Re: [mailop] If you're from Cox - check your SPF records
David, may we share this with our Cox contact?
Anne
> On Jan 10, 2019, at 3:46 PM, David Carriger
> wrote:
>
> If we have anyone from Cox on the list, I was doing some SPF lookups against
> large mail providers and stumbled across this...
>
> "v=spf1 include:%{d}.7b.spf-protect.agari.com
> exists:%{i}._i.%{d}._d.espf.agari.com -all",
>
> "v=spf1 ip4:24.248.74.254 ip4:98.178.246.9 ip4:98.178.246.69
> include:spf.protection.outlook.cominclude:email.zerochaos.com
> include:mailcontrol.com ip4:67.220.124.60 ip4:208.89.12.0/22
> include:spf.constantcontact.comip4:50.31.46.119 ip4:52.38.191.241
> ip4:64.70.1.114 ip4:192.35.250.0/24 ip4:205.209.52.87 ip4:205.234.30.154
> ip4:208.89.14.202/31 ip4:209.34.66.0/28 ip4:209.34.91.104 ip4:209.67.227.197
> ip4:66.210.40.128 ip4:70.169.76.248/29 ip4:66.210.40.160/29 ip4:66.210.40.167
> ip4:148.163.151.18 ip4:148.163.154.218 ~all"
>
> Just a heads up - you should probably fix your SPF.
>
> Small Business Growth Expert
> DAVID CARRIGER
> Linux Systems Administrator
> --
> david.carri...@infusionsoft.com
>
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] If you're from Cox - check your SPF records
If we have anyone from Cox on the list, I was doing some SPF lookups against
large mail providers and stumbled across this...
"v=spf1 include:%{d}.7b.spf-protect.agari.com
exists:%{i}._i.%{d}._d.espf.agari.com -all",
"v=spf1 ip4:24.248.74.254 ip4:98.178.246.9 ip4:98.178.246.69
include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:email.zerochaos.com
include:mailcontrol.com ip4:67.220.124.60 ip4:208.89.12.0/22
include:spf.constantcontact.com ip4:50.31.46.119 ip4:52.38.191.241
ip4:64.70.1.114 ip4:192.35.250.0/24 ip4:205.209.52.87 ip4:205.234.30.154
ip4:208.89.14.202/31 ip4:209.34.66.0/28 ip4:209.34.91.104 ip4:209.67.227.197
ip4:66.210.40.128 ip4:70.169.76.248/29 ip4:66.210.40.160/29 ip4:66.210.40.167
ip4:148.163.151.18 ip4:148.163.154.218 ~all"
Just a heads up - you should probably fix your SPF.
Small Business Growth Expert
DAVID CARRIGER
Linux Systems Administrator
--
david.carri...@infusionsoft.com
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Campaign Monitor Spewing Their Own Spam Now
Hello, Anne, I appreciate you giving us some details to start with, thank you. We've investigated and found the source. We've restarted conversations internally about sending explicit, permission-based mail that complies with the same anti-spam policy to which we hold our customers. You'll receive a direct reply from our abuse team today. Carissa Phillips Deliverability Support Manager campaignmonitor.com ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] [CHANGE OF TOPIC] Growing Threat of Email Authentication Bots, Have a safe and happy 2019
As most of you know, we produce email servers and spam protection products, but we have been expanding our security and threat detection products, but is is amazing the increase lately in email authentication attacks... We all know about the number of compromised IoT devices on the Internet, but it does seem that there is a trend away from using them for spam attacks, to a stronger emphasis on authentication attacks. And as part of our tool kits, we have strongly been advocating for extended SMTP/IMAP/POP authentication with CLIENT_ID (off topic) so that every email platform (not just the big guys) can start restricting authentication attempts no matter what technology, or email client is used. As well, we have various real time 'Advanced Threat Detection' tools (again off topic) but thought we would share some data points with you.. Many systems of course can detect brute force, but the distributed size of the botnets (some reported to contain over 1.7 million nodes) creates a different environment.. Authentication is one area where blocking by IP is not always expedient or workable, especially in an environment of dynamic IP(s) and shared IP(s), (there are ways to identify and stop attacks used by many organizations and security companies.. but it does get more complex) For instance, in a 24 hour period a single bot net, mostly based from asian IP(s) and networks, can reach incredible levels.. Now, this isn't the list for discussing the particular botnet.. but a small sampling gives an idea of traditional authentication systems can get overwhelmed when the attacks are disseminated broadly enough.. A single botnet spread out it's authentication attacks across 3200 IP(s) all with a single attempt each, in a 24 hour period.. Mostly from Chinese, Vietnamese, Brazilian and Indian ISP(s) probably not surprising, and that is JUST ONE botnet in play out of many.. And while yes, your customers DO go on vacation, if you don't have something like CLIENT ID in place, you should at least bring it down to a manageable level by doing 'Country Authentication' blocking (yes, all our products have it, but again off topic..) Looking at just the portion of this botnet coming from one vietnamese network, gives a sense of this.. (See bottom) Our SpamAuditors are preparing a blog on the topic, if you really want to know more, but just wanted to raise awareness in the community as to the increasing scale worldwide in the recent months.. A botnet of scale, can easily afford such efforts, if ONLY to get access to the people still using 'qwerty' for a password. However, much of the botnet authentication attacks are leveraging data found in recent data breaches.. While targetted 'brute force' attacks still occur, the sheer scale of dictionary style foraging for 'michael' with a weak password has reached all time highs.. (Oh, yes.. time to stop using just the 'username' for authentication as well... ) * Enforce Full Email Address * Provide some level of 2FA (CLIENT ID is simple) * Authentication ONLY over encrypted channels * Enable or Offer Authentication Restriction Options And use your 'clout' to encourage these ISP's to do something about all the compromised devices on their networks.. these type of botnets are easy to find.. -- Have a Safe and Happy 2019, 113.160.180.141 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.160.245.194 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.12.41 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.146.29 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.210.195 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.25.127 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.32.80 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.33.121 x1 camera.tscshipping.com 113.161.49.121 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.49.99 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.52.182 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.56.39 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.58.226 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.59.1x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.62.175 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.62.33 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.65.77 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.75.110 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.76.15 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.81.31 x1 static.vdc.vn 113.161.89.78 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.92.78 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.161.94.77 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.145.146 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.159.186 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.162.34 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.167.233 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.169.244 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.169.98 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.173.174 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.174.125 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.174.176 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.177.254 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.180.19 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.181.138 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.184.191 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.184.243 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.186.114 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.187.81 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.189.131 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.205.14 x1 static.vnpt.vn 113.162.221.242 x1
Re: [mailop] Campaign Monitor Spewing Their Own Spam Now
On 1/10/19 10:42 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: Campaign Monitor is now spamming on their own behalf..and our original abuse contact there is unresponsive - in fact abuse@ is unresponsive..maybe gone...anybody have any reason why anything coming from Campaign Monitor's space shouldn't be rejected on sight? They've been spamming on behalf of their customers for some time now. Already being rejected here as we catch them. Anyone have a complete list of IPs? -- Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Campaign Monitor Spewing Their Own Spam Now
Hello, Carissa, Generally we are used to dealing with an individual - upon receipt of the first spam from your Faye Nagpigkit to a role account (!), on January 8, I wrote to your abuse@ asking for Heather to contact me (this is how we have always worked with you guys in in the past). I never heard back, so I sent a second follow up to abuse@ again yesterday, with absolutely no response (frankly I was very surprised, as this has not been the case in the past) - however, Ms. Nagpigkit *did* send us a another spam today, to the same role account, having not heard back from us (obviously) because "she knows I have a ton in my inbox". How very thoughtful. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consulting http://www.SuretyMail.com/ http://www.SuretyMail.eu/ Attorney at Law / Legislative Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Board Member, Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose > On Jan 10, 2019, at 12:34 PM, Carissa Phillips > wrote: > > Hi Anne, > > Carissa from Campaign Monitor's deliverability team here. I can confirm that > our abuse team is very responsive and abuse@ is still the best way to reach > them. I didn't see any details about or samples of spam in your previous > email to abuse@, would you mind sending those through, please? We'd love to > deal with those quickly as soon as we hear from you. > > Thank you! > > Carissa Phillips > Deliverability Support Manager > campaignmonitor.com ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Campaign Monitor Spewing Their Own Spam Now
Hi Anne, Carissa from Campaign Monitor's deliverability team here. I can confirm that our abuse team is very responsive and abuse@ is still the best way to reach them. I didn't see any details about or samples of spam in your previous email to abuse@, would you mind sending those through, please? We'd love to deal with those quickly as soon as we hear from you. Thank you! Carissa Phillips Deliverability Support Manager campaignmonitor.com ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Campaign Monitor Spewing Their Own Spam Now
Campaign Monitor is now spamming on their own behalf..and our original abuse contact there is unresponsive - in fact abuse@ is unresponsive..maybe gone...anybody have any reason why anything coming from Campaign Monitor's space shouldn't be rejected on sight? Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consulting http://www.SuretyMail.com/ http://www.SuretyMail.eu/ Attorney at Law / Legislative Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board Member, Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down
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
Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down
On 1/10/2019 12:00 PM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > At the very least, it is a suspicious practice. And certain people > high up in the industry have strongly warned me against ever doing > ANYTHING like that Clearly that is a stated "dislike" of an entity's practice. Your PREVIOUS use of the word "dislike" implied that my opinions about a particular entity were biased an based upon my allegedly "disliking" a particular entity (not disliking their practices, disliking THEM). And it implied that my opinions about your opinions were biased by that dislike. At least, that is the way I interpreted your comment below. Yes, I disliked this one practice of theirs (referring to multiple orgs here), but not because I dislike them, nor was my alleged "dislike" of them (which isn't actually the case - I don't have enough info on "them" to form such an opinion) any kind of basis for disliking this one particular practice. There is even a possibility that I could "like" them overall, but STILL "dislike" this practice. For context, here is your previous comment, to which I had responded: O n 1/10/2019 10:44 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: You are de-valuing mine, strictly because I have a biz agreement with some entity you dislike. Given your later response - I think we can safely attribute this to a misunderstanding - that you later clarified. And hopefully this will help you understand why I responded the way I did. -- Rob McEwen https://www.invaluement.com ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down
On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 11:37 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote: > On 1/10/2019 10:44 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > you are de-valuing mine, > > Actually, your opinion about these organizations was important and > noteworthy. if someone has a conflict of interest, it *is* helpful to > get feedback indicating that such an entity is reported to be > operating ethically, even if the conflict of interest remains. That > is noteworthy and valued. So I actually *do* value your opinion on > this matter. I just think you have a poor understanding of how/why > some entity's ethics doesn't and shouldn't necessarily be enough to > counter the problems caused by them having a "conflict of interest" > (even if your opinions are still very helpful) > > > strictly because I have a biz agreement with some entity you > > dislike. > > You're attributing beliefs/opinions/feels/assumptions to me that I > haven't expressed. Yet 2 days ago (Tue, 8 Jan 2019 16:36:28 -0500) you said: > At the very least, it is a suspicious practice. And certain people > high up in the industry have strongly warned me against ever doing > ANYTHING like that Clearly that is a stated "dislike" of an entity's practice. > The PRINCIPLES I expressed stand alone and stand on their own apart > from my feelings or motivations or likes or dislikes. I'm morbidly > fascinated that you can't see that. (but as an INTP personality type > - I'm wired to have an objectivity that often transcends and > overcomes my own personal feelings - one that is often brutally > honest, even to a point that I am my worst critic!) > > > I gave you, and this list, my fair assessment of the entity based > > on years of doing business with them > > And as I said, that was valuable (even if PARTLY "besides the point") At least once, if not multiple times you have expressed to me the following: > (there is just so much going on here that you're missing...) So, admittedly, I'm confused about your responses. Clearly, to me, it seems that you feel I have no idea about what I am saying, therefore my experienced opinion (which btw was also stated by others) is lacking. I'm done wagging this dog, have your last words and revel in them. -Jim P. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] List of unused, big email-domains?
> On 10 Jan 2019, at 16:42, Chris Boyd wrote: > > > >> On Jan 10, 2019, at 3:53 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >> >> mcimail.com (30 Jun 2003 ) > > I used to have an mcimail.com address, and an @internetmci.com address. > > Anyone know if that’s still in use? mcimail.com was turned into spamtraps somewhere around 2005. laura -- Having an Email Crisis? We can help! 800 823-9674 Laura Atkins Word to the Wise la...@wordtothewise.com (650) 437-0741 Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] List of unused, big email-domains?
> On Jan 10, 2019, at 3:53 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > > mcimail.com (30 Jun 2003 ) I used to have an mcimail.com address, and an @internetmci.com address. Anyone know if that’s still in use? —Chris ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down
On 1/10/2019 10:44 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: you are de-valuing mine, Actually, your opinion about these organizations was important and noteworthy. if someone has a conflict of interest, it *is* helpful to get feedback indicating that such an entity is reported to be operating ethically, even if the conflict of interest remains. That is noteworthy and valued. So I actually *do* value your opinion on this matter. I just think you have a poor understanding of how/why some entity's ethics doesn't and shouldn't necessarily be enough to counter the problems caused by them having a "conflict of interest" (even if your opinions are still very helpful) strictly because I have a biz agreement with some entity you dislike. You're attributing beliefs/opinions/feels/assumptions to me that I haven't expressed. The PRINCIPLES I expressed stand alone and stand on their own apart from my feelings or motivations or likes or dislikes. I'm morbidly fascinated that you can't see that. (but as an INTP personality type - I'm wired to have an objectivity that often transcends and overcomes my own personal feelings - one that is often brutally honest, even to a point that I am my worst critic!) I gave you, and this list, my fair assessment of the entity based on years of doing business with them And as I said, that was valuable (even if PARTLY "besides the point") -- Rob McEwen https://www.invaluement.com ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down
On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 09:33 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote: > ... [snip] ... > > So I'll stop here and quit before I put my foot in my mouth! But ya didn't, did ya? Look dude, everybody has opinions. You are de-valuing mine, strictly because I have a biz agreement with some entity you dislike. Pffft. I gave you, and this list, my fair assessment of the entity based on years of doing business with them. If you have years of doing business with them then speak up or else . (now that is how you stop and quit before you put your foot in your mouth) -Jim P. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down
On 1/10/2019 9:33 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: is basically to say, "but how do you know for sure that the person isn't giving in to competing interests or is compromised? and how dare you question their judgment!" (to summarize your arguments) oops - "double negative" typo - I meant to say: is basically to say, "but how do you know for sure that the person *is* giving in to competing interests or is compromised? and how dare you question their judgment!" (to summarize your arguments) -- Rob McEwen https://www.invaluement.com ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down
On 1/8/2019 5:16 PM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: I also see an issue where you probably shouldn't criticize another DNSBL unless you have data that they are misstating why and how they collect fees for their efforts Jim, My focus was always on "best practices" and principles - and I think I did a pretty good job of avoiding "naming names" (go back and see for yourself). If someone was reading your statement above - and hadn't actually read my earlier few posts I made - they would have a radically twisted (and negative) impression of me and what I stated - compared to what actually happened. But I will say this - I sleep well at night knowing that I am economically incentivized to run invaluement with the highest ethical standards. Why? Because it is in my economic best interest to do my best to make sure that our subscribers' customers are (1) happy with what invaluement causes to be in the spam folder -AND- (2) happy with what invaluement didn't cause to be in the spam folder and that remained in the inbox. PERIOD. This is one of the benefits of not being overly-entangled with conflicts of interest, due to NOT having economic incentives that compete with those two goals. Also, your defense of situations that involve a "conflict of interest" - is basically to say, "but how do you know for sure that the person isn't giving in to competing interests or is compromised? and how dare you question their judgment!" (to summarize your arguments) - but you're sort of missing the point and you're showing a lack of understanding about professional ethics when it comes to conflicts of interest. For example, if a judge were randomly assigned a case where one side of the case was a close blood relative of that judge - that judge would recuse himself due to a conflict of interest - and another judge would be assigned to the case. So what you're doing is no different than that same scenario - except where the judge refuses to recuse himself - and then you come along and tell those who complained "how dare you question that judge's ability to be impartial - you can't know for sure that he will be biased" - Jim - that might be a little bit more of an extreme example - but that is basically YOU on this thread. In that hypothetical situation, if someone were to criticize me for questioning whether that judge should be taking that case - and then claimed that I was allegedly claiming that this judge was an unethical person - BOTH stances are just incredibly offensive and show a childish lack of understanding of professional ethics and maturity. That is basically what you've done on this thread regarding my criticisms of blacklists that accept payment for delistings and/or payments for whitelistings. Just because I consider that a conflict of interest - doesn't mean that I'm making any kind of specific claim that any particular DNSBL is unethical, or run by unethical people. And as far as your "you probably shouldn't criticize" - wow - that just an amazing statement. It makes me inclined to want to reply in ways that wouldn't be professional or nice. So I'll stop here and quit before I put my foot in my mouth! -- Rob McEwen https://www.invaluement.com ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] List of unused, big email-domains?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_major_email_domains_no_longer_in_service -- Benjamin -Original Message- From: mailop On Behalf Of Benjamin BILLON Sent: mercredi 9 janvier 2019 18:15 To: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] List of unused, big email-domains? I didn't find shorter than "List of domain names formerly used to receive massive amounts of emails" for the title of the page, if someone has a better idea, please sho[o|u]t ... -- Benjamin -Original Message- From: mailop On Behalf Of Benjamin BILLON Sent: mardi 8 janvier 2019 20:19 To: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] List of unused, big email-domains? RBL would be useful but I can start a list of defunct domains based on my experience, my email history and a few logs. I can't publish a RBL in a blink. Also in my case, I wouldn't need a MTA to consume the list, I just want to have a list, with a date (or a year) of when the domain stopped asking to receive emails, so when I spot those domains I would have an indication of the age of the database, and do something with that. It would also show an interesting history of the merges and deaths of emailing ecosystems on the Internet. I'm not convinced about the need to highly document that, and official shutdown pages have high chances of being shut as well not long after the domain. But there's no problem to describing too much either. We could also ask Al, or Laura, to maintain this list, but I believe they wouldn't mind a little community effort instead. I'll create the page on Wikipedia tomorrow, if nobody does it first =) -- Benjamin -Original Message- From: mailop On Behalf Of Grant Taylor via mailop Sent: mardi 8 janvier 2019 19:58 To: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] List of unused, big email-domains? On 01/08/2019 10:32 AM, John Levine wrote: > A lot of them have been turned into spamtraps after rejecting mail for > a year or so. For obvious reasons, the people using them will not > tell you what they are. I think there is a significant difference in a list of defunct sending domains and a list of spam traps. I can see how there is some overlap. But I don't think that concern of the latter precludes the former. Also, it would be trivial for spam trap operators to disqualify their domains by stating that they do send email from said domains. -- Grant. . . . unix || die ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
