On 17 May 2017, at 16:49, Michael Peddemors wrote:
It looks not bad, successive lookups to 3 parts.. and they all look
good. Don't like this part of course.. include:sharepointonline.com
ip4:52.104.0.0/14
Right there!
I've had thoughts about actually penalizing sites that list such vast
On 19 May 2017, at 8:52, John Levine wrote:
In article
you write:
It might be obvious in this particular case but it isn't in general
if
your users asked or agreed to reject SPF-Fails.
I would be pretty impressed to find a mail system where the users even
knew what SPF fails were, much le
I think the key part is not "expect", but actually don't require it.
-lem
On 26 Jul 2017, at 10:10, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> 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.
__
On 31 Jul 2017, at 13:21, Ryan Harris via mailop wrote:
Not that we're the best neighbors in this regard, but we don't reuse
connections for the vast majority of endpoints, just the highest by
volume,
and we only keep connections open for potential reuse for 30s.
Have you considered turning
On 31 Jul 2017, at 19:55, John Levine wrote:
Other than the usual horrible problems getting certs installed and
configured, it's a great way to do client authentication.
+1
Specially when you manage your own CA and can issue your own certs to
the clients at onboarding.
-lem
_
Hi there,
I hope someone from Google can give me a hand.
I've been trying to share a few domains in the Google Postmaster Tools
console. These are the issues I've experienced:
* Authenticated domains that I've shared with my personal Gmail account
don't show up in my own console after ~48 h
6506>
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Luis E. Muñoz
wrote:
Hi there,
I hope someone from Google can give me a hand.
I've been trying to share a few domains in the Google Postmaster
Tools
console. These are the issues I've experienced:
* Authenticated domains that I'v
On 14 Apr 2016, at 14:04, Franck Martin via mailop wrote:
I prefer
example.com TXT "v=spf1 ip:0.0.0.0/0 -all"
or more sneaky
example.com TXT "v=spf1 ip:0.0.0.0/1 ip:128.0.0.0/1 -all"
Which large mail provides either ignore or penalize. (Or will at some
point in the future).
-lem
_
On 18 Apr 2016, at 8:28, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Petar Bogdanovic wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 01:41:55PM +0300, Otto J. Makela wrote:
Would we actually miss any real emails if our mail server
started rejecting all emails from .top, .win and .xyz TLDs?
I don't think it's a good idea to re
On 19 Apr 2016, at 1:23, Paul Smith wrote:
On 19/04/2016 06:40, Dave Warren wrote:
On 2016-04-18 10:38, Michael Peddemors wrote:
Registrars paid a lot of money to be able to offer TLD's and they
shouldn't really be punished just because they are cheaper than
other domains.
Personally, I'm
On 25 Apr 2016, at 15:25, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
But again, it isn't the registrar that should be blamed, unless of
course the domains are being registered with stolen or forged
information and credit cards..
The thing is that in that ecosystem, the only one who has a hope of
knowing who
First of all, my kudos to Michael for discussing this so openly.
On 10 Jun 2016, at 12:05, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
I think everyone gets that the preferred behaviour is to reject at
SMTP time, that it gets difficult/impossible to do the more tests you
try and stuff into the filtering decision mak
And of course, there’s most(1) which is what currently replaces my
former use of less(1).
On 28 Jul 2016, at 8:16, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
On Thu 2016-Jul-28 09:05:22 -0600, Anne Mitchell
wrote:
… I just call `whois` from BASH and pipe the results into `less`.
I do this too, except I use '
On 28 Jul 2016, at 8:47, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
Sometimes, for the guys we hunt, the only evidence is metadata.
+1000
Also, for the record, domain Registries often are ignorant on who the
actual registrant is. This information can be more reliably extracted
from the Registrar, and
On 13 Dec 2016, at 4:26, Marco Franceschetti via mailop wrote:
Hi
I am writing from ContactLab's Deliverability Team. One of our client
has introduced multivariate testing on subject lines in the last 3
months.
Gmail's inbox is since then more and more difficult to reach.
Hi Marco,
Exce
Hi there,
I'm in need of assistance regarding IMAP access to your platform. I
would be most grateful if someone from Yahoo can contact me off-list.
Thanks!
-lem
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/l
This error seems similar to one we observed earlier in an unrelated
application.
Long story short, one of our customers' SSL library was rejecting our
certificates with vague certificate errors. The culprit was that the
client SSL library was configured to honor the historic export
restric
Hi there,
I'm working on a general estimation of various performance / sizing
parameters for contemporary mail systems. In particular I'm interested
in mail systems that:
* Are primarily accessed via standard protocols such as ESMTP and IMAP
* Provide service to more than a few thousand mail
(Resending -- apologies if seen twice)
Hi there,
I'm working on a general estimation of various performance / sizing
parameters for contemporary mail systems. In particular I'm interested
in mail systems that:
* Are primarily accessed via standard protocols such as ESMTP and IMAP
* Provide
Dear colleagues,
I was just told that while pursuing a delisting from 88.blocklist.zap,
an email comes back containing text to the effect of:
NOTE: Forefront product is end of life. You may still request delisting
at
https://sender.office.com/.
Are the contents of 88.blocklist.zap still r
Not sure if someone from QQ is here. If so, I would appreciate an
off-list ping.
Best regards
-lem
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
On 31 Aug 2017, at 8:15, Benoit Panizzon wrote:
> Hi Stefano
>
>> From my data I'd say that those MX are MX for PARKED domains at
>> namecheap (I logged more than 1000 domains using that MX and randomly
>> checking some of them, they are parked domains).
>>
>> I guess it can be safe to drop incomi
On 31 Aug 2017, at 9:36, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
On 08/31/2017 09:32 AM, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
I believe they misspelled "v=spf1 -all"
Why would a spammer purposely use a SPF record that states that no
email is sent?
That seems like it would be the exact oppos
On 1 Sep 2017, at 8:04, Angelina via mailop wrote:
We're seeing it on our end as well as another ESP off list.
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Alexander Burch
wrote:
Anyone else seeing issue with hotmail.co.uk bouncing messages with
this
code:
"550 Requested action not taken: mailbox una
On 11 Sep 2017, at 9:16, Matt Gilbert wrote:
This issue looks to be impacting 100% of our IPs as well. We’re
seeing 100% bad reputation since 9/9 on all of our DKIM domains. Any
updates about this will be appreciated.
+1
All IPs with traffic in the last 24 hours for us. IPs that were
quiesc
Over the years I've seen rate limiting responses as 421 and 451 (with
the first being the most frequent). Is there a consensus in what the
correct code should be?
I'm going through RFC-5821 and none of the codes mentioned there seem to
be a perfect match to "hitting a rate limit for an authent
On 11 Sep 2017, at 17:38, Michael Peddemors wrote:
Do you really want them to retry in this situation?
This is a very good question. I think the answer depends on who will I
be showing the error to. If I'm on my laptop happily sending emails out
it really doesn't matter much I think, as th
don't think any support a real ux for it, but maybe some will keep a
scoreboard of successful recipients and keep retrying the message with
the
other ones... But even that seems likely to be a bad user experience.
On 11 Sep 2017, at 18:45, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
On 09/11/2017 06:52 P
Hi,
I would like to talk to someone at Rackspace about their email
provisioning API. If you could contact me off-list, I would be grateful.
Best regards
-lem
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/list
On 27 Sep 2017, at 15:33, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
is there anyone working in a larger/'more demanding' environment,
using NFS for his/her message store, where there is a business
requirement of High Availability? If so, what commercial or open
source storage solution is used? I have a simila
I can confirm this for imp-5.mail.tiscali.it from IPv4s in US west,
center and east as well as Amsterdam. The rest of the MX servers work
although the wait seems unusually high.
Best regards
-lem
On 6 Oct 2017, at 8:13, Federico Santandrea wrote:
We are also experiencing delays to Tiscali
On 11 Oct 2017, at 6:31, John Stephenson wrote:
FWIW, maybe 5 years ago, we were required to send a legally mandated
bulk
email (deserving of delivery) and when reaching out to various inbox
providers, my contact at yahoo suggested that I send this effort
through an
existing domain, but a un
On 13 Oct 2017, at 11:02, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kostya Vasilyev said:
>> The app "remembers" the SSL certs it has seen for a particular server
>> / port, and if, when it connects, it finds that the cert has changed -
>>
>> - it flags this as an error and requires the user to de
On 2 Nov 2017, at 12:24, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
> Apologies for the delay.
No apologies required. Instead, thank you again for your assistance!
-lem
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
On 9 Nov 2017, at 13:33, Charles McKean wrote:
Legal? Was that a threat? Do you have prior experience attacking a
lunatic asylum with a banana? Best of luck.
I suspect^Whope this is a language thing.
Best regards
-lem
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Emre Üst |euro.message|
wrote:
Hell
On 13 Nov 2017, at 9:05, Federico Santandrea wrote:
Hello,
I am working on a rough draft for a protocol meant to facilitate
exchange of deliverability information among ESPs and mailbox
providers.
This arose from the observation that providers who choose to publish a
description of what
On 22 Nov 2017, at 10:02, Tim Starr wrote:
> My apologies if I've asked this before and forgotten the answer, but is
> there a good way to contact Libero.it about one of my ESP clients getting
> blocked?
A couple years ago I had luck with postmaster@
Best regards
-lem
Hi there,
I'm crossposting this message to mailing lists that I feel can provide
informed feedback. Please accept my apologies if you're seeing this
message more than once.
I wanted to compare experiences with others regarding contacting domain
owners via the registrant data in their whois r
Hi there,
Various organizations are reporting persistent issues delivering email
to various sites. Normal support channels aren't working. I would be
grateful if someone from Proofpoint could ping me off-list.
Best regards
-lem
___
mailop mailing l
PM, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop
wrote:
Hi there,
Various organizations are reporting persistent issues delivering
email to
various sites. Normal support channels aren't working. I would be
grateful
if someone from Proofpoint could ping me off-list.
Best regards
On 23 Jan 2018, at 17:02, King, Brad wrote:
Hi,
We are seeing temporary rejections from Hotmail with the following
error:
452 4.5.3 Recipients belong to multiple regions ATTR38
[CO1NAM03FT062.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com]
Does anyone know what this means? This particular sample
On 6 Mar 2018, at 3:48, Vaibhav wrote:
Hi,
Recently I started working with one of the top Bank where we have
setup
dedicated infrastructure to send out emails.
As per Gmail postmaster initially Delivery IP, sending domain used to
carries high reputation with avg. 12% OR with no bounces & le
On 6 Mar 2018, at 17:54, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
... which if the Subject line conveys all the info you need, is a GOOD
thing.
True. However, there's little signal there for the ISP to know that you
looked at the subject. The user won't even interact with the email and
likely, will
Hi there,
The text "otherwise it is itself a PEM-encoded private key or a
base64-encoded DER private key" in the documentation for opendkim.conf
(http://opendkim.org/opendkim.conf.5.html) lead me to believe that it's
possible to simply take the private key, concatenate the base64 lines
and p
Hi there,
I need to send 70+ Yahoo Complaint Feedback Loop Service requests. Is
there any way to submit them in bulk, rather than going through the
captcha-protected form one at a time?
Thanks in advance.
-lem
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailo
Thanks for the advice Al!
I'll give this a try. In my case, the verification codes are arriving
within seconds, so that should make it quicker.
Best regards
-lem
On 5 Jul 2018, at 19:36, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
Hey Lem, I've been down this road and they don't really have a way to
faci
On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:33, Warren Volz wrote:
On 07/11/2018 12:08 pm, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
As a small time / personal operator that uses Linode VPS, I'm
curious.
If I can ask, how would your group respond to someone like me who
tries to be very proactive and correct problems quic
I have a couple of questions about error messages presented to your end
users, most likely in German.
Thanks!
-lem
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Trying to include GMX in a test framework and would like to discuss some
details.
Thanks!
-lem
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
On 30 Aug 2018, at 20:43, Andrew Gosney wrote:
Hi all,
Any Yahoo contacts here? We are seeing a large number of deferrals
lately due to:
4.7.0 [TSS04] Messages from x.x.x.x temporarily deferred due to user
complaints - 4.16.55.1; see
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/postmaster/SLN3434.html
Seei
Dear colleagues,
Uniregistry will be piloting a new email platform for customers. The
following IP addresses will be sending email:
34.227.199.231
34.232.239.48
52.0.78.195
52.20.213.84
52.37.100.215
52.38.187.242
52.38.68.79
52.39.19.77
Service is offered for non-bulk, personal/one to one e
On 1 Oct 2018, at 10:16, Jonathan Leist wrote:
We recently removed the Sender header from outgoing emails in favour
of
x-dkim-options, as the latter offers the ability to more easily switch
between selectors. However, following the change, users began
reporting an
increase in out-of-office re
On 16 Oct 2018, at 11:45, Marc Goldman via mailop wrote:
Is it normal to see the YahooMailProxy;User Agent in open tracking?
| open | someem...@ymail.com | 209.73.183.19 | YahooMailProxy;
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/yahoo-mail-proxy-SLN28749.html
I assume that its Yahoo unfurling redi
On 16 Oct 2018, at 12:42, Brandon Long wrote:
It is pretty common these days for spam systems to sometimes visit
links in
the email message to help determine the spamminess or phishiness or
just
plain badness of messages.
I can see the value of the datapoint. That said, if the automated fi
On 16 Oct 2018, at 15:12, Brandon Long wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:06 PM Luis E. Muñoz
wrote:
I can see the value of the datapoint. That said, if the automated
filter
visits a confirmation link then it would be breaking COI. How are
ESPs
discerning between those visits and the ones
On 16 Oct 2018, at 16:12, Brandon Long wrote:
A phishing email with a bad link was partially responsible for the
outcome
of the 2016 US presidential election.
History should remember that one as "the Email presidential election".
Such messages are responsible for a large amount of damage
Please contact me offlist.
Thanks!
-lem
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
I have a question about transactional email being blocked. I would
appreciate an off-list contact.
Thanks.
-lem
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
On 7 Dec 2018, at 11:14, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote:
It would be super helpful if any mailbox provider here could tell me
what
they see with MailChimp regarding TLS.
I looked at a hundred random samples dating back to mid November. I saw
exactly zero that used TLS inbound. The sample
Assistance in reaching these parties would be appreciated. Already
contacted mailspamprotection.com — the issue seems related to one of
their users sending us a spam complaint, and then the auto-ack (or the
message where we mentioned that we nuked the abuse source) triggering
the listing.
F
On 10 Mar 2019, at 12:13, Michael Peddemors wrote:
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk;
s=s2048; t=1552218309;
bh=g57fG3sVY8VJp5C0XX298lF8prrXAX2lkZMD2FVQd8o=;
h=Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:References:From:Subject;
b=QZ3oPoH9n7DnHGUK7Ebo6Iw51a7MLIXBgK4MjXJH7R5
On 25 Mar 2019, at 11:34, Dickie LaFlamme wrote:
I'm really scratching my head on this one. I have a plethora of full
headers but did not want to inundate that with this original post, as
there's not just one sending domain / example. If anyone has
experienced this, I'd love to hear about it
On 2 Apr 2019, at 11:36, Al Iverson wrote:
I think I've just found my own example of mail to
Outlook.com/Hotmail.com being accepted, then discarded, with no
bounce. My own testing shows nothing in the inbox or junk folder. So,
you're not alone. This used to be something of a known thing in
Hot
On 19 Apr 2019, at 16:21, Jay Hennigan wrote:
This feedback is only really available for webmail, so you don't need
a separate spam folder.
There's also some signaling when using IMAP. Moving email to the spam
folder (or using the \Spam flag) can be considered equivalent to
pressing the TiS
On 26 Apr 2019, at 23:16, Bill Cole wrote:
Spam foldering and other flavors of mail limbo may well be the only
feasible choice at Google/MS scale but most mail operators are nowhere
near that scale and should not fall into the trap of mimicking service
patterns that are ultimately rooted in
On 7 May 2019, at 12:10, Eric Henson via mailop wrote:
Hi, one of my users has a personal account, and she can't access
imap.aol.com on port 993 today.
Our automated testing is not seeing any consistent issues logging in to
AOL's IMAP service, from a few network locations.
Best regards
-
On 10 May 2019, at 11:49, James Cloos via mailop wrote:
>> "CW" == Chris Woods via mailop writes:
>
> CW> Like others I've reached the end of my tether with DO. In my case, I've
> CW> seen increasing volumes of malicious / junk traffic via their IPv6
> CW> prefixes, with reports to abuse doin
And here, though the first connect took ~6 seconds or so.
```
swaks -6 -f 'none' -t testing@relay -s rrmx.imp.ch --quit-after helo
=== Trying rrmx.imp.ch:25...
=== Connected to rrmx.imp.ch.
<- 220 idefix.imp.ch ESMTP Postfix
-> EHLO s4.libertad.link
<- 250-idefix.imp.ch
<- 250-PIPELINING
<-
On 27 Aug 2019, at 16:23, Andy Smith via mailop wrote:
So, where else can one go to streamline the spam reporting process?
This page lists only SpamCop and Abusix:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_reporting
As far as I can see Abusix in this context is only an
IP-to-abuse-contact lookup t
On 25 Sep 2019, at 2:18, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
Just had a bunch of people at a domain get unsubscribed from this
list. Appears to be some weird Google rule (which probably made sense
with they were not the MX for 30% of all active domains)
I've seen similar behavior for large ISPs,
On 2 Oct 2019, at 9:14, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
Indeed, given the way cron works, it's difficult to run jobs at UTC,
specially
because of daylight saving changes.
Not really if you run your servers in UTC, which you really should be
doing if you have assets in more than one tim
On 7 Oct 2019, at 13:35, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
However, from my experience, it isn't the case. Users almost never
look into
their spam folder unless someone tells them to do so. They don't even
realize that there might be false positives - they simply think that
there
can't be anyt
On 8 Oct 2019, at 6:55, Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote:
3: Try to make it more obvious in the documentation of that junk
folder, that moving emails there will lead to a complaint to the
senders ISP.
I've always believed that "junk" is too subtle – although English is
not my first language
On 10 Oct 2019, at 5:43, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
So you should ensure that you *can* be contacted by pretty
much everyone. Of course, it's not an invitation to send you actual
spam;
but distrusting some senders just because they *can* *potentially* *in
your
opinion* be spammers, while
On 11 Oct 2019, at 9:06, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote:
It doesn't seem to be in a particularly bad neighborhood, either.
if i'm guessing your IP right, my local test sees 7 "bad actors" in
your /24 (2.73%) and 50 in your /16 (~0%)
whilst that's not nearly as bad as many sources, it's wor
On 14 Oct 2019, at 9:29, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote:
as things stand today, i think we do
technology has gotten very good but it's not perfect; sometimes spam
isn't detected, and sometimes real messages are detected as spam
I would rather have the email bounce during SMTP transaction.
On 14 Oct 2019, at 11:57, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
Having the mail bounce at the edge is a VERY useful signal for any
spammers trying to enhance their deliverability.
It's a great signal for anybody caring for the fate of a message. This
is why we cannot have nice things :-)
-lem
_
On 14 Oct 2019, at 13:43, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
Why not reject those instead and have the sender deal with it?
Because filter error rates and the need for the feedback signal from the
recipient.
-lem
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mai
On 14 Oct 2019, at 14:20, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
Of course I don't have the experience in the last category, but I'd
like
to learn. Why can't you reject emails post-DATA?
Is it a performance issue? Google or Bing find 935.000.000 search
results in 0,60 seconds for the word "spam", b
On 14 Oct 2019, at 15:18, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
On 14.10.19 23:59, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
This is not a pure performance issue. It's more a matter of not
having
the data at hand to decide whether the message is ham or spam. To do
so,
filters need user feedback.
Yo
On 14 Oct 2019, at 23:39, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
On 15.10.19 00:34, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote:
Doesn't "550 Requested action not taken: We don't like you." apply
after DATA?
it does
most severs honor this but not all
(i experience this sometimes, my domain somtimes gets a l
Looking forward to the n-gate.com summary :-)
And the comments on Brandon about him being helpful and respectful are
well deserved.
-lem
On 25 Oct 2019, at 12:40, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
Remember that "Gmail marking email from me as spam" thread a couple of
weeks ago? Somebody poste
On 23 Nov 2019, at 11:05, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via mailop wrote:
> Today, I suspect that most MTAs
> will refuse to service a VRFY request.
>
> Anyone know if that assumption is good?
I would be very surprised if you were wrong.
-lem
___
mailop mailin
On 2 Dec 2019, at 15:59, John Levine via mailop wrote:
I warned a guy away from Hetzner and OVH if he wants to send mail so
he
reasonably asked what VPS provider in Europe is better for sending
mail.
Any suggestions?
I'm AWS (IPv4 and IPv6) with good results. I would go with AWS for
Euro
On 6 Dec 2019, at 9:17, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> I'd be interested in why he's still using uucp.
+1
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
On 9 Dec 2019, at 6:23, Ned Freed via mailop wrote:
Generate the plain text alternative if you can.
Absolutely. But please, try hard.
But if you can't, or aren't
sure you can, just send the HTML and don't generate the
multipart/alternative
structure.
+1
Best regards
-lem
___
On 9 Dec 2019, at 7:58, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
Whenever these threads come up, a dozen or so people say "I still read
email on my stone tablet and so do all my friends." But count how many
friends do you have, and then divide that by the 1.5 billion active
Gmail
users (as of October 201
On 16 Dec 2019, at 11:20, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
Question for the group -- [⋯] Are there other folks out there that
will
have to make code changes to comply with these changes?
I will have to make code changes to more or less the same classes of
tools you mentioned.
Best regards
-
On 16 Dec 2019, at 13:30, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Do any Windows/Linux/MacOS email clients currently support OAuth "out
of the
box"?
I can report that MailMate on MacOS works perfectly with OAuth. And it's
also much better for email geeks. Not free, but well worth the license.
Be
On 3 Jan 2020, at 20:46, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote:
I've found BT's postmaster team to be very responsive in the past. I
invariably get replies from actual humans.
I suppose YMMV. I've interacted twice with them in the last 24 months on
behalf of clients. The interaction has been... la
On 24 Jan 2020, at 3:33, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
Using +all is actually a giant, negative reputation hit according to
various folks I’ve talked to about filters. Using +all says “every
IP is valid” and this was (dunno about still is but definitely was)
used by spammers so they could h
On 26 Jan 2020, at 16:23, Ángel via mailop wrote:
I like them as 2FA solution, too. Simple, standard, offline, vendor
neutral, not vulnerable to MITM...
Ahem. If the attacker manages to position themself in between your
session, they get a chance at your TOTP. Same attack scenario as with
On 3 Feb 2020, at 14:04, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
One of the main reasons I don't think we should use such long retries
is
that it violates user expectations. Users often treat email as nearly
instantaneous, because it normally is... so taking hours or days of
actually failing without
On 3 Feb 2020, at 14:20, Michael Orlitzky via mailop wrote:
You have problems with 100% of messages 0.0001% of the time -- it's
not
a steady 99. success rate, even though that's what the numbers
look
like if your window is five-years long.
Since recently – heh, let's call it 5-6 years
On 4 Feb 2020, at 11:43, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
The problem is, user's get used to the performance they get. It's not
a
question of user education
or worse users. If you typically deliver messages in seconds,
eventually
that's what they expect.
Great summary!
And, there are dif
On 10 Feb 2020, at 20:27, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
The data:
FWIW, I'm seeing these IPs among the 40th percentile in terms of global
SMTP activity / session attempts.
3.18.213.86
54.186.253.233
54.212.82.49
The rest is not registering.
Best regards
-lem
__
On 17 Feb 2020, at 11:20, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
My personal experience with SPF is that it is less helpful than
harmful, at least when mail server operators use it for
rejection instead of tagging. It can help reject some mails with fake
sender information, but at the same time
On 25 Feb 2020, at 3:12, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
Thank you for all the suggestions. I've put together a couple of
pages:
https://www.mailop.org/faq/
https://www.mailop.org/best-practices/
as a start. What do people think needs to be added or changed?
This is a TLS Checker that is PO
On 26 Feb 2020, at 13:53, Lyle Giese via mailop wrote:
Don't know if ATT looks at this but I know they used to. The TTL for
the A record for server.divebums.com is 900 seconds. If checking
this parameter, it was recommended that this be at least 12 hrs or
43,200 seconds. The theory was th
On 26 Feb 2020, at 14:18, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote:
[⋯] Do any DNS resolvers actually cache
data for the period stated in the TTL these days?
Many do. If you're operating a recursive for any sizable user
population, you want to minimize the response time. Having the response
in your l
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
