Is there anyone from Cloudmark on the list who can help getting 37.97.176.137
off the blocklist? This server does not send mass/unsollicited email, has
correct SPF/DKIM/DMARC, is not on any other blocklist (as far s I can see) and
there is no evidence of abuse in the logs. I have filled out the
> Your main issue is that Transip sure do like to let spammers make use of
> many IPs within the /24 that you're in, we'll just need to flag yours as
> separate to prevent this from reoccurring.
While I understand some of the logic behind blocking entire /24s, this kind of
block makes it very dif
Is there anyone on the list who can help me get our server off the 'temporarily
deferred' Yahoo list? The 'temporary' seems to be rather permanent, in the
sense that more than 24 hours have passed and there is still no sign of change.
We do not send any unsollicited email, no bulk mail, all SPF/
> > [TSS05] Messages from x.x.x.x temporarily deferred due to unexpected
> > volume or user complaints - 4.16.55.1; see
> > https://postmaster.yahooinc.com/error-codes
>
>
> Click that link. Read through it. Open a ticket with the support team.
I did that, but it doesn't seem to have had any
> > > [TSS05] Messages from x.x.x.x temporarily deferred due to unexpected
> > > volume or user complaints - 4.16.55.1; see
> > > https://postmaster.yahooinc.com/error-codes
> >
> >
> > Click that link. Read through it. Open a ticket with the support team.
>
> I did that, but it doesn't s
> I would suggest that you join the Yahoo complaint Feedback loop:
>
> https://senders.yahooinc.com/complaint-feedback-loop/
We did, for all domains served from that IP, but have so far not received a
single message through this loop. So either it is like Microsoft and Google and
doesn't do any
> Two comments:
>
> 1: "deferred" is not the same as "blocked"
Fair enough. An email that was stuck yesterday finally made it out after 6h in
the queue. Whether that's because I asked the Yahoo team again or because the
deferred time had expired is unclear. I have seen emails from us to yahoo g
> Yahoo's FBL works on DKIM signatures. Are you 100% sure that all the mail
> you're sending has
> signatures from domains you've signed up to get reports?
Yes, we serve 6 domains, all have correct DKIM signatures and all are enrolled
in Yahoo's FBL. Have never received a single report from the
> First, if you have never ever gotten a single FBL message from Yahoo, that
> probably means your
> FBL isn't set up correctly.
Or it means that the volume is sufficiently low, and the senders and recipients
are sufficiently familiar with each other, that no-one ever hits the spam
button. I un
> Have you set up a test account at Yahoo, sent yourself a message, clicked
> Junk, and seen that you got the
> report?
That test message eventually made its way out of the queue (the "temporary"
aspect of the 421 error I guess) and then went straight to spam in my Yahoo
account... So Yahoo d
> Note that this behaviour is also the correct way to handle actual spam
> from spammers ...
It may be the correct way to handle actual spam from spammers. It is arguably
not the correct way to handle non-spam email from non-spammers.
> Someone well respected round here advises "send email peopl
> Do you have Google Postmaster Tools configured for the domain as advised in
> the complete error message?
If your domain only sends occasional emails to gmail, postmaster tools are
completely useless, as they do not show any information if the volume is below
a certain threshold. This is true
> Interesting. One of our VPS clients had a spam issue and got blocked by
> Google and was able to use the postmaster tools to resolve it.
If they had a spam issue (e.g. a compromised account) then they probably had a
large enough volume caused by just this spam.
If you never send spam and ha
> Exactly. Another thing to consider is what you’re forwarding. If the mail
> you’re signing is spam (and reported a spam by the final recipient) that’s
> going to be a hit to your domain reputation and will affect deliverability
> for all your customers.
This has always struck me as a strange
> Any user on A can setup forwarding to any/many address/es of B and then send
> SPAMs to A, which have to be unconditonally accepted on B? How hard will be
> to run dedicated A without any SPAM filter for this purpose?
I am not saying that B should necessarily blindly trust A. But if a spammer
15 matches
Mail list logo
