On Sun, 4 Sep 2022, Radek Kaczynski via mailop wrote:
Thanks to members of this group I learned that
we still have a homework to be done if it comes to transparency, and
making it easier to folks like you to easily identify us.
I hate the fact that this topic has stolen so much time and
attention of some of you because it wasn’t as easy to identify
Bouncer.cloud ( http://bouncer.cloud/ ) :(
I think that I todays world there is so much polarization that
sometimes some center is needed. In this case, I think there are so
many senders who need to hear the rules, but unfortunately they
usually are not exposed to perspective of Mail Operators. And I
know it sounds ridiculous but when they hear from a List Cleaner
some truth they may be bit more open to hear.
If it comes to GDPR compliance, if the “data subject” will approach
us about the information about them we will be obliged to act on
this.
As we are just a data processor we will have to inform the data
controller about such request and let them act.
I was going to suggest that you use, say
sa...@customer.pl
as the envelope sender in your probes.
That may have SPF, DKIM, DMARC implications,
but since it sales@ not personal data in GDPR terms,
in principle would you be happy to do that ?
Coincidentally, I have just been helping someone enable
SMTP VRFY in exim. I suppose that you do use VRFY
when it is availble ?
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
and...@aitchison.me.uk_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
