I've had to deal with DNSBL listings based on faked
received headers-- IMHO, it's not safe to parse IPs beyond connections
that you yourself have verified.
I've always considered this a feature, not a bug. Spammer forges their
way into getting
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, at 13:27, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> Been seeing an awful lot of these lately on one of my email servers
> (exim based):
>
>
> 2018-06-11 14:15:44 no host name found for IP address 157.25.104.90
> 2018-06-11 14:15:47 rejected HELO from [157.25.104.90]: syntactically
> invalid
Keep in mind that "no human will likely ever read..." does not mean that
the mailbox is ignored. At this scale abuse handling is automated in one
fashion or another.
I have no knowledge of what specifically Microsoft is doing.
On 2018-07-12 14:28, Eric Tykwinski wrote:
I really hope your wro
On 2018-07-13 08:53, Mihai Costea wrote:
At the other side of the spectrum there are one off mails that go ignored due
to the signal to noise ratio of the long tail. There’s tons of folks with
weird complains (from “I think Xbox live is too expensive” to suggestions on
what billGates should d
owed by contact from a mortgage broker
with documents attached for one of the properties.
In one case I called a doctor's office and asked them to remove my
address, they did and were very apologetic, then a couple weeks later
they re-added my address. Apparently that Dave Warren gave the
On 2018-09-07 15:09, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 9/7/18 12:32 PM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
* Do you enforce 'tough' passwords?
Most formula-based "tough" passwords are only "tough" for the legitimate
user, not an attacker.
Consider that with email protocols, this doesn't necessarily apply.
Whi
On 2018-09-11 11:00, Mike Hammett wrote:
Most platforms have a password per account. Not a password per
account-service combination.
Yes, and?
This isn't an overnight switch or even possible on all platforms, but it
is a viable way to move forward. Most of the major consumer platforms
(Googl
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018, at 19:29, Noel Butler wrote:
> Problem with letsencrypt is their preferred and insisted " certbot "
> - does not run (easily at least) on all flavours..> I gave up with it on
> slackware which is what my servers run, tried
> using Crypt::LE and voila instant success, it was p
On 2019-01-24 09:29, Paul Ebersman wrote:
And if the
server doesn't give the same complete answer every time (regardless of
order), it's technically violating the DNS RFCs.
I'm not sure that this is really true from a client's standpoint.
Just because you get a different answer from my authori
On 2019-01-26 16:24, Paul Ebersman wrote:
ebersman> And if the server doesn't give the same complete answer every
ebersman> time (regardless of order), it's technically violating the DNS
ebersman> RFCs.
dw> I'm not sure that this is really true from a client's standpoint.
dw> Just because you g
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019, at 19:40, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Oh, I love focused. It works exactly as intended. I'll dig around in the
> Office 365 I admin and then relay to the one with the problem where to look.
>
You might, but to less technical users it is just another spam folder that they
don't c
I've had a couple users complaining about receiving a bunch of unexpected
bounce messages recently, since we filter bounce messages pretty carefully I
dug into it and the messages are being pulled from Gmail accounts via our POP
retrieval system which bypasses bounce filtering. We don't get the
Thanks, sent off-list!
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, at 17:09, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> If you send me the header of a message we responded to, I can file a bug.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:53 PM Dave Warren wrote:
>> I've had a couple users complaining
On 2019-04-22 08:11, Michael Rathbun wrote:
Neither you nor your customer are customers of the freemail provider.
Agreed.
The provider has close to zero economic incentive to pay attention to your needs
and desires.
I strongly disagree here, the freemail providers have a product (your
e
lf is the customizable field! What is the advantage of
sending the invite or whatever yourself, rather than providing the user
with the ability to do it themselves?
iOS share panel, send to the default email client, etc. Don't distribute
the abuse yourself, make the abuser handle the distr
from users using a domain with a restrictive DMARC policy as
needed.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
auditing and forensics.
That will cause DMARC to throw an alignment failure, which won't
alleviate the problem. However, you could add a key, multiple DKIM keys
are permissible, and it would show that the message was signed by the
original sender, as well as signed by the list too.
--
Dave W
sent more messages in the verification/signup phase than have
sent actual ARF reports. Maybe I just don't send enough spam to get
value out of the other FBLs out there?
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
hing" backup, as a concept, needs
to go away.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
register.
While this is technically true, domains have a non-trivial cost. IPv6
space is large enough to simply never re-use an IP, ever. Spammers
simply can't do anything similar with sending domains.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejw
into a MTA port
instead of an MSA port? That would seem to totally defeat the purpose of
using a MSA port at all, no?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6409#section-4.3 seems to suggest that
authentication is required (although not necessarily SMTP AUTH, other
authentication methods are allowed)
--
D
ific known
providers and Exchange/ActiveSync accounts as autodiscovery tends to be
more common on these platforms)
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http://chilli.nosi
I thought Hotmail.com and Outlook.com are the same beast?
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
On 2015-09-08 12:42, Marc Perkel wrote:
So - that means the problems we are having will spread to hotmail?
On 09/08/15 10:03, Anne Mitchell wrote:
Straight
roblem is that our customers can set up
sieve rules to forward any mail at all, so we can't guarantee that SPF
will always pass.
Not to beat the drum too hard, but SRS? Or at least rewrite in some
fashion such that the mail you emit passes SPF.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hire
and not have to care about losing
legitimate mail, whereas it's not fair to block a sender because a
spammer is forging their domain.
SPF's neutral, none, softfail and fail responses are mostly just noise.
So is it useful? Yes. But does it stop spam? No.
--
Dave Warren
7;t actually use SRS, but rather, the BATV-like implementation
which rewrites the MAIL FROM field to something trackable.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing li
reliable, last I moved IPs.
This isn't just for Microsoft, but for all the big providers. Usually
after a month or so, the intermittent problems stop, but in the mean
time, flowing mail through the old IPs once the new ones get rejected
helps keep your customers from rebelling.
Your
Part of me really wants to respect the complainant's wishes and
blacklist all mail from that sender, but obviously this wasn't the
intent, and ultimately would only be satisfying on a short term basis.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
_
Is it my imagination or did the List-Id header change? Is this
intentional/permanent and/or should I update filtering rules?
Previously:
List-Id: For mail operators
Now:
List-Id: For mail operators
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
rver
that runs both domains and defaulted to the wrong domain/details, but I
didn't investigate far enough to see if there is any overlap between MX
records or anything else.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
__
wpoint.
I'm not a fan of the current trend of using permanent error codes in
SMTP for what might well be transient errors (DNS problems, for
example), but at the same time, as a sender, I don't see any value in
retrying more than 24 hours.
It's tough to balance u
DNSBL can't be bothered to follow simple standards
or doesn't have the technical competence to avoid listing 127.0.0.1, is
it worth caring about?
If a DNSBL lists an IP in a forest and nobody ever queries it, does
anyone but NANAE care?
--
Dave Warren
http://www.h
I've read about this new method seems to be a slightly
modified bayes approach (with the twist of taking word pairs or triplets
into account) and I doubt it will be a real game changer, although it
may result in some new ways to tune bayes to increase effectiveness.
--
Dave Warren
On 2016-02-21 01:40, Adrian Neale (iComms) wrote:
Hi there, just joined to try and get some knowledge/help on an issue
when getting emails delivered from (particularly) Hotmail/Outlook.com
but occasionally Gmail addresses. I consulted RFC5321 and it does say
the mail delivery will be tried in
gistry, this is the whole
point of HKEY_CURRENT_USER (and obviously if the user doesn't have
access to the right parts of the registry, neither will Outlook have the
ability to create or modify anything)
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.co
, etc) I trigger a greylisting, and I've had
good luck replacing the IP in a greylist entry with "SPF:PASS"
indicator, such that a retry from any other IP that passes SPF is
considered the same -- This works for any large sending farm that has
valid SPF records.
--
Dave Warren
ht
ocks3.google.com ~all"
It's a lot of ranges, and I'm not sure if Google uses them all for mail
today, but they well might tomorrow -- I don't see much point in
greylisting mail from Google, other than perhaps to allow for URIBLs to
learn of new hosts.
--
Dave Warren
http
using freemail domains, yet paying
for ESP services? For realsies? And if so, wouldn't this be an obvious
upsell opportunity or partnership to get these customers using their own
domain?
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejw
thank you for that!
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
I would, if I could pay for just the actual users. Sadly, I have too
many other things that need mailboxes and/or accounts for other purposes
and I just can't justify paying for each of them.
Instead, I just keep Gmail disabled and only use the features that
aren't hobbled.
On 2016-04-05 11:
I have the old one with 50 accounts. And "hobbled" might be a bit of an
exaggeration, but I do run my own servers and I am used to having all
sorts of flexibility :)
However, hobbled feels right since the features already exist, they're
just... well...
--
Dave Warren
http://w
quot;https://www.bankname-online.example"; type URL, it just
might hit a lot of otherwise smart issues.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/
ected business model is not my problem.
I'm not saying a TLD can't run promotions, but rather, that the upfront
cost shouldn't be it, I'd be fine with a TLD doing second-year-free or
similar.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.co
ars with solid anti-fraud / anti-abuse
processes tend to present few abuse incidents — at the same price point.
While true, how can I pragmatically determine the registrar during the
SMTP session in a way that scales?
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.li
ands.
Given that RFC 821 is from August of 1982, I would wholeheartedly
recommend unplugging them until they catch up to at least 1984, or if
that's not possible, at least disable the SMTP-breaking "feature". Even
Microsoft published a how-to article on the topic:
https://support
I might do so again after compromising the corporate bank account so
that wire transfer confirmations are not seen and acted upon in a timely
fashion.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mail
require subscription
requests to either have valid SPF, DKIM, or some matching of
MX/rDNS/something to indicate it might be legitimate.
But of course this would require users to actually want to join lists
enough to take action, and we can't have friction.
--
Dave Warren
alking about mailing list subscriptions here, not missile launch
codes; unless one's company depends on mailing lists, the overall
resources available to combat a generally-minor problem will be equally
minimal and a captcha will defeat the entirety of the types of
adversaries wh
to expose
that to the user and give them a chance to reconsider.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
the fault really is on their side of the
line.
Either way, yes, your candor is greatly appreciated!
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
s a sloppy mess of things that are valid but their UI won't permit.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
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
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
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016, at 02:16, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
> I used to discuss issues on their NNTP Server:
>
> news://news.spamcop.net/
>
> But it is down at the moment (or has it been put out of service? I
> haven't connected for a long time)
http://forum.spamcop.net/topic/14438-spamcop-groups-on-g
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 06:17, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
<...>
> Unfortunately that redirector service is run by cloudflare. So the
> complaints reach the cloudflare abuse desk. And their usual reply is:
>
> We accept the following kinds of reports:
>
> Copyright infringement & DMCA violations
>
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 21:44, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Dave Warren
> wrote:
>> They
>> can yell and scream all they want about not being a host, but
>> they also
>> advertise that "CloudFlare will serve your website's s
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 22:04, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> You're the one who said "CloudFlare will serve your website's static
> pages from our cache...that falls into my definition of being a host,
> even if it's only short term". So will your browser. /nitpick
There is a difference: CloudFlare
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 23:41, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
> At least they could forward all spam complaints they receive to the
> hoster of the origin on the content. But in my observation, they don't
> do that.
Truthfully, forwarding complaints is a bit of a messy business as this
could easily forwar
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 13:27, Vick Khera wrote:
> 1) Is the remote IP listed in CBL? Yes -> force CAPTCHA
> 2) Is the remote IP listed in CleanTalk.org/blacklists? Yes -> force
> CAPTCHA
> 3) Is the remote IP listed in minFraud open proxies? Yes -> force CAPTCHA
>
> Then proceed with the normal
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017, at 17:53, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> Having a bad credit score is 100% of your problem if you can't get a
> loan, and 99% of the time your bad credit score isn't the fault of the
> credit bureau. You earned that bad credit score (or RBL listing).
This is a good analogy though, as
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017, at 17:57, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2017 21:30:20 +, "John Levine" said:
>
> > That led to great merriment, since that's Blue State Digital and mail
> > from mainstream political groups went into spamtraps that tested the
> > URLs, some of which were "Cli
On 2017-02-09 12:25, John Levine wrote:
I never understand why users won't just collect mail from the 'proper'
mail server rather than having to forward it all to gmail/hotmail. A
large portion of our support issues are to do with this forwarding.
Bad reason: setting up POP collection takes two
On 2017-02-09 01:16, Paul Smith wrote:
I never understand why users won't just collect mail from the 'proper'
mail server rather than having to forward it all to gmail/hotmail. A
large portion of our support issues are to do with this forwarding.
In my experience, it's because Gmail/Hotmail/wha
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017, at 16:19, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:52:21AM +0800, ComKal Networks wrote:
> > I have noticed the scrapping of whois and dns records
> > appears to have increased dramatically over the past
> > 2 years.
>
> Both of those are poor sources of email addres
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, at 07:37, Paul Smith wrote:
> On 16/03/2017 14:18, Kevin Huxham wrote:
>> they probably sell fax machines.
>
> Their response is a bit like someone sending them credit card details
> on a postcard, and them tearing it up (because you shouldn't send
> confidential informa
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, at 17:38, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> <1489684655.3176120.913642288.0d732...@webmail.messagingengine.com> you
> write:
> >You can make a rule against sending credit cards by email, but if
> >customer service reps know it works they might still encourage a
> >customer to
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017, at 13:03, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2017 00:20:17 -
> "John Levine" wrote:
>
> > Of course. But the fraction of domains registered by natural people
> > is quite low. And, of course, the claim that you need your own second
> > level domain to communicate on the
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017, at 13:34, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
> *PLEASE JOIN THE ICANN GROUP* and help us fight back against people
> who are fighting *in favour* of crime.
Please also take the time to understand that your needs are not my
needs. I would be in favour of a WHOIS system that doesn't exp
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017, at 13:58, John Levine wrote:
> In article <20170326220333.3c517c48@quill> you write:
> >If I want to be able to give people information for being able to
> >contact me via the Internet, so that I can have a reasonable expectation
> >of being able to make sure that this will st
Howdy! We push a DMARC reject policy for our clients unless they have a
need to do otherwise, especially for new projects/domains, so that we
can proactively help clients move toward authenticating all mail as they
add external services rather than building an ongoing technical debt of
unknown send
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017, at 05:15, Vick Khera wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Dave Warren
> wrote:
>> I'm feeling like the rep has absolutely no idea what DKIM is
>> or how it
>> works. As I don't have access to an AWeber account, can anyone
>
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017, at 09:15, Laura Atkins wrote:
>
>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 9, 2017 13:07, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq."
>> wrote:
>>> This brings up a good point...back in 'the day' folks would report
>>> spam on NANAE; is there a managed, moderated m
On Mon, May 1, 2017, at 22:07, Carl Byington wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Sat, 2017-04-29 at 00:01 -0700, Mark Milhollan wrote:
> > But some have an X-Forefront-Antispam-Report header with SFV:SPM which
> > has been said is their indicator of a message they con
On 2018-02-06 10:12, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote:
Also URLs in mail headers, which is perhaps reasonable, except that
...many ESPs now put unsub URLs in the headers.
Are the results any more harmful than the same unsub URL in the foot (or
otherwise in the visible body of the message)?
On 2018-02-02 10:47, Chris wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:52:16 +
Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote:
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 17:26 +0100, Chris wrote:
I'm a bit surprised, that on a small mail server, 77 % of the
rejected mails are rejected because of invalid recipient adresses.
22 % because of
On 2018-02-02 15:18, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Charles McKean wrote:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop
wrote:
On Sat, 2018-01-20 at 11:14 +1100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
One can only conclude, they either have a leak in their API, or they
altered the permissions to giv
On 2018-02-05 10:27, Marc Goldman via mailop wrote:
I received an email telling me I would need to pay RETROACTIVELY for the
years I did NOT receive support in order to upgrade.
Has anyone ever heard of a policy like that?
What is cheaper, paying retroactively or buying a new license?
At $DA
On 2018-02-06 15:49, John Levine wrote:
In article <7e12d5ff-f770-b5db-f913-18dafcd03...@thedave.ca> you write:
Also URLs in mail headers, which is perhaps reasonable, except that
...many ESPs now put unsub URLs in the headers.
Are the results any more harmful than the same unsub URL in the
That seems excessive and gross. Any reason you wouldn't just buy a new
license and call it a day?
That actually sounds more like they accidentally hired a commissioned
sales rep from a competitor. But maybe that's just me.
On 2018-02-06 14:14, Marc Goldman via mailop wrote:
I appreciate that
On 2018-02-06 16:34, Laura Atkins wrote:
Putting a URL in a List-Unsubscribe header is an entirely reasonable
thing to do, and lots of ESPs do it.
Lots of non-ESPs do it, too.
Heck, I do it for virtually all automated messages, even on some
internal stuff, basically anything that is automat
On 2018-02-09 14:20, John Levine wrote:
In article
you write:
I'm confused, the first post said valid credentials, is that what everyone
else is seeing?
Nearly all valid creds seems weirder than mostly invalid... modulo whatever
amount of hijacked or reused creds there are.
Remember that Ou
Looks good from what I can see from here, thanks!
On 2019-05-07 12:31, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
This should be fixed now.
Brandon
*From: *Dave Warren mailto:d...@thedave.ca>>
*Date: *Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:40 PM
*To: * mailto:mailop@mailop.org>>
__
Thanks, s
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
>>
>> Exchange Online mailboxes that require modern authentication?
>
>
On 2020-08-03 17:39, Jerry Cloe via mailop wrote:
It could also be argued as case law against other blacklist providers.
As I understand US law, defaults do not provide any form of precedent or
other form of useful case law.
There might well be exceptions, of course.
___
On 2020-10-30 08:25, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 1:11 AM Atro Tossavainen via mailop
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:
Why does Google bounce after accepting a message? At Google's scale,
the potential to become the world's biggest spammer simply through
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, at 11:32, Mark E. Jeftovic via mailop wrote:
> Hey all, we're looking to deploy some user-configurable options in our mail
> filtering such as being able to select which RBLs and RHSBLs they want to
> apply to their inbound messages.
> We already subscribe to some on a syst
On 2021-02-08 15:03, Richard Bewley via mailop wrote:
Only this weekend I was trying to help an old colleague with a migration from
Gsuite to M365. The #1 complaint... was some of his minions were seemingly
crippled by the lack of this function.. and I was thinking err aliases?
Aliases?
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
