Contact off-list welcomed - thanks.
David
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
On 2016-05-12 8:33 AM, Luke Martinez via mailop wrote:
About two hours ago, we started seeing a significant uptick in "554
Transaction failed" responses from Microsoft domains. Across all senders.
Anyone else seeing this? If I remember correctly, this came up back in Feb.
as well.
Yes, we are
On 2016-05-20 2:05 PM, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
They seem to be of the opinion that a given sender will have exclusive use of a
given IP?
How do they deal with ISPs and such like?
Or are they just ignored?
Since they want $ to delist I would imagine most people are simply
ignoring the
On 2016-06-30 9:36 AM, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
Investigating, but seeing this traffic.
Is there any clustering by datacenter?
That would be the first 3 characters of the hostname
207.46.163/24 seems to be the worst destinations from our perspective so
far.
__
On 2016-07-15 9:50 PM, Shaun wrote:
Disclosure, I steered bashis here from the Full Disclosure list.
This reminds me of when 5.0.0.0/8 was, erm, similarly unallocated.
Hamachi decided to co-opt 5/8 for their VPN service, because no one was
announcing it. It worked for some years, then that space
On 2017-01-23 8:29 AM, Derek Diget wrote:
Anyone else seeing connection issues to AOL? Saturday morning (EST) we
started getting
421 mtaig-maa03.mx.aol.com Service unavailable - try again later
on the initial connection where the responding AOL hostname varies.
We're seeing pretty mixed
request but have not had any response. Searching
the mailing list archives, I see a few others who had similar issues but
there does not appear to have been any follow-up beyond the initial inquiry.
Does anyone have any insight or suggestions?
Thanks!
--
David Landers | LivingSocial | Mail
://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/tzink/
Have fun reading.
David
On 20 June 2017 at 15:47, Daniel Hadfield wrote:
> We're seeing issues with a clients mail being rejected as "spam"
>
> But they don't seem to be on a blacklist, was wondering if someone can
The people that do have that information, keep it to themselves for obvious
reasons. Having information on abuse is not compatible with sharing that
information unless there is trust.
Yours,
David
On 27 June 2017 at 02:20, Eric Tykwinski wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 2017, at 7:51 PM, Michael
nwanted email (which is translated into the word spam).
One might question where that threshold should be, but it is not upto the
sender to have specific expectations on that. One might say your customer
is an outlyer compared to regular marketing email.
Yours,
David
P.S. I have not whitnessed lo
aw 3 different outputs in different MTA's (1,4 and
5). Not sure if I have to file a bugreport to my favorite MTA supplier.
Can anyone say something smart about how the reply should be seen?
Yours,
David
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop
is over quota. Please
direct\r\n452-4.2.2 the recipient to\r\n452 4.2.2
https://support.google.com/mail/?p=OverQuotaTemp abc.def - gsmtp"
I hate this inconsistency before the weekend ;-).
Yours,
David
On 7 July 2017 at 12:00, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> David Hofstee wrote:
>
>&
Yes, I know. The subsequent RFCs 2821 and 5321 are equally unclear on this,
I think.
But it is a bit weird to say the human-readable text is for humans only.
Since it is transferred via SMTP, the RFC should define how to handle it.
And it is ambiguous. I would like option 1 best.
David
On 7
on checking if it is a
bug or not.
Yours,
David
On 7 July 2017 at 12:28, David Hofstee wrote:
> Yes, I know. The subsequent RFCs 2821 and 5321 are equally unclear on
> this, I think.
>
> But it is a bit weird to say the human-readable text is for humans only.
> Since it is trans
handler
is a third example.
I would actually say that, since the reply text can be included in a DSN,
it should be clearer. It is not just humans that this is intended for.
Yours,
David
On 7 July 2017 at 18:44, Bill Cole
wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2017, at 6:28, David Hofstee wrote:
>
> But it
something like this?
Thanks,
David Harris
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
our customer would request that the
target company whitelist the sending IP addresses in their spam filter, if
possible. This is in everyone’s best interest so that the employees see the
message and have the opportunity to be tested.
Thank you,
David Harris
___
rn X is
replied. I'm sure it won't be the last domain where this is seen.
Yours,
David
On 11 August 2017 at 11:53, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I tried to send E-Mail to the Domain ispa.at which is part of the
> office365
> cloud, which obviously ha
Hi Carl,
Interesting setup. What do you mean by 'clever'? Because I am not sure
what this setup will gain them.
Yours,
David
On 30 August 2017 at 18:55, Carl Byington wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> If you do much work in email / sp
situations that demand that we revert
yesterday’s change and still allow Hotmail.co.uk on the old infra for few more
days. Right now the error code for Hotmail.co.uk is the same as for other
domains that legacy did not support, e.g. someb...@passport.com”
-David
-Original Message-
From
There seem to be MS issues in receiving email. See
https://portal.office.com/servicestatus . Is this from today only?
Yours,
David
On 18 September 2017 at 15:18, Benjamin BILLON via mailop wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm hearing about replies like "450 4.7.3 Organization queue qu
ms filled, generally within one business
day. So I guess they have a reason not to respond.
Yours,
David
On 18 September 2017 at 17:38, Romain Cambien via mailop
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Friday, Cloudmark blocked multiple IPs on our main IP bloc.
> I tried the reset form and multiple
stuff for your other services. Be happy you are not on
Spamhaus. Change business model while you can.
David
On 19 September 2017 at 15:32, James Hoddinott wrote:
> You appear to do epending. This pretty much ends any discussion.
>
> On 18 September 2017 at 16:38, Romain Cambien
... sorry ... not James... I meant Romain of course.
David
On 20 September 2017 at 10:30, David Hofstee
wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Your website indicates you provide services that "just do not work" for
> email. It may be legally allowed but that does not mean your recipi
.
I am not sure where your sentence "never contact me again" is about. Please
clarify.
Yours,
David
On 20 September 2017 at 14:16, Vick Khera wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:30 AM, David Hofstee <
> opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> E.g. co-registrat
not support it (? did not seem to work with mail that had
header)
Fastmail
GMX
AOL
Proton
Zoho
Yandex
ICloud
*OSS/Free web interfaces *
Dovecot
...
*Mail clients*
Outlook
Thunderbird -- requires plugin to support it
Apple iOS -- supports it
...
Any remarks on this are appreciated. Thanks,
D
ls
without the List-Unsubscribe header. Not sure what will happen then.
Thanks,
David
On 3 October 2017 at 14:21, David Hofstee
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have a list of the web/mail client support of the
> List-Unsubscribe header? The list-unsubscribe.com site does not seem t
t one customer
that wanted to refresh its 1024 bit keys.
Yours,
David
On 10 October 2017 at 05:15, Benjamin BILLON via mailop
wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> > Do you?
> In the way I tried to express it, yes.
> Gmail recently said that the selector, or the change of the selector, can
>
forgot to share...
On 20 October 2017 at 10:13, David Hofstee
wrote:
> Yeah. There is a whole slew of mail servers that will not relay to actual
> recipients that want your email. These are basically domains for rent and
> you don't know who is renting them ( e.g. https://www.mca
mean. Given this information that is. Should we multiply our
FBL rates with a number (6?) to get that 0.3%?
Yours,
David
On 30 October 2017 at 01:26, Benjamin BILLON via mailop
wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> Although we try to rationalize as much as possible, I believe most ESPs
> are aware
+1 ... definitely
David
On 30 October 2017 at 18:56, Anne P. Mitchell Esq.
wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > I'm asking a few people to confirm my understanding and will get back to
> y'all.
> >
> > Aloha,
> > Michael.
> > --
> > Mic
ember what they do with that membership. Personally the
only value I see is an open communication channel for senders/receivers if
something goes wrong. At least that is what I would expect.
Yours,
David
On 1 November 2017 at 16:26, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 2017, at
you agree? Do you think the CSA should lead in setting
requirements on these topics? Is the CSA able to change such requirements?
Or is the CSA afraid of the current customer base (who might protest to
adding authentication)? I would like to hear CSA's opinion on that.
Yours,
David
Example
r and their customers may not be able to follow the advise to
implement DMARC (as given in the guidelines, paragraph 3.10).
Yours,
David
On 2 November 2017 at 13:00, Tobias Herkula
wrote:
> I'm working for an ESP who is member of the CSA and ECO and I'm one of the
> bi
> And where the heck does mail.ru publish it's DMARC policy via DNS?
dig txt _dmarc.mail.ru
David
On 2 November 2017 at 13:28, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
> Dear List
>
> I have come across a strange problem.
>
> One of our customers is forwarding his emails to his go
Just some compromise by committee. And in
practice, some say your header is already a small spam indicator. The CSA
seems to lag and not lead. I would really like it to be the opposite
(otherwise I would not take time to respond).
Yours,
David
On 2 November 2017 at 13:59, Alexander Zeh wrote:
. One thing is that
these throttling parameters must be adjustable in the same connection (so
they can react to emails you send).
Yours,
David
On 13 November 2017 at 20:41, Ken O'Driscoll wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-11-13 at 09:58 -0800, Steve Atkins wrote:
> > (If this proposal were
Small shops don't
do that because they lack expertise, data and time. If we want email to
remain accessible, we should remove this obstacle.
Yours,
David
On 14 November 2017 at 16:24, Ken O'Driscoll wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 10:05 +0100, David Hofstee wrote:
> > I agre
Have seen this too. Our CEO triggered an FBL from Microsoft. The email was
sent from our corporate mail server... He kept wondering why he would no
longer be able to forward anything to his hotmail account. That was fun.
David
On 15 November 2017 at 19:45, Nick Schafer wrote:
> Thanks
.
Yours,
David
On 21 November 2017 at 14:07, Mathieu Marnat wrote:
> This is indeed the issue : everything is set up correctly.
>
> SNDS has a "View IP Status" page that is supposed to tell you when there
> is a block, there are also SMTP replies for that. Instead,
Hi Klaus,
No, actually it was perfectly repeatable. We couldn't believe it either.
Since this was a notification email of the ESP application we really wanted
to know why it was dropped by Microsoft so we rinsed and repeated...
David
On 22 November 2017 at 10:42, Klaus Ethgen
Hi Andrew,
But in your case you may have some differing "ip reputation" to account
for. For me the only difference was the html layout. Nothing else was
changed.
I have to say this was years ago. I generally do not spend so much time on
a single message.
Yours,
David
On 22 Novemb
of that sender
domain). .
I also think that anonymous feedback is still a good idea. Maybe only for
authenticated emails (with aligned SPF/DKIM)? Gives ESPs a reason to (force
customers to) authenticate in line with DMARC.
Yours,
David
On 21 November 2017 at 09:25, Benjamin BILLON via mai
Maybe this... https://twitter.com/certbund/status/933674851092566017
David
On 24 November 2017 at 04:31, Shane Clay via mailop
wrote:
> Hi All
>
>
>
> I can’t figure this one out so looking for some help from people in the
> know. One of our clients has a postfix mail rel
appreciated. Obviously, my customer is
owner of the two domains. His customer care is done by a holding company.
One can say there is a legitimate reason. I'm just looking if this is a
possible cause of problems, or not.
Yours,
David
___
mailop ma
from the
list unless the first 5xx in the 5xx-series is 2 to 4 weeks old. This
overcomes the "inbox full" during holidays and gives time to solve blocking
problems (for e.g. daily senders).
Yours,
David
On 11 December 2017 at 19:36, Al Iverson wrote:
> If you use a counter
he
number of emails sent. It is important that you take steps to investigate
the namespace mining behavior. The root causes must be addressed as soon as
possible.
Obviously my logs showed that only '4xx' deferrals accounted for the
difference. The 5xx bounce rate was well under 1%.
D
e can do, or who to talk to, to get better inbox placement
at Microsoft?
Small Business Growth Expert
DAVID CARRIGER
Linux Systems Administrator
--
david.carri...@infusionsoft.com<mailto:david.carri...@infusionsoft.com>
___
mailop mailing list
mail
you have to click the button to tell Microsoft it's not spam."
From: Benjamin BILLON
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 11:28 PM
To: David Carriger; mailop@mailop.org
Subject: RE: Microsoft inbox placement issues
Hi David,
Can you share the headers su
ble enough (coming from
emails without DKIM signatures of that domain). It also seems this graph is
getting more dynamic in nature.
Yours,
David
On 29 December 2017 at 17:20, Julie Ralston via mailop
wrote:
> Back to normal for me as well.
>
>
>
> -Julie
>
>
>
>
>
on the sending rate when you see this too
often. Not sure what the exact specs for "ease off" and "too often" are
(and where the "ease on" part starts).
Yours,
David
On 5 January 2018 at 04:28, wrote:
> Starting just after 9 pm (U.S. Central) we started seeing
Hi Philip,
Did you try it with a non-"trouble.is" domain? E.g. an @gmail.com account?
Yours,
David
On 6 January 2018 at 15:32, Philip Paeps wrote:
> I'm getting repeated spamtrap hits from customers of combell.com.
> Forwarding messages (even just headers) to abuse@
ly use the web interface
> provided by hotmail.
If you have open tracking with https, you can see in what folder the email
was opened (if you log the referer).
Yours,
David
On 10 January 2018 at 08:54, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> On 10 January 2018 at 08:16, Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote:
> > [...
Hi,
I hadn't seen this,
https://blog.knowbe4.com/heads-up-new-ransomware-strain-encrypts-cloud-email-real-time-video,
before. Another interesting threat vector (this example specifically aimed
at email).
Yours,
David
___
mailop mailing list
m
functional requirement (once per tenant) or for their anti-spam system
(which probably does not like multi-tenant systems since it would result in
inconsistent results).
Yours,
David
On 24 January 2018 at 05:29, Benjamin BILLON wrote:
> Some thingS are, but solely complaining here is not going
We're seeing a lot of "421 4.7.1 Resources restricted - try again later"
deferrals. Our operations team has opened a few tickets, but hasn't heard
anything. If someone at OptOnline could ping me off list, I'd appreciate it.
Small Business Growth Expert
DAV
arted to implement their own mta (Sendgrid, haven't kept
tabs on others). There is no open source mta that is fast enough. And all
ESPs don't seem to want to cooperate to create one (it doesn't hurt enough,
price wise). You don't want to create a spamming tool either.
Yours,
Business Growth Expert
DAVID CARRIGER
Linux Systems Administrator
--
david.carri...@infusionsoft.com<mailto:david.carri...@infusionsoft.com>
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
data off of it.
From: Benjamin BILLON
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:43:16 PM
To: Ryan Harris; mailop@mailop.org
Cc: David Carriger
Subject: RE: [mailop] Best practices for Google Postmaster Tools?
Hey Ryan,
I recall that when the errors happened at the end of last year
(h
issues we uncover if we suddenly give Google the ability
to track every customer's mailing behavior individually with perfect accuracy.
From: Paul Kincaid-Smith
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:55:28 PM
To: David Carriger
Cc: mailop@mailop.org
Subject
This is still the case... Yahoo cannot be reached for deliverability
issues.
David
On 19 September 2017 at 04:40, Benjamin BILLON via mailop wrote:
> What's the URL?
> Is it to reach the page, or after you submit the form?
>
>
> --
> <https://www.splio.com>
>
I created the login a long time ago. That part was done. I guess the form
is a hit and miss.
I'll just waste more of my time.
Yours,
David
On 13 February 2018 at 14:06, Udeme Ukutt wrote:
> I’ve not had issues submitting stuff through the Yahoo Postmaster forms in
> the las
7;t do that*. Just paste the headers and maybe the text version. Because
the form is not POST-ed but GET-ed. This means that if you message is too
long for a URL (most cases in email marketing) then stuff gets cut off at
the end (and the processing fails).
Yours,
David
On 13 February 2018 at 1
As much as I like to complain, I am not sure I would come to the same
conclusion. It seems like a simple bug.
Yours,
David
On 13 February 2018 at 19:49, Philip Paeps wrote:
> On 2018-02-13 15:07:33 (+0100), David Hofstee wrote:
>
>> Ok... So this is the clue with the Yahoo form..
tup SPF/DKIM automatically if they are. Signing
is done in Java (and not on the mta). No hands needed anymore.
Yours,
David
On 18 February 2018 at 00:53, Dave Warren wrote:
> On 2018-02-17 03:48, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately there are still some server accepting everythi
I've seen many asynchronous bounces where the local part is cut-off after
64 characters... It seems some mta's are pedantic in this regard.
Yours,
David
On 17 February 2018 at 18:46, John Levine wrote:
> In article mail.gmail.com> you write:
> >The use of IDs instea
e would also let you send without the modifications. But we pushed for
strong authentication. This made the push easier and faster.
Yours,
David
On 19 February 2018 at 13:08, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> On 19 February 2018 at 12:24, David Hofstee
> wrote:
> >>Using a return-path
required DNS modifications. Maybe there is room for an RFC
that describes the required DNS modifications. It would allow for more
tooling to be written that can verify such settings.
Yours,
David
On 19 February 2018 at 13:08, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> On 19 February 2018 at 12:24, David Hofstee
&g
uses a valid certificate and supports DANE
Any answer is appreciated. Yours,
David
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
r are others seeing this as well?
Small Business Growth Expert
DAVID CARRIGER
Linux Systems Administrator
--
david.carri...@infusionsoft.com<mailto:david.carri...@infusionsoft.com>
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Good catch, Grant. They are GET requests. Our developers implemented the
List-Unsubscribe HTTP method a long time ago and it appears that it was never
updated to comply with RFC 8058. I'm still curious as to why I'm only seeing
this with .edu domains hosted on Office365 and not Office365 in gene
We see it too, down to 2011. This was Feb 7th where someone made note of
that. Of IPs that are not sending email anymore.
Yours,
David
On 26 February 2018 at 17:36, Eric Tykwinski wrote:
> Just last week I’ve noticed a sudden uptick on very old spam
> notifications. (Some dated b
7;ll tread down that
path with our developers. Still, I find it frustrating, and wonder how other
people are dealing with this issue.
From: Michael Wise
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 6:34:45 PM
To: David Carriger; mailop@mailop.org
Subject: RE: Microsoft IP
he filter will actually unsubscribe too.
Maybe it is a shifting definition of spamtrap (a content verifying
trap/spamtrap).
Yours,
David
* not trying to badmouth others here ;-)
On 3 March 2018 at 00:53, Dave Warren wrote:
> On 2018-03-01 16:26, David Carriger wrote:
>
>> Y
all have "important" customers. That doesn't make it magically work.
They too should send out emails that people want to read. I think your 12%
openrate is pretty low (on the low end of what to accept). Good luck trying
to explain this to your customer.
Yours,
David
P.S. Some
principles
I am not sure how much tin-foil I can advise you to use. Tracking is
everywhere, in many forms. Not just in email newsletters. So I think this
discussion belongs somewhere else.
Yours,
David
On 6 March 2018 at 18:02, Bill Cole
wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2018, at 9:09, David Hofstee wr
't think
it is the appropriate response to my email.
Yours,
David
On 6 March 2018 at 17:55, John Levine wrote:
> In article j...@mail.gmail.com> you write:
> >I am against scanning everything in order to protect. Because every method
> >an ESP needs to do to "fix
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I've seen cases where a legitimate domain
name will expire and be converted to a spam trap within a week. Then the
original domain owner will renew it before it goes back to the registry, and it
will point back to its pre-expiry MX records.
In the worst ex
ect and recipients should not be removed.
I was wondering when the event started. I have also seen a dip at bounces
on the 17th and 18th but my stats for today do not have enough volume for
me to conclude it is over yet. If anyone can comment?
Yours,
David
__
No, but I am interested too. I couldn't get a hold of them.
Yours,
David
On 19 March 2018 at 21:38, wrote:
> If anyone has postmaster info for xtra.co.nz (owned by Spark.co.nz),
> could you contact me off-list? Trying to look into a soft bounce issue.
Hi,
Thanks for reaching out. I've sent it through the normal channel.
Yours,
David
On 21 March 2018 at 07:25, Simon Lyall wrote:
>
> Spark outsources email to smxemail.com. You could try going via
> emailsupp...@smxemail.com (See https://smxemail.com/support )
>
> If
Test you DNS-foo by reading
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/182855/is-it-okay-to-publish-a-tlsa-records-for-non-dnssec-cnameed-services
Yours,
David
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman
e the result of self tuning internal parameters). It decides
itself what is bad and not bad. Not even the people managing the filter may
be able to tell exactly unless they have an example. Or tune it, for that
matter.
So watch those... I would not worry about the rest.
Yours,
David
On 6 Apri
Hi Anthony,
I'm not sure what the consensus is on job adverts. I have an opening too.
But I would prefer it if you keep it away from this mailing list.
Email deliverability is a small world. Maybe you can use twitter for job
openings... #email #deliverability #job ...
Yours,
David
Please note there is a difference in Yahoo European and other operations...
It can be seen in the MX records. Probably GDPR related. That may explain
it.
Yours,
David
On 23 April 2018 at 16:59, Benjamin BILLON wrote:
> Hi Lindani,
>
>
>
> You're not alone on this, a
PowerMTA).
Yours,
David
On 18 May 2018 at 11:15, Andy Onofrei via mailop wrote:
> HI,
>
>
>
> I wanted for a long to hear some opinions about the impact which “mailbox
> full” soft bounces are having on the reputation.
>
> If that should be treated as a hard bounce ( e
Hi,
There is a difference between being a "processor" and "telecommunications".
The telecommunications laws are different, more strict sometimes. I know
what the difference was in Dutch law, not sure in the EU area.
Yours,
David
On 25 May 2018 at 15:51, Renaud Alla
It does...
Yours,
David
On 31 May 2018 at 21:30, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
>
>
> Please … try this, replacing [MyKey] with … your key:
>
>
>
> https://sendersupport.olc.protection.outlook.com/SNDS/
> data.aspx?key=[MyKey]&date=052818
> <https://apac0
nd how people react to it). That is not easy to obtain for
smaller domains. I guess there is a technical challenge in that...
Yours,
David
On 7 June 2018 at 04:10, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 6/6/2018 8:11 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
>> Isn't the simplest way to handle this is to treat
sses and domains from an email.
- Is able to process feedback from domain owners and recipients in an
automated, quick, effective and anonymous enough way (with the GDPR et al).
Feedback is key.
Yours,
David
On 7 June 2018 at 17:29, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 6/7/2018 9:45 AM, David Hofstee wrote:
&g
n may comment on that).
Yours,
David
On 8 June 2018 at 12:35, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 11:53, David Hofstee
> wrote:
> > [...]
> > I also think that there is space for a reputation provider which can:
> > - Identify more than just IP addresses and do
tuck with the idea that we should
stick to what we have (because we have it).
Anyway, take it as it is. I hope you have a great weekend.
Yours,
David
On 8 June 2018 at 16:27, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 6/8/2018 5:49 AM, David Hofstee wrote:
>
>> > ... score of the sending-IP, whi
x27;ve thought about filtering out such opens/clicks but I never
saw the business case for it (since it is not very common).
Yours,
David
On 12 June 2018 at 10:21, Andy Onofrei via mailop wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
>
>
> I wanted your input .. some while ago I have seen some issues wit
Yes, we see it too. I only see 2/3 or 1/2 of volume reported. Since the
6th. It seems to be restored today. I don't see higher complaint rates (yay)
Yours,
David
On 14 June 2018 at 03:17, Benjamin BILLON wrote:
> Yes.
>
> Similarly, some IPs sending more than 100 messa
An interesting read:
https://twitter.com/VDukhovni/status/1008951903147917313
I can't validate, but I would be interested to hear if/how this impacted
delivery of emails.
Yours,
David
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
ic in the Australia area. I have not been able to see the
same on other IPs. My shared pool (which sends mostly to Europe/USA) is not
affected. I checked a few IPs from competitors and they were not affected
either.
I wonder what other see (on their own IPs) and conclude.
Yours,
David
P.S. Yes, I
Maybe Telstra is changing infrastructure and data streams were not
adjusted... https://senderscore.org/lookup.php?lookup=203.38.21.
21&validLookup=true
Yours,
David
On 29 June 2018 at 12:20, Nick Stallman wrote:
> Hi
>
> Actually yeah I can confirm that, also Australian focusse
himself if the domain has gone out of
business (which is not the case).
Yours,
David
On 5 July 2018 at 13:51, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> For a 1990s throwback, here is the website for xmailserver
>
> http://www.xmailserver.org/
>
> On 05/07/18, 4:56 PM, "mailop on be
Hi José,
More do it, but not that many. Some will just clip the local part.
David
On 10 July 2018 at 14:16, Jose Borges Ferreira wrote:
> I'm getting some notifications from @docos.bounces.google.com that have a
> local-part with the following pattern 12
Changing the sending domain and the IP addresses won't help at all if you
haven't solved the underlying issue, you're just kicking the deliverability can
down the road. Is the domain using DMARC to prevent spoofing, and what's the
policy? Are all emails signed with DKIM? What does Google Postmas
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
