What exactly is missing for broad acceptance ?
https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html defines
some pretty clear ways to autodiscover the endpoints.
MS & Google and Keycloak both offer this URL:
https://login.microsoftonline.com/domain.com/.well-known/openid-configuration
Wednesday, 10/07/2024 at 02:36 Brandon Long wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 7:20 PM Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
What exactly is missing for broad acceptance ?
https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html defines
some pretty clear ways to autodiscover the end
Surprisingly, most of the Spam that makes it through these days is
from Gmail. I'm not sure if they gave up completely on fighting the
spammers that sign-up but I'm always increasing the score assigned to
Gmail originating e-mails because of this.
99% of them are SEO offers and whatnot, surely it
https://sendersupport.olc.protection.outlook.com/snds/
On Thursday, 11/07/2024 at 15:52 Michael W. Lucas via mailop wrote:
Just started getting these today. Looks like one of my colo neighbors
behaved badly. No useful info at the suggested link, no contact
given. Any suggestions on how to ge
ers in check.
Just my 2 cents.
On Thursday, 11/07/2024 at 16:54 John Levine via mailop wrote:
It appears that Scott Q. via mailop said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Surprisingly, most of the Spam that makes it through these days is
>from Gmail. I'm not sure if they gave up c
e, the RBL operators have
been
fighting the good fight for a long time, but we can't expect that to
be
the solution.
End of the week for me.. was planning on a "State of Union" email this
week, but since the large amount of Gmail spam was part of that
report,
opted to respond to
rtant part is client support for oauth. If the client doesn't
detect the proper oauth endpoints it can simply abort with an error.
Cheers,
Scott
On Sunday, 14/07/2024 at 11:21 A. Schulze via mailop wrote:
Am 10.07.24 um 04:07 schrieb Scott Q. via mailop:
> What exactly is missing for b
If you do not control the IP space or the MTA, pass the feedback
to the
postmaster of the MTA - it is unlikely you will be able to do much as
an
end user.
On Sunday, 14/07/2024 at 19:17 Jeff Pang via mailop wrote:
I'm aware that gmx.net primarily serves Germany, Austria, and
Switzerland, while
I don't understand, what are your issues ? You appear to be a user
that opens up 10 threads per day about random topics.
If you manage an e-mail service that has issues with GMX then say so
and state the service-level issue you have.
If you are a user of GMX then you can contact their support.
S
p wrote:
>
>
> Am 10.07.24 um 04:07 schrieb Scott Q. via mailop:
> > What exactly is missing for broad acceptance ?
> >
> > https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html
defines some pretty clear ways to autodiscover the endpoints.
> >
> &g
You are a few years too late. China already completely hacked MS
and had access to ALL accounts for up to 2 years.
Letting them or any other provider store your credentials on their
cloud is a silly decision at this point. I mean, it depends on how
much you value your data.
The EU has already ba
No it's not, not that it matters much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyMail
On Tuesday, 16/07/2024 at 14:54 Jeff Pang via mailop wrote:
On 2024-07-16 23:21, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
> You are a few years too late. China already completely hacked MS
> and had access to ALL account
ss part of
the basic plan.
https://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/blog/microsoft-to-broaden-access-to-cloud-security-logs-following-china-e-mail-hack/
Should I go on ?
Scott
On Tuesday, 16/07/2024 at 16:31 Graeme Fowler via mailop wrote:
On 16 July 2024 16:29:39 "Scott Q. via mailop&qu
e's referencing.
- Mark Alley
On 7/16/2024 3:31 PM, Graeme Fowler via mailop wrote:
On 16 July 2024 16:29:39 "Scott Q. via mailop" [2] wrote:
You are a few years too late. China already completely hacked MS and
had access to ALL accounts for up to 2 years.
This user doesn't really want to do anything I suspect. Instead
of high quality technical/policy posts, this list is consumed with
personal questions that provide little general value, by this one
individual.
Scott
On Thursday, 18/07/2024 at 09:08 Paul Smith* via mailop wrote:
On 18/07/2024 13
x27;s just someone treating this list as his personal tech
support instead of googling.
Scott
On Thursday, 18/07/2024 at 10:17 Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
Am 18.07.2024 um 09:47:03 Uhr schrieb Scott Q. via mailop:
> This user doesn't really want to do anything I suspect. Instead
>
Anyone else dealing with Outlook not rewriting the header From
upon forwarding a meeting invite ?
This is obviously wrong and breaks on domains with strict DMARC
policy.
I only found this thread that's 3 years old talking about
it:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/335985/issue
th
the "Forward as iCalendar" option on Desktop outlook in their
calendar, which avoids the problem.
- Mark Alley
On 7/29/2024 9:55 AM, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
Anyone else dealing with Outlook not rewriting the header From upon
forwarding a meeting invite ?
This is obvi
it's a virtual meeting
(zoom, teams, etc...), a lot of times our users don't even bother
forwarding it, they just internally share the URL for the meeting
room.
-Jason
-
From: mailop on behalf of Scott Q. via mailop
Sent: Monday, July 29, 202
via mailop wrote:
It appears that Gellner, Oliver via mailop
said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On 29.07.2024 at 17:08 Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
>
> Anyone else dealing with Outlook not rewriting the header From
upon forwarding a meeting invite ?
>
>This is obviousl
ers,
Scott
On Wednesday, 31/07/2024 at 10:49 Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
> My question wasn't geared in that direction. It's up to each
> provider to create their own custom interfaces for integrating all
> that. It&#x
Well, there are several reasons why providers have not drank the oAuth
koolaid, for better or for worse. Might be a good excuse for a
M3AAWG
survey, on why they don't.. but if you trust our impresssions, from
all
the conversations we have with email providers..
* Don't want the extra work to impl
CloudFilter is Proofpoint, right ?
We still gets tons of Spam from them. Not sure if this is related to
this echospoofing but we just got a pretty big wave
Received: from omta040.useast.a.cloudfilter.net
(omta040.useast.a.cloudfilter.net [44.202.169.39]) by
mx.emailarray.com (Haraka/2.8.21) wit
Ah ok, this was also phishing with subject: Required Action:
Your password will expire today!!
Scott
On Thursday, 01/08/2024 at 17:36 Mark Alley via mailop wrote:
On 8/1/2024 4:18 PM, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
CloudFilter is Proofpoint, right ?
We still gets tons of Spam from them
If anyone from CloudMark, or if not, ProofPoint is on the list.
Your client webhostbox.net is Spamming like crazy and getting through
your outbound filters. Literally every day thousands and thousands of
phishing messages.
Here's another sample
Received: from omta38.uswest2.a.cloudfilter.net
(om
ils (phone and email) Without
these we will be unable to identify the correct owner of the IP
address at that point in time.
Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/AT-88-Z
Regards,
Ken
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 6:47 AM Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
If anyone from CloudMark, or if n
)
Comment: * Your contact details (phone and email) Without
these we will be unable to identify the correct owner of the IP
address at that point in time.
Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/AT-88-Z
Regards,
Ken
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 6:47 AM Scott Q. via mailop wrot
I've noticed this maybe 3-4 years ago. Could not tie it to any
legitimate customer or application.
We created rules in our IDS to drop these connections after 5 seconds
of inactivity and ban the IP for a week.
Didn't hurt any legitimate users.
Didn't spend much time analyzing it, but I think it
ailop wrote:
> Dňa 11. augusta 2024 15:20:50 UTC používateľ "Scott Q. via
mailop" napísal:
> >I've noticed this maybe 3-4 years ago. Could not tie it to any
> >legitimate customer or application.
>
> Yes, not real users, IPs are mostly from US (hi COMCAST), but
Obligatory: https://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles
Scott
On Wednesday, 14/08/2024 at 19:30 Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
On 8/14/2024 3:17 PM, Slavko via mailop wrote:
Dňa 14. augusta 2024 13:48:38 UTC používateľ Dave Crocker via
mailop [1] napísal:
Making a distance-sen
Not even, that's a waste of time and money.
Don't respond or respond and tell them to follow the official
channels.
Once YOUR local agency contacts you then you can decide what to do.
But some random organization ? There's no legal framework.
I assisted in two such cases and in both cases the re
Hello,
is there anyone that works for Sophos that can contact me off-list ?
We are getting a weird bounce message for one of our customers even
though the recipient can be e-mailed just fine from other e-mail
addresses, so this leads me to believe there is some sort of block in
place.
44.232.189.
esday, 11/09/2024 at 17:32 Mark Alley wrote:
On 9/11/2024 3:41 PM, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
Hello,
is there anyone that works for Sophos that can contact me off-list ?
We are getting a weird bounce message for one of our customers even
though the recipient can be e-mailed just fine from
10
mx-01-us-west-2.prod.hydra.sophos.com.
Also this being a GOV entity, it's almost impossible to get a hold of
them...
Scott
On Wednesday, 11/09/2024 at 17:32 Mark Alley wrote:
On 9/11/2024 3:41 PM, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
Hello,
is there anyone that works for Sophos that
Hi John,
if you don't mind me asking, when you say:
> which makes it easy for any of their customers to SPF spoof any
other customer.
you mean the header or the envelope from ? Afaik, the envelope from is
(should be!) tied to the authenticated user
Scott
On Friday, 11/10/2024 at 00:21 John Lev
Didn't SendGrid get compromised severely quit a few times ?
Hackers using legitimate customer accounts to send out their Spam.
Probably customers don't know enough about this or they would switch
services...
Scott
On Monday, 14/10/2024 at 10:05 Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
On 2024-10-1
Has anyone else noticed that Outlook doesn't seem to make use of
(UID) COPY commands in IMAP ? When you copy/move messages it downloads
them and appends them instead which makes the entire process quite
slow. Usually when it does that it also seems to re-arrange the
headers.
Are there any reasons
nally sabotage the IMAP experience, because it's a really
bad experience with this behavior.
Scott
On Sunday, 27/10/2024 at 10:43 Paul Smith* via mailop wrote:
On 27/10/2024 09:40, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that Outlook doesn't seem to make use of
(UID) COPY c
Not really. Smaller providers manage their reputation a lot more
carefully.
Scott
On Monday, 11/11/2024 at 03:24 Suresh Ramasubramanian via mailop
wrote:
Not an unusual state of affairs with a spam trap fed blocklist and
overall high levels of outbound spam from any given platform.
-
But it's not really the same. Not all providers offer free
accounts which clearly attracts abusers a lot more than paid accounts.
Furthermore, not all providers do this:
"Segregation of outbound email traffic: Every outbound message that's
sent through the service is scanned for spam. If the messa
behalf of Scott Q. via mailop
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 5:45:50 PM
To: Graeme Fowler ; Mailop
Subject: Re: [mailop] Blacklisting of Microsoft Exchange Online Nov.
2024
But it's not really the same. Not all providers offer free accounts
which clearly attracts abusers a lot mor
I think it's pretty extreme to block based on a BL these days.
You can also simply assign it a score that may or may not tip the
scale towards spaminess.
Scott
On Tuesday, 12/11/2024 at 10:09 Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 4:53 PM Matt Corallo via mailop
wrote:
>
> Has S
ldn't have this issue, unless it is not properly
authenticated?
~ Matt
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 2:05 PM Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
Hello list,
this customer just created his domain, literally yesterday, they are
legitimate and are trying to e-mail some recipient that uses Cisco
T
Anyone else getting spammed to bits by usepersistiq.com ? They
are sending obvious Spam like: Subject: see why 200+ businesses gave
PersistIQ 5-star reviews
I wonder what it takes for Google to drop them as a paying customer ?
Scott
___
mailop mailing l
Hello list,
this customer just created his domain, literally yesterday, they are
legitimate and are trying to e-mail some recipient that uses Cisco
Talos protection.
The message is bounced with an error saying it's due to the poor
reputation of a domain used in the transfer but the Cisco Talos
web
At least 55% of communication is non-verbal, with vocal (but not
verbal) occupying a large percentage as well. Spoken language is a
very small part of communication.
If an emoji can convey a facial expression/emotion then that would be
a very valid form of communication.
Scott
On Monday, 09/12
I may just point out that Google/MS365 have to store encrypted
versions ( not hashed! ) of a user's password. Nobody sane does that
in 2025. We don't do it. They don't do it for their own users. Why
would you be ok with them, or anyone for that matter, except the
client, knowing that info ?
Have y
x27;re stuck with it for better or
worse.
Have you (re) read this document recently
Nope. I did just now, and it's an interesting read! Really shows the
importance of key rotation, even if you're confident a secret key
can't be leaked.
Groetjes,
Louis
Op dinsdag
27;ll find this thread from a year ago interesting, I gave my
insights there:
https://list.mailop.org/private/mailop/2023-November/thread.html#26357
Groetjes,
Louis
On Wednesday, December 11, 2024 5:19 PM, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
It seems MS is pushing really hard for the &#x
It seems MS is pushing really hard for the 'NEW' Outlook
adoption. This software, along with Outlook Mobile and myMail
(mail.ru), etc, cache logon information on their own infrastructure
and then basically proxy the connection to the service provider. This
makes it impossible for service providers
g
behind the scenes...
Scott
On Wednesday, 11/12/2024 at 17:18 postfix--- via mailop wrote:
On 2024-12-11 15:11, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> On 2024-12-11 11:20, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
>> I find that beyond the :
>>
>> - security risks
>> - privacy c
So are you guys blocking the connections from the MS ASN ? Does
that result in 'New' Outlook not being able to login at all or not ?
Scott
On Thursday, 12/12/2024 at 05:37 Francois Petillon via mailop wrote:
On 12/11/24 17:19, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
> It seems MS is pushin
How can you tell if they are compromised if legitimate user A
connects from France via 'New' Outlook and hacker B connects from
Australia via 'New' Outlook ?
Scott
On Thursday, 12/12/2024 at 09:25 Francois Petillon via mailop wrote:
On 12/12/24 14:52, Scott Q. wrote:
> So are you guys blockin
I understood that. You temp block the MS IP that shows high
failure rate, which may or may not be warranted.
My question was more along the lines of: by allowing MS IPs to mask
the user's true identity, how can you identify when a mailbox has been
compromised ?
Thanks,
Scott
On Thursday, 12/1
And I'd be perfectly fine with that approach if it were applied
equally to everyone. But it's not, rather what ended up happening is
that most blocklists went into uselessness because they started
blocking Gmail/MS365 who _do_ send out large amounts of Spam. So they
could either block them and ever
But why is it bad if legitimate hosting providers know which of
their accounts is abused so they can take action and fix the problem ?
I understand you don't want spammers to know what spamtraps you use,
but surely it would be beneficial for everyone if there is a trust
circle that can easily solv
o help you meet your responsibility to
"find out who the abusers were."
Hope that helps,
Mark
--
_
L. Mark Stone, Founder
North America's Leading Zimbra VAR/BSP/Training Partner
For Companies With Mission-Critical Email Needs
- Original Message -
| From
rco via mailop wrote:
On 18.12.2024 05:35 Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
> Anyone that dealt with them before and who can offer some tips ?
You have to tell us on which of their lists you are.
They operate 4.
Use their form to identify on which one you are listed.
___
tips ?
Thanks,
Scott
On Wednesday, 18/12/2024 at 05:20 Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
On 12/18/24 10:58 AM, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
> I tried posting about the UCE list and it got returned as message
> filtered. Just checking in if that keyword really is banned here or
I
> mi
I tried posting about the UCE list and it got returned as message
filtered. Just checking in if that keyword really is banned here or I
might have typed something else wrong by mistake.
Scott
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop
ok, granted, but how else do you suppose would be a better method
? Can you imagine them asking Gmail to look at their logs at around
+/- 1 minute ? We're not Gmail level but we still have lots of data,
it's a silly way to convey information.
Scott
On Wednesday, 18/12/2024 at 07:10 Atro Tossava
etting spam out..
Grr.. back to work..
Thanks Atro and Anne for your comments, now can we put this to bed?
On 2024-12-18 13:26, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
> But why is it bad if legitimate hosting providers know which of
their
> accounts is abused so they can take action and fix the problem ?
&
Isn't this the company that once had a motto that inspired...
"Don't be evil"
On Friday, 13/12/2024 at 13:10 Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
For a while, the constant stream of spam sent from google servers
using sender addresses of the form [a-z]+-bnc[A-Z809]+@dom.ain was
restricted t
via mailop wrote:
On 12/18/24 18:21, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
> So basically instead of saying: here, look for e-mails sent to
> sdfdfgfgdg...@myrbl.com , they say:
> grep your logs and find a hard bounce around with a distinctive
> message - and therefore I also find t
Yep, you got it.
>> There are also spamtrap operators that accept mail on mistyped
domains (for example the shady no-name "mail.h-email.net" operators),
in which case it's basically unavoidable that there will be some hits
(due to the
sheer amount of domains that can be mistyped) that likely fee
Google uses a custom implicit flow. Their endpoints are hardcoded
in Outlook for example. Not exactly standard.
Scott
On Thursday, 09/01/2025 at 16:13 Louis via mailop wrote:
I had assumed that you didn't mean active server pages but now I am
not so sure.
Sorry, Application Specific
Guessing this ?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-administration-tests-power-email-every-federal-employee-rcna189126
On Wednesday, 22/01/2025 at 10:09 Michael via mailop wrote:
Not much notice.. that's today.. but if not sharing the sender
details,
was this simply for 'compl
of the messaging and King Trump didn’t like
that. So they brought in a server specifically to bypass the
supervisory oversight.
Stuff is about to go sideways in a fashion to make the last 10 days
seem calm.
> On Jan 29, 2025, at 2:53 PM, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
>
> On W
Found this:
https://github.com/fetzerch/kasserver
Anyone from All-Inkl.com [1] here ?
Thanks!
Scott
On Thursday, 16/01/2025 at 04:49 Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 04:32:27AM -0500, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
> Thanks, so despite the bounce saying it's a
A user is trying to e-mail someone at setunari.com but we get
this weird bounce:
85.13.157.168 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 : Recipient address rejected: temporarily
blocked because of previous errors - retrying too fast. penalty: 30
seconds x 0 retries.
Giving up on 85.13.
-0500, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
> A user is trying to e-mail someone at setunari.com but we get
> this weird bounce:
>
> 85.13.157.168 does not like recipient.
> Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 : Recipient address rejected:
temporarily
> blocked because of previous errors - retryin
Sir, this is a Wendy's :)
On Thursday, 27/03/2025 at 11:50 Dave Brockman via mailop wrote:
Hello MailOp,
I am hoping someone can provide some insight and possible
actionable
items/words I can use with the carrier(s) involved.
I ported a TF number from Unitel to FlowRoute. All appeared
f
So you are looking for infrastructure and the client brings his
own software ? Maybe something running OpenStack ?
https://cleura.com/
https://www.open-telekom-cloud.com/en/benefits/openstack
Scott
On Wednesday, 09/04/2025 at 13:41 L. Mark Stone via mailop wrote:
To provide hosting for a pro
I'm actually curious about this - what makes AWS so special in
terms of running VMs ? They provide something akin to VMWare's Fault
Tolerance on all instances ?
Otherwise, if the host goes down, so does your vm.
Scott
On Wednesday, 09/04/2025 at 16:54 L. Mark Stone via mailop wrote:
Sorry
is silly, because if they
were to really stick to that, not many providers would meet that
regulation. I don't understand that rule at all.
Scott
On Monday, 14/04/2025 at 11:15 Florian Effenberger via mailop wrote:
Hello,
Scott Q. via mailop wrote on 14.04.25 at 17:02:
> It seems the
They have this in their FAQ:
https://postmaster.t-online.de/index.en.html#t4.1
On Monday, 14/04/2025 at 14:36 Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
Am 14.04.2025 um 17:48:13 Uhr schrieb Frank via mailop:
> T-online refers to standards and legal regulations, enforcing their
> policy. In special "RF
Anyone dealt/dealing with them in getting IPs unblocked ?
It seems they have a new internal regulation where they want the
sending domain to be explicitly linked to the actual owner that sends
the e-mails. Which makes sense in theory but there's a lot of
providers out there, including us, GoDaddy
lf of Scott Q. via mailop
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 8:32:36 PM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom
Anyone dealt/dealing with them in getting IPs unblocked ?
It seems they have a new internal regulation where they want the
sending domain to be explicitly linked to the a
ake this info public.
Scott
On Monday, 14/04/2025 at 16:18 Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
On 2025-04-14 08:02, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
> Anyone dealt/dealing with them in getting IPs unblocked ?
>
> It seems they have a new internal regulation where they want the
sendin
I would be 'OK' with this rule of theirs if I'd be certain it
applied to everyone.
At this point I asked them 3 times what they do about GoDaddy that
operates secureserver.net . If you go on https://secureserver.net
there is no contact information whatsoever.
But yeah, they aren't answering _thi
Anyone else having issues delivering e-mails to GoDaddy ?
Connection just seems to drop - tried from multiple IPs
telnet smtp.secureserver.net 25
Trying 216.69.141.113...
Connected to smtp.secureserver.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
Connection closed by foreign host.
ecureserver.net CMGW FEwiuMkolg2W1
ESMTP server ready
On Wednesday, 14/05/2025 at 12:17 Dave Brockman via mailop wrote:
On 5/14/2025 12:01 PM, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On 2025-05-14 at 10:50:52 UTC-0400 (Wed, 14 May 2025 10:50:52 -0400)
> Scott Q. via mailop
> is rumored to have
supported
Compression: NONE
Expansion: NONE
No ALPN negotiated
Early data was not sent
Verify return code: 0 (ok)
On Wednesday, 14/05/2025 at 10:42 Viktor Dukhovni via mailop wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 10:15:02AM -0400, Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
> Can someone from GoDaddy reach out ? There appea
Can someone from Cisco IronPort contact me off-list ? We have a
foreign government customer that is trying to reach a customer of
yours but facing the following error:
Message delivery status: 194.165.192.109 failed on DATA command.
Remote host said: 550 #5.7.1 Your access to submit messages to t
Can someone from GoDaddy reach out ? There appears to be some
issues on your side. We get a 220 banner 1 out of 10 times when
connecting to smtp.secureserver.net
Thanks!
On Tuesday, 13/05/2025 at 13:38 Scott Q. via mailop wrote:
Anyone else having issues delivering e-mails to GoDaddy
Thanks, I'm aware, the domain is not listed anywhere there, it
has no reputation whatsoever, not even a category. It's an obscure
domain for a ministry in a foreign government. Their volume is so low
it doesn't register anywhere so it's probably some extreme
configuration Pfanner did to block unkno
It's definitely not. If we e-mail from another domain but same IP
it works just fine.
Thanks,
Scott
On Thursday, 15/05/2025 at 10:03 Robert Giles via mailop wrote:
It'd likely be the sending IP reputation, not the envelope-from or
header-from domain.
Robert
On 5/15/2025 at 08:55, Scott Q.
As others said, this looks like TLS handshake.
(À0À/À(À'À,À+À$À#ÀÀÀ
À0 is 0xC030 = TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
À/ is 0xC02F = TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
On Thursday, 22/05/2025 at 09:56 Nate Burke via mailop wrote:
Has anyone had success getting the "New" Outlook to tal
88 matches
Mail list logo
