On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 19:39:39 +0200, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop
<mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>I would draw the line where someone identifies himself properly and brings a
>plausible explanation of events - "we only
>acquired the IP range recently" can be checked and is pretty plausible. If
>someone contacts us about rejected mail they
>can be pretty sure that I read their message and look into the matter.
Your task now is to persuade the manager-fo-the-moment that they should fund
the creation and operation of a group of people who would read and respond. Be
sure to make a strong economic argument.
>Mail operators who refuse to accept mail from peer mail operators (not
>anonymous spammers) may find themselves in the
>same boat pretty quickly, as they depend on getting their mail delivered to
>others as well. I've been on the verge of
>rejecting mail from the Microsoft mail infrastructure with pretty scathing
>error messages due to their apparent
>inactivity in getting a fix on hacked accounts more than once.
If you could locate someone in the structure who could be cajoled into caring
whether you accept Microsoft's mail, and taking effective action in the
matter, I personally would be interested in learning that person's identity.
Certainly while I was there I failed at this.
You might want also to consider the meaning of the word "peer" in the context
of the Redmond campus.
>It wouldn't hurt them, I know, and when I correctly remember the way
>Microsoft-created mail software mutilates and hides
>error messages my message would probably not even reach their customers.
It's a target-rich environment.
mdr
--
Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities.
-- Voltaire
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
