On 11.04.21 18:18, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
FYI, t-online is often discussed on "mailop" mailing list as their criteria
for rejecting e-mails are sometimes unusual.
For example they may block IP addresses that didn't successfully send mail
to them previously, and you may need to request to manually
On 2021-04-02 13:44, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Dnia 2.04.2021 o godz. 13:41:40 Matus UHLAR - fantomas pisze:
using their L2 and L3 lists shouldn't be used as exclusive spam signs,
but
their L1 list should be quite reliable.
Their L2 and L3 are just indicators that IP comes from problematic
sour
Dnia 11.04.2021 o godz. 14:43:27 Benny Pedersen pisze:
>
> t-online blocks #metoo
FYI, t-online is often discussed on "mailop" mailing list as their criteria
for rejecting e-mails are sometimes unusual.
For example they may block IP addresses that didn't successfully send mail
to them previously
On 2021-04-02 21:52, Rob McGee wrote:
On 2021-04-01 11:02, Michael Grimm wrote:
Background of my question:
One of the bigger email providers in Germany (t-online.de = TOL)
started to block my IPv4 address. I do assume that this has to do with
being blocklisted (see
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/
On 2021-04-01 18:17, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
master.cf:
smtp unix ... smtp
smtp4 unix ... smtp -o inet_protocols=ipv4
smtp6 unix ... smtp -o inet_protocols=ipv6
transport:
# IPv6 slow or rejected by exampl4.net
example4.net smtp4
# IPv4 slow or rejected by example6.net
On 2021-04-01 11:02, Michael Grimm wrote:
Background of my question:
One of the bigger email providers in Germany (t-online.de = TOL)
started to block my IPv4 address. I do assume that this has to do with
being blocklisted (see
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php?ipr=135.125.211.209),
alth
Dnia 2.04.2021 o godz. 13:41:40 Matus UHLAR - fantomas pisze:
>
> using their L2 and L3 lists shouldn't be used as exclusive spam signs, but
> their L1 list should be quite reliable.
>
> Their L2 and L3 are just indicators that IP comes from problematic source
> (e.g. spam-friendly company/ISP o
Dnia 1.04.2021 o godz. 18:02:19 Michael Grimm pisze:
One of the bigger email providers in Germany (t-online.de = TOL) started
to block my IPv4 address. I do assume that this has to do with being
blocklisted (see
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php?ipr=135.125.211.209), although
my IP addre
On 4/1/21 12:38 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 1.04.2021 o godz. 18:02:19 Michael Grimm pisze:
>>
>> One of the bigger email providers in Germany (t-online.de = TOL) started
>> to block my IPv4 address. I do assume that this has to do with being
>> blocklisted (see
>> http://www.uceprotect.net/en
Dnia 1.04.2021 o godz. 18:02:19 Michael Grimm pisze:
>
> One of the bigger email providers in Germany (t-online.de = TOL) started
> to block my IPv4 address. I do assume that this has to do with being
> blocklisted (see
> http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php?ipr=135.125.211.209), although
>
> On Apr 1, 2021, at 12:02 PM, Michael Grimm wrote:
>
>
> But it is good to know that smtp_address_preference might help me with other
> ISP blocking my IPv4.
For such cases I use the transport table:
master.cf:
smtp unix ... smtp
smtp4 unix ... smtp -o inet_protocols=ipv4
smtp6
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Michael Grimm:
>> On 1. Apr 2021, at 14:45, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Apr 1, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Michael Grimm wrote:
Is inet_protocols 'order sensitive'?
>>>
>>> No.
> You can specity a preference with:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_address_p
Michael Grimm:
> On 1. Apr 2021, at 14:45, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> >> On Apr 1, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Michael Grimm wrote:
>
> >> Is inet_protocols 'order sensitive'?
> >
> > No.
> [..]
> > No. See: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_balance_inet_protocols
>
> Thanks for your clarificat
On 1. Apr 2021, at 14:45, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Michael Grimm wrote:
>> Is inet_protocols 'order sensitive'?
>
> No.
[..]
> No. See: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_balance_inet_protocols
Thanks for your clarification and regards,
Michael
> On Apr 1, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Michael Grimm wrote:
>
> Is inet_protocols 'order sensitive'?
No.
> What I mean is, does postfix follow the order of the following settings:
>
> inet_protocols = ipv4, ipv6
> inet_protocols = ipv6, ipv4
No.
> Would the latter definition tell postfix
15 matches
Mail list logo
