> On May 15, 2017, at 9:34 AM, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
>
> I tried sending this a few days ago but it doesn't appear to be arriving.
> Trying again. Apologies if you see this twice.
>
> I am finding that lately there are a lot of reports of failures sending to us
> due to SPF failures. Is anyon
> On May 19, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Bryan Blackwell wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Please pardon the noob question, just want to make sure this is what a proper
> SPF record should look like:
>
> example.org. IN TXT "v=spf1 mx ~all"
It's fine. I'd marginally prefer one that listed the source
> On May 20, 2017, at 2:13 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article <3a8a3db1-a628-4cf5-add5-d2db22b5c...@blighty.com> you write:
>> "~all" is the smart policy to use; ignore those who tell you to use "-all"
>> or "?all".
>
> Not disagreeing, but what practical difference do you see between ~all
> On May 22, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Michael Wise via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> Forwarding ... is GROSSLY insecure and causes far more problems than it
> solves.
> Just grabbing the traffic from the original INBOX with IMAP or POP3 is a much
> more secure solution.
/me gestures vaguely at this wondr
> On May 22, 2017, at 2:42 PM, W Kern wrote:
>
>
> We quarantine inbound SPF failures. Customers complain but we point that out.
> So those are not the issue.
>
> I am talking about the scenario where a third party sender WITH an -all SPF
> record sends to my customer and then MY customer f
> On May 22, 2017, at 10:01 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
>
>> ARC is the very-near-future solution to much of this. Get your vendors on it.
>> http://arc-spec.org
>
> I'm missing something. What keeps a bad guy from setting up shop and
> claiming to be forwarding mail and claiming that SPF was valid
> On May 26, 2017, at 8:00 AM, Carl Byington wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Using sendmail with opendkim for signing mostly works, but I have a few
> domains with dmarc p=reject, and looking at the aggregate reports, I am
> seeing some dkim=fail, spf=pass on a
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Autumn Tyr-Salvia wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Any idea what the impact of turning on the return-path for autoresponders
> would be? Colleagues tell me that the hosted mail service (Proofpoint) tells
> their clients not to use a return-path address for autoresponders be
> On Jun 14, 2017, at 12:17 PM, Dave Lugo wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote:
>> From https://postmaster.aol.com/error-codes:
>> AOL will not accept delivery of this message
>>
>> This is a permanent bounce due to:
>> * RFC2822 From domain does not match the rDNS of
> On Jun 18, 2017, at 3:23 PM, Ken Robinson wrote:
>
> I run a mailing list and AOL has been bouncing messages. Here are some of the
> bounce messages:
>
> xx...@aol.com
> host mailin-04.mx.aol.com [152.163.0.67]
> SMTP error from remote mail server after initial connection:
> 55
> On Jun 22, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
> On 6/22/17 3:32 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
>> Maybe I'm a victim of a very broad block targeted to my provider
>> (OVH),
> This. I see lots of spam from OVH and in my opinion they don't seem to care.
I see the same spam daily from the s
> On Jun 23, 2017, at 11:56 AM, Nick Schafer wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Anyone have any ideas what would cause the below error?
>
> Sender IP reverse lookup rejected
>
> rDNS is configured for the IP where we are seeing this so its not an issue
> with the record not resolving.
Without knowing t
> On Jun 27, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Al Iverson wrote:
>
> Yeah, if I had to do it, I'd set up a linux server running postfix and
> have the Exchange server smarthost out through that.
Another vote for this. Mostly because Exchange has[1] a bad habit
of occasionally modifying email as it's sent, depe
> On Jun 29, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Chris Truitt wrote:
>
> Hi Laura,
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> The email volume overall is not that high. There are many sends in the low
> thousands, some in the low hundreds. It's actually rare to see a single
> delivery to a group of contacts that exce
> On Jul 26, 2017, at 1:43 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:10:53 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop said:
>> 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.
>
> Quick: What two CAs did Goog
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Michael Wise via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> It's nice, from time to time, to be able to Telnet to port 25 and type in the
> commands manually for testing.
> I know, I should write some simple scripts. ☹
http://www.jetmore.org/john/code/swaks/ is what you want for t
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 2:37 PM, David Harris wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We have a potential customer in the business of doing penetration testing,
> and they want to send penetration testing phishing emails authorized by a
> target company to that company's own employees.
>
> If we allowed this in our
> On Aug 7, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> Trying to help someone on another team debug a problem with connection to
> Amazon. The sender domain has accurate SPF, and mail is being accepted at
> most sites (including notoriously picky ones like Google). However when they
> try to se
> On Aug 7, 2017, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> On 2017-08-07 13:41, Steve Atkins wrote:
>>> On Aug 7, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> Trying to help someone on another team debug a problem with connection to
>>> Amazon. The sender domain
> On Aug 7, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> On 2017-08-07 14:09, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>> Try connecting manually to the MX from a shell on the smarthost too.
>> If they can connect to port 25 and get a banner that's a very useful
>> data point.
&
ab...@constantcontact.com, with a complete copy of the message, would be the
right place to report this.
This mailing list isn't, really.
Cheers,
Steve
> On Aug 9, 2017, at 8:36 AM, Bryan Bradsby
> wrote:
>
> Constant Contact
>
> Why did you send spam to our DNS team attempting to sell yo
> On Sep 25, 2017, at 2:22 PM, MRob wrote:
>
> Some time in the recent week or two, it seems like many (most?) Microsoft
> mail can't be delivered here. I suspect fail2ban caught their server doing
> something bad, but I need help.
>
> The bounce senders are getting is not helpful, makes it l
s you can do to signal the virtue of your policies
and procedures, and buying your way into certification should be nearer the end
of that list than the beginning.
Cheers,
Steve
[1] You can get advice just as good, and sometimes better, from places that
aren't asking you to buy your w
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 10:15 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article
> you
> write:
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/mailop@mailop.org/
>>
>> All other members, you might want to check this out and make sure
>> you're comfortable with your messages being published on the web in
>> this manner.
>
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Thomas Greer wrote:
>
> So you’re suggesting the solution is nothing? We just let customer mail get
> bounced for no reason at all?
Honestly, I'd suggest you assign someone with a different set of skills to work
this issue, especially with colleagues at other or
> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:05 AM, 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
>
> On Nov 27, 2017, at 1:46 PM, Josiah Ritchie
> wrote:
>
> It appears that AOL is having some problems right now in other areas
> regarding mail, but I haven't seen any commentary from mail operators yet.
> Anyone else having intermittent ability to send mail to AOL mail servers?
>
> I'm se
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> On 15/12/2017 09:27, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
>
>> On 12/14/2017 03:28 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
>>> My point is that -all is policy, and most people ignore the policy portions
>>> of SPF because it completely fails a lot of
> On Dec 15, 2017, at 12:07 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> I have a client who's moving from one mail system to another, and has
> quite a lot of mail on the old system's IMAP server that they want to
> take with them.
>
> While I can certainly write a python script that enumerates the
> mailboxes
> On Dec 26, 2017, at 3:14 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> They have a bizarre policy that when you send a spam report in
> response to one of their survey invitations, they reply and say it's
> been suppressed *for that user only*. I've gone around with them on
> this, they insist they have no cont
> On Jan 24, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Michael Wise via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> Much internal discussion, but …
> Apparently …
>
> “ 452 is a special error code (per RFC) that instructs the sending MTA to
> retry the rejected recipients immediately.
> “ it is designed to split messages with a large
> On Feb 2, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Jaren Angerbauer
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Looking for a contact Zillow, or even possibly their ESP.
That'd be mailgun, for this domain anyway, for anyone following along at home.
> We are seeing one of their domains (email.zillow-mail.com) being abused by
> affil
> On Feb 2, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Aaron C. de Bruyn via mailop
> wrote:
>
> It's been about a month for me, but my GSuite account has been hammered from
> other GSuite or Gmail accounts and it's all a mix of SEO spam and "Hire us
> for your business website" junk. Most of it gets filtered, but a
;m
> responding offline to Jaren.
>
> Will
>
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Jaren Angerbauer
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Looking for a contact Zillow, or even possibly their E
> On Feb 5, 2018, at 9:27 AM, Marc Goldman via mailop wrote:
>
>
> I agree with sticking to facts so lets cover a few here:
>
> 1. PMTA (formerly Port25 now Message Systems) is the 800 lb gorilla in the
> MTA world.
>
> 2. I own 2 enterprise licenses for PMTA 4.0 and paid support for a numbe
eve
>
> Regards,
> Andris Reinman
> ZoneMTA
>
> 2018-02-05 20:03 GMT+02:00 Steve Atkins :
>
> > On Feb 5, 2018, at 9:27 AM, Marc Goldman via mailop
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > I agree with sticking to facts so lets cover a few here:
> >
&
> On Mar 1, 2018, at 3:26 PM, 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/e
> On Mar 2, 2018, at 12:45 PM, John Johnstone
> wrote:
>
> The list washers / validators must be doing a brisk business today. Many use
> Amazon hosting in what seems to be an attempt to evade blocking by IP. Aside
> from the simple attempts I see some that are trying things like:
>
> j...@
>
>> Also, if I'm not mistaking, list-validation services are mainly targeting
>> online businesses, so even if the there might be legit cases, I doubt the
>> biggest part of their revenues is.
>
> I'm not really familiar with their revenue model but I do know that for
> some of them, spammers an
gt; the unengaged portion of their list.
>
> The habit seems to be driven by consultants in the space but I also know
> there's a lot of these services that have approached me offering kickbacks, I
> mean affiliate status so that we can profit off of the use.
>
> It's a ha
of their list.
>
> The habit seems to be driven by consultants in the space but I also know
> there's a lot of these services that have approached me offering kickbacks, I
> mean affiliate status so that we can profit off of the use.
>
> It's a hard uphill battle a
> On Mar 7, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
>
>
>> Some of them do and clearly states how many months they keep a 5xx error
>> before turning the domain into a spamtrap.
>
> Is there a BCP or consensus on how long a list can sit inactive before it
> should be thrown away?
I don't think
> On Mar 7, 2018, at 4:38 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> Let's take into consideration that spamtrap network have to do their
> homework to avoid being identified easily, so if they never do
> opens/clicks they already put a big flash on them. So I think it is OK
> for a spamtrap to open/click o
> On Mar 10, 2018, at 2:23 AM, Vaibhav wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> We are triggering OTP based mailer where we would expect emails to get
> deliver within second from our delivery n/w to reception end. Currently we
> are facing latency in terms of delivering emails to Gmail & other public ISP
> On Mar 10, 2018, at 1:04 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article
> you
> write:
>> We are triggering OTP based mailer where we would expect emails to get
>> deliver within second from our delivery n/w to reception end. Currently we
>> are facing latency in terms of delivering emails to Gmail
> On Mar 17, 2018, at 5:38 AM, postmas...@akxnet.de wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> In my mail server logs, I notice for weeks attemps of 40.92.6x.xx IPs
> (outbound.protection.outlook.com) to deliver mails for the
> facebookmail.com domain despite that these Microsoft IPs are not listed
> in the SPF record
> On Mar 19, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Rob Nagler wrote:
>
> Our mail software drops messages that have missing Message-IDs. However, it
> seems that sites like etrade.com and authorize.net have started sending
> emails without Message-ID fields. We also have a legitimate bounce from
> mailer-dae...@
> On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 14:04 -0400, Al Iverson wrote:
> [...]
>> Maybe one will pop up and say they can do this, but it would be the
>> exception more than the rule. I've never heard of it being offered.
> [...]
>
> Neither
> On Apr 12, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> While the "v=DKIM1" is RECOMMENDED as opposed to REQUIRED I have always
> included it in the DNS record and this appears to be the norm.
>
> However, I have recently been dealing with a provider doesn't include
> On Apr 18, 2018, at 2:40 PM, Erwin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This may be old hat to some, but staring at the RFCs (specifically 2821) the
> only conclusion I see is that Microsoft is (or at least *.outlook.com servers
> are) violating the format of the Received headers here:
>
> Received: from mt
> On Apr 21, 2018, at 10:27, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> According to RFC 2822, text in () represents comment (see section 3.2.3) and
> is used in the place where RFC2821 allows CFWS. CWFS is allowed to contain a
> comment (it's what differs FWS from CFWS).
>
> So, while t
> On Apr 30, 2018, at 9:40 AM, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop
> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 09:35 -0600, Rob Nagler wrote:
>> Is there a way to "pre-register" IPs in preparation for a data center
>> move? There's been some discussion this list, but I didn't get a sense of
>> a defi
> On Apr 30, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Rob Heilman via mailop wrote:
>
> We appear to be having issues with the way Microsoft’s systems are parsing
> headers. In particular headers using display-name strings containing the @
> symbol. For example:
>
> From: sen...@domain.net
> To: recipie...@gmai
It is never spam discussion day on MailOp, unless it's operationally relevant
to email. If it's not, like this, maybe take it to the spam or messaging abuse
focused lists, some of which I'm sure you're on or reach out to the relevant
company directly?
Cheers,
Steve
> On May 9, 2018, at 11:09
> On May 9, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Marc Goldman via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> For those of us who came tardy to the party can you share the signup details
> for the spam and messaging abuse lists and any related others we may be able
> to get on?
Some public, open access ones that are moderately ne
> On May 22, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Al Iverson wrote:
>
> Are folks disabling TLS1.0 support in SMTP? Our security team has
> asked, but I'm a bit concerned about potential failure cases when
> trying to deliver mail to smaller corporate sites that might be doing
> stuff like requiring TLS but suppor
> On Jun 6, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
>
> On 06/06/2018 16:55, Steve Atkins wrote:
>>
>>
>> IPv4 blacklists will always list 127.0.0.2 and never 127.0.0.1.
>> IPv6 blacklists will always list :::7F00:2 and never :::7F00:1.
>> D
> On Jun 6, 2018, at 1:41 PM, SM wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
> At 01:08 PM 06-06-2018, Rob McEwen wrote:
>> Here is an article I posted on Linkedin about spam filtering IPv6-sent email.
>>
>> "Should mail servers publish IPv6 MX records? Could this harm your spam
>> filtering?"
>
> In other words, DNS
> On Jun 6, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
>
>
>
> Isn't the simplest way to handle this is to treat IPv6 at the /64 or smaller
> level? More likely, because most people use IPv4, the RBL's just don't have
> the data sources they need to populate the data, not because of s
> On Jun 10, 2018, at 10:18 AM, Grant Taylor via mailop
> wrote:
>
> On 06/09/2018 09:32 AM, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>> If a domain has no MX record, do all servers deliver to an record, as
>> required by (at least) RFC3974, or do some email systems ignore domains with
>> no MX and no
> On Jun 19, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Brandon Long via mailop
> wrote:
>
> They used to use qmail which uses - instead of the more common + for multiple
> addresses, wonder if this is a side effect of the forwarding for ymail.com
> using qmail
Likely. Though at one point it wasn't unusual to config
> On Jun 29, 2018, at 10:38 AM, Damon Sauer wrote:
>
> "Hello!" everyone (Al, Michael's, John's (R and not R), Bill, etc)
>
> Can someone verify for me that:
>
> "smtp;421 4.7.0 Too many protocol errors (6) on this connection closing
> transmission channel. [xxx.eop-EUR01.prod.protectio
> On Jul 20, 2018, at 9:52 AM, J Orlando Letra via mailop
> wrote:
>
> Hi Email Folks,
>
> recently enom.com stopped showing 'whois' info which used to allow us to
> verify, to some extent, the authenticity of senders.
Enom and everyone else, thanks to (a misunderstanding of?) GDPR.
> An
> On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 at 04:11, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> The concern for replay attack should be adequately mitigated by gluing
>> the d= identifier to the major substance of the message. The rest,
>> really, is handling-related, rather tha
> On Jul 24, 2018, at 12:19 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article
> you
> write:
>
>> "v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@mydomain!10m;
>> ruf=mailto:dmarc@mydomain!10m; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400;"
>
> Ah, there's the problem. "mydomain" is an invalid mail domain.
>
> Pro tip: i
> On Jul 28, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Carl Byington wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Mon, 2018-07-23 at 15:28 -0700, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Laura Atkins
>> wrote:
>
>>> Spammers poisoned that particular well a while ago. +al
> On Aug 14, 2018, at 3:29 PM, Steve Jones via mailop wrote:
>
> On 8/14/18, 10:17 AM, "mailop on behalf of Bill Cole" wrote:
>
>I'm doing a DMARC setup for a client and for the first time need to
>point the 'rua' value to an address in a domain other than the client
>domain. As I u
> On Aug 28, 2018, at 2:46 PM, Jonathan Leist wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We're currently exploring the possibility of migrating from signing as the
> individual hostnames of our sending IPs to signing as the org domain aligned
> with those hostnames (e.g. signing as example.com instead of
> mail1
> On Oct 25, 2018, at 4:47 AM, Carl Byington wrote:
>
> That does not seem to be wise.
>
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=default;
> d=icontactmail3.com; .
>
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:31:04 -0400
>
> X-DKIM-Key: -BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-
>MIICXAIBAAKB
> On Nov 6, 2018, at 2:42 PM, Renaud Allard via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/6/18 3:02 PM, Charles McKean wrote:
>> If you had any honest question here, you got it wrong by laying on the
>> insult and making leading statements. Since you are acting like a
>> troll, I think we should treat y
> On Nov 15, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Stefan Bauer wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> we just noticed that freenet.de is reject some of our mails with
>
> 451 Suspicious message, please come back later (in reply to end of DATA
> command)
>
> That makes no sense to us. If mail looks fishy to freenet, they should
> On Jan 8, 2019, at 11:53 AM, David Jones via mailop wrote:
>
> Anyone on this list know if this site is worth registration? One of our mail
> servers was listed on Barracuda BRBL which recommended to sign up with
> emailreg.org.
>
> http://www.emailreg.org/index.cgi?p=register
It's a sli
Rob, Jim ...
None of this is particularly related to mail ops.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 5:17 PM, Brandon Applegate wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I searched the archives and didn’t quite find the info I’m looking for. I’ll
> have to bore you with some details of some changes I recently made to get to
> my point…
>
> I had been using procmail $forever. I just
> On Mar 6, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Aaron C. de Bruyn via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019, 00:01 Philip Paeps wrote:
> I wonder if GitHub cares about their platform being used for harvesting.
>
> I wonder if the Yellow Pages cares about their phone book being used by prank
> callers.
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 10:56 AM, Jakub Olexa via mailop wrote:
>
> Luckily the volume was very low (25k msgs in total) and the scamers
> chose to send on behalf of a domain that has a SPF policy -all and over
> 50% of emails were rejected. What suprised me the most was the fact that
> the SPF was
> On Mar 28, 2019, at 9:15 PM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>
> About 6 months ago, we signed up for the Feedback loops for our own
> email platform, and in that time probably had one legitimate report, and
> several false positives, probably from user(s) clicking on the wrong
> button on an email
> On Apr 27, 2019, at 8:41 PM, Michael Wise via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> A very wise individual (not me) once pointed out something non-obvious... it
> takes longer to clear a good message than it typically does to find something
> evil with a bad message. Good messages are much more expensiv
On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
> Folks,
> I run a small listserv supporting the Presidential Innovation Fellows at
> the White House and a few alumni classes at the Air Force Academy, plus a
> couple of small other lists. These are not huge lists, perhaps 100 on one
> l
On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:31 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
> On 2015-02-12 16:35, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 02/12/2015 01:26 PM, Michael Wise wrote:
>>> You need to rewrite the From: Header.
>>>
>> To elaborate: if you send a message claiming to be From: u...@aol.com,
>> it's going to be rejected by a
On Feb 13, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Al Iverson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>>> Such is life. Personally, I have no problem mangling or blocking messages
>>> from users using a domain with a restrictive DMARC policy as needed.
>&g
On Feb 13, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>>
>> Sometimes your requirements mean that you have to encourage
>> bad behaviour. But it's good to be clear that that's what you'r
On Feb 13, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>>
>> Sure. DMARC protects a field that most people don't care about or, in some
>> cases even see. I'm not surprised that it's nearly
On Mar 19, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Tara Natanson wrote:
>
> Not sure if this is normal behavior I just haven't come across before or
> something new but it seemed like it might be interesting to some folks here.
>
> A Barracuda device we are sending to is dropping the connection after end of
> D
On Apr 2, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2015, at 1:59 AM, David Hofstee wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We’re seeing, from different domains (that have nothing in common), these
>> bounces in our logs:
>>
>> 550 5.7
itating ISPs and not going full-on
spammer is Advanced ESP Magic. You might not want to try that without some
assistance on the policy side of things (possibly by using a commercial ESP to
send your mail, as this is what they do).
Cheers,
Steve
--
Having an Email Crisis? (800) 823-9674
better applied to root causes
(reputation, customer segregation, avoiding having spammers on your network,
abuse policies and procedures, outbound traffic monitoring and real-time
mitigation and so on).
Cheers,
Steve
--
Having an Email Crisis?
r as I see, and I was not able to find
> the new location or possibility.
>
> Can anybody help me out?
https://support.live.com/eform.aspx?productKey=edfsmsbl3
Cheers,
Steve
--
Having an Email Crisis? (800) 823-9674
Steve Atkins - Word to
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 6:13 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>
>>> Google's record doesn't affect SPF. Look at section 4.5 of RFC 7208,
>>> and you'll see that SPF takes all of the records returned for the TXT
>>> lookup, and only picks the one that starts with v=spf1. Other records
>>> are ignored and
> On Jul 31, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Tim Bosserman wrote:
>
> We are currently unable to send any email to yahoo.com. The failures look
> like this:
>
> delivery temporarily suspended: lost connection with mta7.am0.yahoodns.net
> [98.136.217.203] while sending RCPT TO
>
> Is anyone else seeing simi
arthosts will hard fail SPF and
be considered suspicious, at best, by recipients. elementality.gr is similar.
(As an aside, thanks for including the relevant IP addresses in your question!
You'd be amazed at the number of people who refuse to share that info.)
Cheers,
Steve
--
Having an Em
> On Sep 14, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Michael Wise wrote:
>
> It’s on my bucket list….
OTOH, it's a reasonably effective method of filtering out people who refuse
to read documentation.
Cheers,
Steve
>
> Aloha,
> Michael.
> --
> Michael J Wise | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Ha
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
> I've been getting an increasing amount of spam to various of my addresses
> some of which have not been been actively used for some time. The amount of
> spam received is kicking upward fairly rapidly.
>
> All of this spam is sent by a t
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
> Well, I have received *nothing* from this mailer-for-hire (IMHO far more of a
> spammer than an ESP) that I've asked for, nor anything from anyone with whom
> I've done business. The amount of spam is on the rise on behalf of numerous
>
> On Nov 1, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Ivan Jukic wrote:
>
> We also have had same issues. It seems a number of IP Addresses are blocked
> from sending email to hotmail & outlook.com. mail address.
> https://mail.live.com/mail/postmaster.aspx didn't really help us resolve it.
>
> Can anyone from Micro
> On Nov 2, 2015, at 10:59 PM, Yang Yu wrote:
>
> Lately I see a lot of emails from
> mintcustomersupport-no-re...@intuit.com (sent from salesforce) are in
> gmail spam folder with message "Our systems couldn't verify that this
> message was really sent by intuit.com". However not all emails go
> On Dec 11, 2015, at 6:06 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
> I wonder why they don’t use the terminology from the RFCs: "reject", "defer",
> "non-delivery notification", "delay notification"?
>
> As it is, when you say "Hardbounce", I don’t know whether you’re referring to
> an SMTP 5yz reply (a re
> On Jan 15, 2016, at 10:07 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
> I see a few problems in your DNS, you may consider to have it fixed.
>
> http://dnsviz.net/d/mikea.ath.cx/dnssec/
Also, an MX record is a good sign that you're using the domain for
mail intentionally.
Cheers,
Steve
>
> On Fri, Jan
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Michael Wise wrote:
>
> Back In The Day, there was a BCP for shutting down a DNSBL that included
> running a daily check of the IP 127.0.0.1 (which should never hit), IIRC, as
> well as 127.0.0.2 (which should always return a hit); and if my memory
> serves, if
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Michael Wise
>> wrote:
>>
>> Back In The Day, there was a BCP for shutting down a DNSBL that included
>> running a daily check of the IP 127.0.0.1 (which
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
