Mainly, I don't want to race to get code ready for the once-per-year
release, and I don't want to wait for an entire year if the code
is not ready before the deadline.
Release any time a sufficiently important feature is ready and do not
let any schedule pressure force you to compromise on qual
On 2019-01-20 14:40, John Stoffel wrote:
The only problem with Digital Ocean right now is that Charter/Spectrum
in the US has blocked all (most? At least the one I'm using...) blocks
assigned to DO for some insane reason.
Why insane? Having been a DO customer for more than five years, I am
no
es
> sense for phishing or malware email.
I can explain the appearance if you are interested. No contradiction.
> Have you tried taking the 5 minutes required to set up a correct GPG key
> and use that instead?
As you can see at
<http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=Yuval+Levy&o
On 2018-01-08 02:20 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Complete absence of Received: headers is likely to increase your
> spam score.
What would you suggest instead?
On 2018-01-07 09:32 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> After reading all the responses, and reading the reference links about
> Microsoft Smartscreen, I have a really stupid question:
Not stupid at all. I'll limit my answer because of the off-topic nature
of the question. Let me know if you are inter
On 2018-01-08 12:48 AM, soumi...@iitk.ac.in wrote:
> It seems my issue is solved for now. OK MS support.
Happy to read your issue is solved, and thank you for sharing the reply
from Microsoft.
> ---
> Our investigation has determined that there are no active blocks against
> thes
On 2018-01-07 04:32 AM, Peter wrote:
> So to put it simply, they're basically saying that their black box
> thinks that your IP(s) are sending SPAM.
That's not how I read my conversation with them. My understanding based
on their explanations and their advice on how to fix the problem is that
the
On 2018-01-07 04:08 AM, Peter wrote:
> simply meant that your complaint is not the first one I've seen.
OK ;-)
>> * Are you sending mail from a new IP? not applicable
>
> How is this not applicable?
I've operated that IP for the past four years, it is older than my legal
career. I realize th
Thank you for the useful and practical advice.
On 2018-01-07 03:57 AM, Dominic Raferd wrote:
> On 07/01/2018 06:29, Mike Guelfi wrote:
>> Our alternative was always to just set relays for "poorly behaved"
>> domains
>
> Example (using sendgrid for relaying):
>
> /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> ...
> tran
On 2018-01-07 01:07 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Perhaps your IP address is part of a /20 or similar block in which
> your "network neighbours" send enough spam to tarnish its reputation.
I have just sent to the list the complete thread with Microsoft until
now, hopefully it properly replied to th
accept my apology.
Forwarded Message
Subject: RE: SRX1410787439ID - Re: Reported deliverability problem to
Outlook.com SRX1410787439ID
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 21:59:59 +
From: Hotmail Sender Support
To: yuval levy
Hello,
My name is Sunish and I work with the Outlook.com
On 2018-01-06 05:42 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
> I have contacted Outlook.com Deliverability Support and will report back
> to the list if the results from the interaction are of public interest.
I am still digesting the response received. In essence, they say that
they "have reviewe
all this information in this
public message, hoping that it will become searchable / easily findable
by others in need. I placed my request with the Outlook.com
deliverability support and am waiting for an answer. Will report back
if there is anything of public interest.
Thanks,
Yuval Levy, JD, MBA, CFA
Ontario-licensed lawyer
I can do to improve my
self-operated SMTP server to increase likelihood of delivery through
Microsoft? Has anybody been able to engage with Microsoft on the
subject? How, through what point of contact, and to what result?
Thanks,
Yuval Levy, JD, MBA, CFA
Ontario-licensed lawyer
On 16-09-28 04:55 AM, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> I didn't like the Let's Encrypt 90 day deal with mysterious upload to your
> server.
While I do not like to grant root access to a third-party controlled
process on my server, there are good alternatives and the only things
that I upload to my s
(Non-US) lawyer here, chiming in after the itch became to strong.
Initially I wanted to stay out of this debate, the solution of which is
obviously non-technical and probably OT.
DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
On 16-07-16 11:04 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> You have already discarded STA
Thanks for the help, Bill.
On 16-06-06 10:24 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
> NOTE THAT 454 REPLY!
could it be because I have soft_bounce = yes while trying to understand
the outcome of my rules without losing incoming emails?
> include postconf -n rather than main.cf snippets.
Attached, apology for no
Hello Postfix-Users. First time poster here, looking for help to
understand what is wrong with my Postfix configuration that has
delivered a message from a blacklisted server.
Log Excerpt
===
Jun 5 09:58:37 x2 postfix/smtpd[8440]: connect from unknown[157.52.162.99]
Jun 5 09:58:37 x2 p
18 matches
Mail list logo
