[mailop] GoDaddy Blacklist

[John Cenile]

Hi all,

We have started having issues where GoDaddy's "secureserver.net" servers
have been blocking mail from some of our IP addresses:

addr...@domain.com
host smtp.secureserver.net [68.178.213.203]
SMTP error from remote mail server after initial connection:
554 p3plibsmtp03-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net bizsmtp Connection
refused. x.x.x.x is blacklisted 

When trying to unblock our IP by going to https://unblock.secureserver.net/,
all it says is "x.x.x.x is not blocked at this time", which is obviously
wrong. I've spent just over 2 hours on the phone to their support (we're
not a direct customer), and they have no idea why we're getting these
bounce backs, and basically said there's nothing they can do.

Is someone from GoDaddy able to contact me to help resolve this issue?
There's three IP addresses that have been blocked, all three of which send
a total of around 150 emails *per day* to GoDaddy, so it definitely doesn't
warrant us rotating IP addresses because your system is broken.

Thanks.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] DMARC reports not received from Google

[Benjamin BILLON via mailop]

Got'em, thanks!


-- 

Benjamin

2017-09-21 8:38 GMT+08:00 Brandon Long via mailop :

> All reports should now have gone out.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Sep 20, 2017 9:31 AM, "Bressier Simon"  wrote:
>
>> Sorry, my bad I meant rua indeed, sorry :)
>> Le mer. 20 sept. 2017 à 18:23, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop <
>> mailop@mailop.org> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> We've never seen any ruf from Google, only ruas.
>>> Are there are any additional limitations / requirements to get forensics?
>>>
>>> 20.09.2017 18:57, Brandon Long via mailop пишет:
>>>
>>> I've pinged the team, thanks for the reports.
>>>
>>> Brandon
>>>
>>> On Sep 20, 2017 8:36 AM, "Ken O'Driscoll" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:02 +0200, Bressier Simon wrote:
 > Hey guys,
 >
 > Are you guys receiving ruf DMARC reports since 17th of Sept from
 Google ?
 > The last one I have was sent on 17th, nothing since that.

 We get them for a couple of clients, nothing from Google after 18/09/17
 00:59:59 BST

 Ken.



 ___
 mailop mailing list
 mailop@mailop.org
 https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> mailop mailing 
>>> listmailop@mailop.orghttps://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Vladimir Dubrovin
>>> @Mail.Ru
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [mailop] DMARC reports not received from Google

[Brandon Long via mailop]

All reports should now have gone out.

Brandon

On Sep 20, 2017 9:31 AM, "Bressier Simon"  wrote:

> Sorry, my bad I meant rua indeed, sorry :)
> Le mer. 20 sept. 2017 à 18:23, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop <
> mailop@mailop.org> a écrit :
>
>>
>> We've never seen any ruf from Google, only ruas.
>> Are there are any additional limitations / requirements to get forensics?
>>
>> 20.09.2017 18:57, Brandon Long via mailop пишет:
>>
>> I've pinged the team, thanks for the reports.
>>
>> Brandon
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2017 8:36 AM, "Ken O'Driscoll"  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:02 +0200, Bressier Simon wrote:
>>> > Hey guys,
>>> >
>>> > Are you guys receiving ruf DMARC reports since 17th of Sept from
>>> Google ?
>>> > The last one I have was sent on 17th, nothing since that.
>>>
>>> We get them for a couple of clients, nothing from Google after 18/09/17
>>> 00:59:59 BST
>>>
>>> Ken.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> mailop mailing list
>>> mailop@mailop.org
>>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> mailop mailing 
>> listmailop@mailop.orghttps://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vladimir Dubrovin
>> @Mail.Ru
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [mailop] Hotmail SSL

[Christian Joergensen]

The one I was testing was the new MX for hotmail.com
(hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com:25), which only has the
following hotmail.com branded SANs:

X509v3 Subject Alternative Name:
DNS:*.hotmail.com, DNS:*.pamx1.hotmail.com, DNS:mx.in.hotmail.com

So it appears there are different certificates/systems in play for
.fr, .co.uk and .com.

Cheers,

Christian

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Brandon Long  wrote:
> The certificate does have a list of subject alternative names, but it
> doesn't include the exact one, ie:
>
> X509v3 Subject Alternative Name:
> DNS:mail.protection.outlook.com, DNS:*.mail.eo.outlook.com,
> DNS:
> *.mail.protection.outlook.com, DNS:mail.messaging.microsoft.com,
> DNS:outlook.com
>
> which doesn't match hotmail-fr.olc.protection.outlook.com
>
> So, yeah, they could benefit from adding *.olc.protection.outlook.com to it.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Christian Joergensen
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> It appears the various Hotmail domains are migrating their MX's to the
>> new outlook.com infrastructure on *.olc.protection.outlook.com.
>>
>> However these new MX's present SSL certificates made out to
>> *.hotmail.com (in line with the old MX names ox mx[1-4].hotmail.com.):
>>
>> Certificate chain
>>  0 s:/CN=*.hotmail.com
>>i:/C=US/ST=Washington/L=Redmond/O=Microsoft
>> Corporation/OU=Microsoft IT/CN=Microsoft IT SSL SHA2
>>  1 s:/C=US/ST=Washington/L=Redmond/O=Microsoft
>> Corporation/OU=Microsoft IT/CN=Microsoft IT SSL SHA2
>>i:/C=IE/O=Baltimore/OU=CyberTrust/CN=Baltimore CyberTrust Root
>>
>> Consider implementing an exemption in your TLS policy of your relay
>> configuration until Hotmail fixes the problem.
>>
>> If someone from Hotmail sees this, I'd appreciate if this issue could
>> be passed on to the proper team. I'd very much, on behalf of our
>> customers, prefer to use encryption in transit.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> Christian Joergensen - CTO - Ubivox Technologies
>> Toldbodgade 55B - DK-1253 Copenhagen K, Denmark
>> Phone: +45 7070 1337 - https://www.ubivox.com
>>
>> ___
>> mailop mailing list
>> mailop@mailop.org
>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>
>



-- 
Christian Joergensen - CTO - Ubivox Technologies
Toldbodgade 55B - DK-1253 Copenhagen K, Denmark
Phone: +45 7070 1337 - https://www.ubivox.com

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Comcast timeouts

[Brotman, Alexander]

There was an issue with some backend systems, which I’ve been told are now 
resolved.  Things are still being cleaned up.

--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse
Comcast

From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Russell Clemings
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 2:31 PM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] Comcast timeouts

I see nothing but timeouts from those two since 9 a.m. Eastern. Our server is 
in Maryland.



On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Eric Tykwinski 
mailto:eric-l...@truenet.com>> wrote:
I’m seeing a bunch of timeouts on mx1.comcast.net and 
mx2.comcast.net
Tested from office and an OVH server to make sure it’s not regional.
Timeouts are sporadic, so delivery happens after a few tries.

Just want to let someone know if Comcast guys are reading.

Sincerely,

Eric Tykwinski
TrueNet, Inc.
P: 610-429-8300


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop



--
===
Russell Clemings
mailto:russ...@clemings.com>>
===
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Hotmail is blocking our mail relay IP range

[Michael Wise via mailop]

Please open a ticket.

You may be affected by some ongoing issues.

They’re dealing with them as fast as they can.


Aloha,
Michael.
--
Michael J Wise | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Has Been 
Processed." | Open a HotMail 
Ticket?



-Original Message-
From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Jean Benoit
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 1:53 AM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: [mailop] Hotmail is blocking our mail relay IP range



Hi,



We are a University in France. The IP range containing our email relays 
(130.79.222.208/28) is blocked by hotmail :



  $ telnet mx1.hotmail.com 25

  Trying 104.44.194.236...

  Connected to mx1.hotmail.com.

  Escape character is '^]'.



  220 SNT004-MC10F10.hotmail.com Sending unsolicited commercial or 
bulk e-mail to Microsoft's computer network is prohibited. Other restrictions 
are found at 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fprivacy.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Fanti-spam.mspx&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C58f9e5a9aa584174b94c08d50006084f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636414948307314364&sdata=YHAaMRdcfFkqh5LbWtHtFbByauAcMsk6CdDcD%2FIUWCM%3D&reserved=0.
 Wed, 20 Sep 2017 01:40:31 -0700



  EHLO mailhost.u-strasbg.fr

  250-SNT004-MC10F10.hotmail.com (3.21.0.283) Hello [130.79.222.211]

  [...]

  250 OK



  MAIL FROM: <...@unistra.fr>

  550 SC-002 (SNT004-MC10F10) Unfortunately, messages from 
130.79.222.211 weren't sent. Please contact your Internet service provider 
since part of their network is on our block list. You can also refer your 
provider to 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.live.com%2Fmail%2Ftroubleshooting.aspx%23errors&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C58f9e5a9aa584174b94c08d50006084f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636414948307314364&sdata=a6M%2BWTPHF758xRyXH6Pa9Ji8mCXGnV3olAyAPlvBcd4%3D&reserved=0.





When looking in SNDS, everything seems OK: all IP address are green and said 
not filtered (though this could reflect old data).



However, the IP status says the whole range is blocked. The reason stated is 
"E-mail address harvesting".



We already submitted the Outlook deliverabilty issue form twice but we are 
still blocked.



Could this be related to the problem that occured on monday and tuesday ?

What shall we do ?



Thanks for your help.



--

Jean BENOIT

Security Officer

Direction Informatique

Université de Strasbourg, France



___

mailop mailing list

mailop@mailop.org

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchilli.nosignal.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmailop&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C58f9e5a9aa584174b94c08d50006084f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636414948307314364&sdata=B%2Fu1TFVTLjRCC59cM0HSvaq7zeMEkBCk8hZIFeVPyFE%3D&reserved=0
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Comcast timeouts

[Russell Clemings]

I see nothing but timeouts from those two since 9 a.m. Eastern. Our server
is in Maryland.



On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Eric Tykwinski 
wrote:

> I’m seeing a bunch of timeouts on mx1.comcast.net and mx2.comcast.net
>
> Tested from office and an OVH server to make sure it’s not regional.
>
> Timeouts are sporadic, so delivery happens after a few tries.
>
>
>
> Just want to let someone know if Comcast guys are reading.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Eric Tykwinski
>
> TrueNet, Inc.
>
> P: 610-429-8300 <(610)%20429-8300>
>
>
>
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>
>


-- 
===
Russell Clemings

===
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Hotmail SSL

[Brandon Long via mailop]

The certificate does have a list of subject alternative names, but it
doesn't include the exact one, ie:

X509v3 Subject Alternative Name:
DNS:mail.protection.outlook.com, DNS:*.mail.eo.outlook.com,
DNS:
*.mail.protection.outlook.com, DNS:mail.messaging.microsoft.com, DNS:
outlook.com

which doesn't match hotmail-fr.olc.protection.outlook.com

So, yeah, they could benefit from adding *.olc.protection.outlook.com to
it.

Brandon

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Christian Joergensen <
christian.joergen...@ubivox.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> It appears the various Hotmail domains are migrating their MX's to the
> new outlook.com infrastructure on *.olc.protection.outlook.com.
>
> However these new MX's present SSL certificates made out to
> *.hotmail.com (in line with the old MX names ox mx[1-4].hotmail.com.):
>
> Certificate chain
>  0 s:/CN=*.hotmail.com
>i:/C=US/ST=Washington/L=Redmond/O=Microsoft
> Corporation/OU=Microsoft IT/CN=Microsoft IT SSL SHA2
>  1 s:/C=US/ST=Washington/L=Redmond/O=Microsoft
> Corporation/OU=Microsoft IT/CN=Microsoft IT SSL SHA2
>i:/C=IE/O=Baltimore/OU=CyberTrust/CN=Baltimore CyberTrust Root
>
> Consider implementing an exemption in your TLS policy of your relay
> configuration until Hotmail fixes the problem.
>
> If someone from Hotmail sees this, I'd appreciate if this issue could
> be passed on to the proper team. I'd very much, on behalf of our
> customers, prefer to use encryption in transit.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Joergensen - CTO - Ubivox Technologies
> Toldbodgade 55B - DK-1253 Copenhagen K, Denmark
> Phone: +45 7070 1337 - https://www.ubivox.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] Comcast timeouts

[Eric Tykwinski]

I'm seeing a bunch of timeouts on mx1.comcast.net and mx2.comcast.net

Tested from office and an OVH server to make sure it's not regional.

Timeouts are sporadic, so delivery happens after a few tries.

 

Just want to let someone know if Comcast guys are reading.

 

Sincerely,

 

Eric Tykwinski

TrueNet, Inc.

P: 610-429-8300

 

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] mailop] Hotmail is blocking our mail relay IP range

[Torsten Reinert via mailop]

be
>>>> Message-ID: <927cfa79-54cd-46a0-c5a3-bd1d013d1...@ucla.edu>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>>>>
>>>> unsubscribe
>>>>
>>>> On 9/19/17 8:59 PM, mailop-requ...@mailop.org wrote:
>>>> > Send mailop mailing list submissions to
>>>> >   mailop@mailop.org
>>>> >
>>>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>> >   https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>>>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>> >   mailop-requ...@mailop.org
>>>> >
>>>> > You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>> >   mailop-ow...@mailop.org
>>>> >
>>>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>> > than "Re: Contents of mailop digest..."
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Today's Topics:
>>>> >
>>>> >1. Re: Outlook/Hotmail AS3150 block (Benjamin BILLON)
>>>> >2. Re: Outlook/Hotmail AS3150 block (Michael Wise)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > 
>>>> --
>>>> >
>>>> > Message: 1
>>>> > Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:54:13 +0800
>>>> > From: Benjamin BILLON 
>>>> > To: "mailop@mailop.org" 
>>>> > Subject: Re: [mailop] Outlook/Hotmail AS3150 block
>>>> > Message-ID:
>>>> >   >>> mail.com>
>>>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>> >
>>>> > Hello,
>>>> >
>>>> > I've seen samples with AS3140, and AS3150, maybe there are others. Is
>>>> there
>>>> > a major difference we should understand and care about?
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Message: 2
>>>> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:30:10 +0200
>>>> From: David Hofstee 
>>>> To: James Hoddinott 
>>>> Cc: mailop 
>>>> Subject: Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> >>> ail.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>
>>>> Hi James,
>>>>
>>>> Your website indicates you provide services that "just do not work" for
>>>> email. It may be legally allowed but that does not mean your recipients
>>>> want and expect those emails.
>>>>
>>>> E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that
>>>> did
>>>> that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This
>>>> translates
>>>> to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So basically
>>>> these
>>>> emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after, but not the
>>>> email. Unsubscribing is usually a problem as well (you should be able to
>>>> unsubscribe as easily as you subscribed; which is technically difficult
>>>> if
>>>> you sell your list to 20 organisations). I have never seen it work even
>>>> if
>>>> executed perfectly and fool-proof (bigger fools exist than you can
>>>> imagine).
>>>>
>>>> So people complain on these emails. The definition of spam. It does not
>>>> work. Similar stuff for your other services. Be happy you are not on
>>>> Spamhaus. Change business model while you can.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19 September 2017 at 15:32, James Hoddinott 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > You appear to do epending. This pretty much ends any discussion.
>>>> >
>>>> > On 18 September 2017 at 16:38, Romain Cambien via mailop <
>>>> > mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Hello,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Friday, Cloudmark blocked multiple IPs on our main IP bloc.
>>>> >> I tried the reset form and multiple contact forms from their website
>>>> >> without any r

Re: [mailop] mailop Digest, Vol 119, Issue 42

[Brandon Long via mailop]

Sure, it's spam, my point was answering why consumers still fill these
things out, not that they're good for anything.

And expecting consumers to know that filling this stuff out may lead to
missed mail they actually want seems like expecting a bit much.

Brandon

On Sep 20, 2017 9:42 AM, "Jacob Hansen via mailop" 
wrote:

> Brandon,
>
> The cost we've seen with that affiliate "forced co-registration" is when
> the affiliate business are under an overarching "OEM" or organizer of the
> brands and subsequent "ads" also placed in the message when common links,
> image hosting or headers/footers are used. Even though the "FROM" and
> authentication changes, sometimes it's the root brand that allows co-reg
> brands within their mail that gets dinged for being guilty by overlapping
> fingerprints and it may be bad enough to affect some of the transactional
> mail of the root good sender.
>
> Then, I guess the cost to the consumer may not get the wanted mail by
> marketers slipping down this slope and gray area of transactional/marketing
> overlap. Totally the fault of the marketer obviously but it's crazy how
> many marketers don't know all the factors by which they get judged for
> inboxing and don't know how much to separate themselves from negative
> reputation elements.
>
> I don't have any exact brand examples we've seen in recent weeks but
> previously these were job sites, daily deals and, of course, financial
> "advice" brands that ran into these issues. Most of which don't last long
> with SendGrid.
>
> *Jacob Hansen*
> Senior Delivery Consultant | Expert Services
> jacob.han...@sendgrid.com
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:15 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Send mailop mailing list submissions to
>> mailop@mailop.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> mailop-requ...@mailop.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> mailop-ow...@mailop.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of mailop digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: DMARC reports not received from Google (Brandon Long)
>>2. Re: Contact Cloudmark ? (Brandon Long)
>>3. Re: DMARC reports not received from Google (Bressier Simon)
>>4. Re: DMARC reports not received from Google (Vladimir Dubrovin)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:57:06 -0700
>> From: Brandon Long 
>> To: "Ken O'Driscoll" 
>> Cc: mailop 
>> Subject: Re: [mailop] DMARC reports not received from Google
>> Message-ID:
>> > ail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I've pinged the team, thanks for the reports.
>>
>> Brandon
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2017 8:36 AM, "Ken O'Driscoll"  wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:02 +0200, Bressier Simon wrote:
>> > > Hey guys,
>> > >
>> > > Are you guys receiving ruf DMARC reports since 17th of Sept from
>> Google ?
>> > > The last one I have was sent on 17th, nothing since that.
>> >
>> > We get them for a couple of clients, nothing from Google after 18/09/17
>> > 00:59:59 BST
>> >
>> > Ken.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > mailop mailing list
>> > mailop@mailop.org
>> > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>> >
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/mailop/
>> attachments/20170920/2e2ed605/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:04:16 -0700
>> From: Brandon Long 
>> To: Benjamin BILLON 
>> Cc: mailop , David Hofstee
>> , Vick Khera 
>> Subject: Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?
>> Message-ID:
>> > ail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> What's the real cost to the consumer for the raffle registration?  The get
>> more spam to their postal box or more email spam that mos

Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?

[Romain Cambien via mailop]

Hello,

I perfectly know what we do, this is why we try to do everything the
cleanest way we can :
- We don't sell our lists, everybody is opt-in to the newsletters, we limit
the number of newsletters to avoid too many subscriptions
- We respect the unsubscribe process (list-unsubscribe, link on top and
bottom of each email with postal contact address)
- We have a three month "not subscribable" period to avoid re-subscription
of people that register again on our website.
- We purge inactive users each week to avoid sending email to people not
interested in our offers
- We have marketing pressure to avoid sending the same campaign to the same
people across all our userbases

So yes, the process is maybe aggressive but we don't try to break any rules.

That why we want to contact Cloudmark, we want to understand why, after
years of correct delivery, we broke everything.
I think we shoot a toxic campaign that generate a lot of complains from our
users, we want to identify it and discuss with the advertiser their
advertising process.

I hope we can really find a solution to this problem.

Thanks to all for your help.


--
Romain Cambien
Directeur Technique
*Email* : rom...@webrivage.com
*Tél* : +33 (0)4 84 25 88 30
*Skype* : romain.webrivage
*Fax* : +33 (0)9 72 11 73 96 www.webrivage.com
www.optincollect.com
[image: WebRivage]  [image: OptinCollect]

[image: société du groupe WebRivage] 

2017-09-20 18:04 GMT+02:00 Brandon Long via mailop :

> What's the real cost to the consumer for the raffle registration?  The get
> more spam to their postal box or more email spam that mostly goes to the
> spam folder.
>
> The chances of winning are likely small but so is the cost to them.  None
> of us mailbox providers charge based on number of messages received, and
> longer term limits like quota aren't affected since it's deleted.
>
> There's obviously a cost to the ecosystem in terms of extra load, though
> in postal mail that actually helps pay for the system.  Obviously in email
> it's a pure cost, though a small fraction overall compared to the more
> abusive spammers (not an excuse, just observation).
>
> So, crappy stuff, but not purely irrational for the consumer.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Sep 20, 2017 8:31 AM, "Benjamin BILLON via mailop" 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Just a small clarification: from what I understand of what
>> co-registration is, based on Signal-Spam and ReturnPath documentations for
>> instance, this is when, in whatever form you are filling, there's the
>> possibility to subscribe voluntarily to other, related or not, newsletters.
>> Like if I'm purchasing GAP clothes and Crocks shoes (don't hit me, it's
>> just for the sake of the example) on Amazon, and on the check-out page,
>> there's a checkbox for each brand to subscribe to their newsletter directly.
>> I think that's the spirit. And I know that what's allowed or tolerated
>> for this are distinct, un-checked boxes for each subscription.
>>
>> So raffles that subscribe you to various stuff just because you tried to
>> win an iPad wouldn't be "co-registration".
>> There's another term, "affiliate marketing" that I'm not very clear
>> about, from what I found it's basically selling your list ... maybe that's
>> closest to the case of the raffle than co-registration.
>>
>> The thing about raffle is that if they still exist today, I guess that
>> there are still enough people actually trying to win that iPad, and that
>> generates enough money for companies to continue to do that kind of thing.
>> I honestly don't understand that.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 
>> Benjamin
>>
>> 2017-09-20 22:49 GMT+08:00 David Hofstee :
>>
>>> Hi Vick,
>>>
>>> You are raffling back. So I hope I am clarifying the right part.
>>>
>>> My point with Co-registration: It does not work because there are other
>>> motivations for people subscribing (and therefore other expectations).
>>> Other motivations than just wanting to receive the actual email (e.g.
>>> receiving an Ipad). Because the recipient barely knows the other 3rd party
>>> that (s)he is registering with.
>>>
>>> So even if you try to set expectations in the clearest of ways, with a
>>> very good opt-in process, you will end up with many people hitting the spam
>>> button. Conclusion: It does no work even if it should.
>>>
>>> I am not sure where your sentence "never contact me again" is about.
>>> Please clarify.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On 20 September 2017 at 14:16, Vick Khera  wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:30 AM, David Hofstee <
 opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that
> did that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This
> translates to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So
> basically these emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after,
> 

[mailop] Hotmail SSL

[Christian Joergensen]

Hello,

It appears the various Hotmail domains are migrating their MX's to the
new outlook.com infrastructure on *.olc.protection.outlook.com.

However these new MX's present SSL certificates made out to
*.hotmail.com (in line with the old MX names ox mx[1-4].hotmail.com.):

Certificate chain
 0 s:/CN=*.hotmail.com
   i:/C=US/ST=Washington/L=Redmond/O=Microsoft
Corporation/OU=Microsoft IT/CN=Microsoft IT SSL SHA2
 1 s:/C=US/ST=Washington/L=Redmond/O=Microsoft
Corporation/OU=Microsoft IT/CN=Microsoft IT SSL SHA2
   i:/C=IE/O=Baltimore/OU=CyberTrust/CN=Baltimore CyberTrust Root

Consider implementing an exemption in your TLS policy of your relay
configuration until Hotmail fixes the problem.

If someone from Hotmail sees this, I'd appreciate if this issue could
be passed on to the proper team. I'd very much, on behalf of our
customers, prefer to use encryption in transit.

Cheers,

Christian

-- 
Christian Joergensen - CTO - Ubivox Technologies
Toldbodgade 55B - DK-1253 Copenhagen K, Denmark
Phone: +45 7070 1337 - https://www.ubivox.com

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] mailop Digest, Vol 119, Issue 42

[Jacob Hansen via mailop]

Brandon,

The cost we've seen with that affiliate "forced co-registration" is when
the affiliate business are under an overarching "OEM" or organizer of the
brands and subsequent "ads" also placed in the message when common links,
image hosting or headers/footers are used. Even though the "FROM" and
authentication changes, sometimes it's the root brand that allows co-reg
brands within their mail that gets dinged for being guilty by overlapping
fingerprints and it may be bad enough to affect some of the transactional
mail of the root good sender.

Then, I guess the cost to the consumer may not get the wanted mail by
marketers slipping down this slope and gray area of transactional/marketing
overlap. Totally the fault of the marketer obviously but it's crazy how
many marketers don't know all the factors by which they get judged for
inboxing and don't know how much to separate themselves from negative
reputation elements.

I don't have any exact brand examples we've seen in recent weeks but
previously these were job sites, daily deals and, of course, financial
"advice" brands that ran into these issues. Most of which don't last long
with SendGrid.

*Jacob Hansen*
Senior Delivery Consultant | Expert Services
jacob.han...@sendgrid.com

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:15 AM,  wrote:

> Send mailop mailing list submissions to
> mailop@mailop.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> mailop-requ...@mailop.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> mailop-ow...@mailop.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of mailop digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: DMARC reports not received from Google (Brandon Long)
>2. Re: Contact Cloudmark ? (Brandon Long)
>3. Re: DMARC reports not received from Google (Bressier Simon)
>4. Re: DMARC reports not received from Google (Vladimir Dubrovin)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:57:06 -0700
> From: Brandon Long 
> To: "Ken O'Driscoll" 
> Cc: mailop 
> Subject: Re: [mailop] DMARC reports not received from Google
> Message-ID:
>  gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I've pinged the team, thanks for the reports.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Sep 20, 2017 8:36 AM, "Ken O'Driscoll"  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:02 +0200, Bressier Simon wrote:
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > Are you guys receiving ruf DMARC reports since 17th of Sept from
> Google ?
> > > The last one I have was sent on 17th, nothing since that.
> >
> > We get them for a couple of clients, nothing from Google after 18/09/17
> > 00:59:59 BST
> >
> > Ken.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > mailop mailing list
> > mailop@mailop.org
> > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/
> mailop/attachments/20170920/2e2ed605/attachment-0001.html>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:04:16 -0700
> From: Brandon Long 
> To: Benjamin BILLON 
> Cc: mailop , David Hofstee
> , Vick Khera 
> Subject: Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?
> Message-ID:
>  gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> What's the real cost to the consumer for the raffle registration?  The get
> more spam to their postal box or more email spam that mostly goes to the
> spam folder.
>
> The chances of winning are likely small but so is the cost to them.  None
> of us mailbox providers charge based on number of messages received, and
> longer term limits like quota aren't affected since it's deleted.
>
> There's obviously a cost to the ecosystem in terms of extra load, though in
> postal mail that actually helps pay for the system.  Obviously in email
> it's a pure cost, though a small fraction overall compared to the more
> abusive spammers (not an excuse, just observation).
>
> So, crappy stuff, but not purely irrational for the consumer.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Sep 20, 2017 8:31 AM, "Benjamin BILLON via mailop" 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Just a small

Re: [mailop] DMARC reports not received from Google

[Bressier Simon]

Sorry, my bad I meant rua indeed, sorry :)
Le mer. 20 sept. 2017 à 18:23, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> a écrit :

>
> We've never seen any ruf from Google, only ruas.
> Are there are any additional limitations / requirements to get forensics?
>
> 20.09.2017 18:57, Brandon Long via mailop пишет:
>
> I've pinged the team, thanks for the reports.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Sep 20, 2017 8:36 AM, "Ken O'Driscoll"  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:02 +0200, Bressier Simon wrote:
>> > Hey guys,
>> >
>> > Are you guys receiving ruf DMARC reports since 17th of Sept from Google
>> ?
>> > The last one I have was sent on 17th, nothing since that.
>>
>> We get them for a couple of clients, nothing from Google after 18/09/17
>> 00:59:59 BST
>>
>> Ken.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> mailop mailing list
>> mailop@mailop.org
>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>>
>
>
> ___
> mailop mailing 
> listmailop@mailop.orghttps://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>
>
> --
> Vladimir Dubrovin
> @Mail.Ru
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [mailop] IMAP load and iOS 11 release

[Aaron Richton]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Kirk MacDonald wrote:
[...]

lift in IMAP traffic/load yesterday, roughly coinciding with the iOS 11


iOS 11 has some serious interop issues with Exchange ActiveSync, e.g.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208136
https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/79446

Perhaps there are users that would give up on EAS and move to IMAP (if you 
support both) as a workaround? Or maybe they got multiple mail protocols 
wrong this time around...


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] DMARC reports not received from Google

[Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop]

We've never seen any ruf from Google, only ruas.
Are there are any additional limitations / requirements to get forensics?

20.09.2017 18:57, Brandon Long via mailop пишет:
> I've pinged the team, thanks for the reports.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Sep 20, 2017 8:36 AM, "Ken O'Driscoll"  > wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:02 +0200, Bressier Simon wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > Are you guys receiving ruf DMARC reports since 17th of Sept from
> Google ?
> > The last one I have was sent on 17th, nothing since that.
>
> We get them for a couple of clients, nothing from Google after
> 18/09/17
> 00:59:59 BST
>
> Ken.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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


-- 
Vladimir Dubrovin
@Mail.Ru

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?

[Rob Golding]

On Sep 20, 2017 8:31 AM, "Benjamin BILLON via mailop"

There's another term, "affiliate marketing" that I'm not very clear
about, from what I found it's basically selling your list ... maybe
that's closest to the case of the raffle than co-registration.


Affiliate Marketing is (essentially) making a commission for promoting 
or pushing sales for "Other-Peoples-Stuff"


It certainly shouldn't involve selling "your list", but selling 3rd 
party products _to_ your list.


Rob

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] DMARC reports not received from Google

[Bressier Simon]

Thx Brandon !

2017-09-20 17:57 GMT+02:00 Brandon Long via mailop :

> I've pinged the team, thanks for the reports.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Sep 20, 2017 8:36 AM, "Ken O'Driscoll"  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:02 +0200, Bressier Simon wrote:
>> > Hey guys,
>> >
>> > Are you guys receiving ruf DMARC reports since 17th of Sept from Google
>> ?
>> > The last one I have was sent on 17th, nothing since that.
>>
>> We get them for a couple of clients, nothing from Google after 18/09/17
>> 00:59:59 BST
>>
>> Ken.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?

[Brandon Long via mailop]

What's the real cost to the consumer for the raffle registration?  The get
more spam to their postal box or more email spam that mostly goes to the
spam folder.

The chances of winning are likely small but so is the cost to them.  None
of us mailbox providers charge based on number of messages received, and
longer term limits like quota aren't affected since it's deleted.

There's obviously a cost to the ecosystem in terms of extra load, though in
postal mail that actually helps pay for the system.  Obviously in email
it's a pure cost, though a small fraction overall compared to the more
abusive spammers (not an excuse, just observation).

So, crappy stuff, but not purely irrational for the consumer.

Brandon

On Sep 20, 2017 8:31 AM, "Benjamin BILLON via mailop" 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Just a small clarification: from what I understand of what co-registration
> is, based on Signal-Spam and ReturnPath documentations for instance, this
> is when, in whatever form you are filling, there's the possibility to
> subscribe voluntarily to other, related or not, newsletters. Like if I'm
> purchasing GAP clothes and Crocks shoes (don't hit me, it's just for the
> sake of the example) on Amazon, and on the check-out page, there's a
> checkbox for each brand to subscribe to their newsletter directly.
> I think that's the spirit. And I know that what's allowed or tolerated for
> this are distinct, un-checked boxes for each subscription.
>
> So raffles that subscribe you to various stuff just because you tried to
> win an iPad wouldn't be "co-registration".
> There's another term, "affiliate marketing" that I'm not very clear about,
> from what I found it's basically selling your list ... maybe that's closest
> to the case of the raffle than co-registration.
>
> The thing about raffle is that if they still exist today, I guess that
> there are still enough people actually trying to win that iPad, and that
> generates enough money for companies to continue to do that kind of thing.
> I honestly don't understand that.
>
>
>
> --
> 
> Benjamin
>
> 2017-09-20 22:49 GMT+08:00 David Hofstee :
>
>> Hi Vick,
>>
>> You are raffling back. So I hope I am clarifying the right part.
>>
>> My point with Co-registration: It does not work because there are other
>> motivations for people subscribing (and therefore other expectations).
>> Other motivations than just wanting to receive the actual email (e.g.
>> receiving an Ipad). Because the recipient barely knows the other 3rd party
>> that (s)he is registering with.
>>
>> So even if you try to set expectations in the clearest of ways, with a
>> very good opt-in process, you will end up with many people hitting the spam
>> button. Conclusion: It does no work even if it should.
>>
>> I am not sure where your sentence "never contact me again" is about.
>> Please clarify.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 20 September 2017 at 14:16, Vick Khera  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:30 AM, David Hofstee <
>>> opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that
 did that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This
 translates to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So
 basically these emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after,
 but not the email. Unsubscribing is usually a problem as well (you should
 be able to unsubscribe as easily as you

>>>
>>> Do you really expect raffles like that to imply "never contact me
>>> again"? That's not just unrealistic, it is the exact opposite of what
>>> people expect.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> mailop mailing list
>>> mailop@mailop.org
>>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> My opinion is mine.
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [mailop] DMARC reports not received from Google

[Brandon Long via mailop]

I've pinged the team, thanks for the reports.

Brandon

On Sep 20, 2017 8:36 AM, "Ken O'Driscoll"  wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:02 +0200, Bressier Simon wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > Are you guys receiving ruf DMARC reports since 17th of Sept from Google ?
> > The last one I have was sent on 17th, nothing since that.
>
> We get them for a couple of clients, nothing from Google after 18/09/17
> 00:59:59 BST
>
> Ken.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [mailop] mailop] Hotmail is blocking our mail relay IP range

[Benjamin BILLON via mailop]

e person managing the list at
>>> >   mailop-ow...@mailop.org
>>> >
>>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> > than "Re: Contents of mailop digest..."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Today's Topics:
>>> >
>>> >1. Re: Outlook/Hotmail AS3150 block (Benjamin BILLON)
>>> >2. Re: Outlook/Hotmail AS3150 block (Michael Wise)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > Message: 1
>>> > Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:54:13 +0800
>>> > From: Benjamin BILLON 
>>> > To: "mailop@mailop.org" 
>>> > Subject: Re: [mailop] Outlook/Hotmail AS3150 block
>>> > Message-ID:
>>> >   >> mail.com>
>>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>> >
>>> > Hello,
>>> >
>>> > I've seen samples with AS3140, and AS3150, maybe there are others. Is
>>> there
>>> > a major difference we should understand and care about?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:30:10 +0200
>>> From: David Hofstee 
>>> To: James Hoddinott 
>>> Cc: mailop 
>>> Subject: Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?
>>> Message-ID:
>>> >> ail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> Your website indicates you provide services that "just do not work" for
>>> email. It may be legally allowed but that does not mean your recipients
>>> want and expect those emails.
>>>
>>> E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that did
>>> that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This
>>> translates
>>> to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So basically
>>> these
>>> emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after, but not the
>>> email. Unsubscribing is usually a problem as well (you should be able to
>>> unsubscribe as easily as you subscribed; which is technically difficult
>>> if
>>> you sell your list to 20 organisations). I have never seen it work even
>>> if
>>> executed perfectly and fool-proof (bigger fools exist than you can
>>> imagine).
>>>
>>> So people complain on these emails. The definition of spam. It does not
>>> work. Similar stuff for your other services. Be happy you are not on
>>> Spamhaus. Change business model while you can.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 September 2017 at 15:32, James Hoddinott 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > You appear to do epending. This pretty much ends any discussion.
>>> >
>>> > On 18 September 2017 at 16:38, Romain Cambien via mailop <
>>> > mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >>
>>> >> Friday, Cloudmark blocked multiple IPs on our main IP bloc.
>>> >> I tried the reset form and multiple contact forms from their website
>>> >> without any response.
>>> >>
>>> >> How can I contact the support to discuss our problem ?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks.
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Romain Cambien
>>> >> Directeur Technique
>>> >>
>>> >> [image: WebRivage] <http://www.webrivage.com/> [image: OptinCollect]
>>> >> <http://www.optincollect.com/>
>>> >> [image: société du groupe WebRivage] <http://www.webrivage.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
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>&g

Re: [mailop] mailop] Hotmail is blocking our mail relay IP range

[Maarten Oelering]

Hotmail AS3150 block (Benjamin BILLON)
> >2. Re: Outlook/Hotmail AS3150 block (Michael Wise)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:54:13 +0800
> > From: Benjamin BILLON mailto:bbillon...@splio.fr>>
> > To: "mailop@mailop.org <mailto:mailop@mailop.org>"  > <mailto:mailop@mailop.org>>
> > Subject: Re: [mailop] Outlook/Hotmail AS3150 block
> > Message-ID:
> >> <mailto:cajgb_dejy-2n7r8v%2bcdcmk41enyai1dypwbqo3co8xhx3d2...@mail.gmail.com>>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've seen samples with AS3140, and AS3150, maybe there are others. Is there
> > a major difference we should understand and care about?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:30:10 +0200
> From: David Hofstee  <mailto:opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com>>
> To: James Hoddinott mailto:borm...@gmail.com>>
> Cc: mailop mailto:mailop@mailop.org>>
> Subject: Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?
> Message-ID:
>  <mailto:cakxmaxxflqsl8jd%2b-eoykfbv4vevkzxhikzgw1onqy5eds5...@mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> Your website indicates you provide services that "just do not work" for
> email. It may be legally allowed but that does not mean your recipients
> want and expect those emails.
> 
> E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that did
> that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This translates
> to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So basically these
> emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after, but not the
> email. Unsubscribing is usually a problem as well (you should be able to
> unsubscribe as easily as you subscribed; which is technically difficult if
> you sell your list to 20 organisations). I have never seen it work even if
> executed perfectly and fool-proof (bigger fools exist than you can imagine).
> 
> So people complain on these emails. The definition of spam. It does not
> work. Similar stuff for your other services. Be happy you are not on
> Spamhaus. Change business model while you can.
> 
> 
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On 19 September 2017 at 15:32, James Hoddinott  <mailto:borm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> > You appear to do epending. This pretty much ends any discussion.
> >
> > On 18 September 2017 at 16:38, Romain Cambien via mailop <
> > mailop@mailop.org <mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Friday, Cloudmark blocked multiple IPs on our main IP bloc.
> >> I tried the reset form and multiple contact forms from their website
> >> without any response.
> >>
> >> How can I contact the support to discuss our problem ?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Romain Cambien
> >> Directeur Technique
> >>
> >> [image: WebRivage] <http://www.webrivage.com/ <http://www.webrivage.com/>> 
> >> [image: OptinCollect]
> >> <http://www.optincollect.com/ <http://www.optincollect.com/>>
> >> [image: société du groupe WebRivage] <http://www.webrivage.com/ 
> >> <http://www.webrivage.com/>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> mailop mailing list
> >> mailop@mailop.org <mailto:mailop@mailop.org>
> >> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop 
> >> <https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ___
> > mailop mailing list
> > mailop@mailop.org <mailto:mailop@mailop.org>
> > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop 
> > <https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> --
> My opinion is mine.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/mailop/attachments/20170920/a74a2e76/attachment-0001.html
>  
> <https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/mailop/attachments/20170920/a74a2e76/attachment-0001.html>>
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:52:45 +0200
> From:

Re: [mailop] DMARC reports not received from Google

[Ken O'Driscoll]

On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 16:02 +0200, Bressier Simon wrote:
> Hey guys,
> 
> Are you guys receiving ruf DMARC reports since 17th of Sept from Google ?
> The last one I have was sent on 17th, nothing since that.

We get them for a couple of clients, nothing from Google after 18/09/17
00:59:59 BST

Ken.



___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?

[Benjamin BILLON via mailop]

Hello,

Just a small clarification: from what I understand of what co-registration
is, based on Signal-Spam and ReturnPath documentations for instance, this
is when, in whatever form you are filling, there's the possibility to
subscribe voluntarily to other, related or not, newsletters. Like if I'm
purchasing GAP clothes and Crocks shoes (don't hit me, it's just for the
sake of the example) on Amazon, and on the check-out page, there's a
checkbox for each brand to subscribe to their newsletter directly.
I think that's the spirit. And I know that what's allowed or tolerated for
this are distinct, un-checked boxes for each subscription.

So raffles that subscribe you to various stuff just because you tried to
win an iPad wouldn't be "co-registration".
There's another term, "affiliate marketing" that I'm not very clear about,
from what I found it's basically selling your list ... maybe that's closest
to the case of the raffle than co-registration.

The thing about raffle is that if they still exist today, I guess that
there are still enough people actually trying to win that iPad, and that
generates enough money for companies to continue to do that kind of thing.
I honestly don't understand that.



-- 

Benjamin

2017-09-20 22:49 GMT+08:00 David Hofstee :

> Hi Vick,
>
> You are raffling back. So I hope I am clarifying the right part.
>
> My point with Co-registration: It does not work because there are other
> motivations for people subscribing (and therefore other expectations).
> Other motivations than just wanting to receive the actual email (e.g.
> receiving an Ipad). Because the recipient barely knows the other 3rd party
> that (s)he is registering with.
>
> So even if you try to set expectations in the clearest of ways, with a
> very good opt-in process, you will end up with many people hitting the spam
> button. Conclusion: It does no work even if it should.
>
> I am not sure where your sentence "never contact me again" is about.
> Please clarify.
>
> Yours,
>
>
> David
>
> On 20 September 2017 at 14:16, Vick Khera  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:30 AM, David Hofstee <
>> opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that
>>> did that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This
>>> translates to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So
>>> basically these emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after,
>>> but not the email. Unsubscribing is usually a problem as well (you should
>>> be able to unsubscribe as easily as you
>>>
>>
>> Do you really expect raffles like that to imply "never contact me again"?
>> That's not just unrealistic, it is the exact opposite of what people
>> expect.
>>
>> ___
>> mailop mailing list
>> mailop@mailop.org
>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> My opinion is mine.
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [mailop] DMARC reports not received from Google

[Benjamin BILLON via mailop]

Last one I got was on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 02:00:03 -0700 (PDT)


-- 

Benjamin

2017-09-20 22:02 GMT+08:00 Bressier Simon :

> Hey guys,
>
> Are you guys receiving ruf DMARC reports since 17th of Sept from Google ?
> The last one I have was sent on 17th, nothing since that.
>
> Best,
>
> Simon
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [mailop] unsubscribe

[Aaron C. de Bruyn via mailop]

There's a link at the bottom of each message where you can unsubscribe.

https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

-A

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Ram Sripracha  wrote:
> unsubscribe
>
> On 9/19/17 8:59 PM, mailop-requ...@mailop.org wrote:
>>
>> Send mailop mailing list submissions to
>> mailop@mailop.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> mailop-requ...@mailop.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> mailop-ow...@mailop.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of mailop digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: Outlook/Hotmail AS3150 block (Benjamin BILLON)
>>2. Re: Outlook/Hotmail AS3150 block (Michael Wise)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:54:13 +0800
>> From: Benjamin BILLON 
>> To: "mailop@mailop.org" 
>> Subject: Re: [mailop] Outlook/Hotmail AS3150 block
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've seen samples with AS3140, and AS3150, maybe there are others. Is
>> there
>> a major difference we should understand and care about?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?

[David Hofstee]

Hi Vick,

You are raffling back. So I hope I am clarifying the right part.

My point with Co-registration: It does not work because there are other
motivations for people subscribing (and therefore other expectations).
Other motivations than just wanting to receive the actual email (e.g.
receiving an Ipad). Because the recipient barely knows the other 3rd party
that (s)he is registering with.

So even if you try to set expectations in the clearest of ways, with a very
good opt-in process, you will end up with many people hitting the spam
button. Conclusion: It does no work even if it should.

I am not sure where your sentence "never contact me again" is about. Please
clarify.

Yours,


David

On 20 September 2017 at 14:16, Vick Khera  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:30 AM, David Hofstee <
> opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that did
>> that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This translates
>> to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So basically these
>> emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after, but not the
>> email. Unsubscribing is usually a problem as well (you should be able to
>> unsubscribe as easily as you
>>
>
> Do you really expect raffles like that to imply "never contact me again"?
> That's not just unrealistic, it is the exact opposite of what people
> expect.
>
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>
>


-- 
--
My opinion is mine.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] mailop] Hotmail is blocking our mail relay IP range

[Daniel Baqueiro via mailop]

nd expect those emails.
>>
>> E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that did
>> that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This
>> translates
>> to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So basically
>> these
>> emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after, but not the
>> email. Unsubscribing is usually a problem as well (you should be able to
>> unsubscribe as easily as you subscribed; which is technically difficult if
>> you sell your list to 20 organisations). I have never seen it work even if
>> executed perfectly and fool-proof (bigger fools exist than you can
>> imagine).
>>
>> So people complain on these emails. The definition of spam. It does not
>> work. Similar stuff for your other services. Be happy you are not on
>> Spamhaus. Change business model while you can.
>>
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On 19 September 2017 at 15:32, James Hoddinott  wrote:
>>
>> > You appear to do epending. This pretty much ends any discussion.
>> >
>> > On 18 September 2017 at 16:38, Romain Cambien via mailop <
>> > mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> Friday, Cloudmark blocked multiple IPs on our main IP bloc.
>> >> I tried the reset form and multiple contact forms from their website
>> >> without any response.
>> >>
>> >> How can I contact the support to discuss our problem ?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Romain Cambien
>> >> Directeur Technique
>> >>
>> >> [image: WebRivage] <http://www.webrivage.com/> [image: OptinCollect]
>> >> <http://www.optincollect.com/>
>> >> [image: société du groupe WebRivage] <http://www.webrivage.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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> My opinion is mine.
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/mailop/
>> attachments/20170920/a74a2e76/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:52:45 +0200
>> From: Jean Benoit 
>> To: mailop@mailop.org
>> Subject: [mailop] Hotmail is blocking our mail relay IP range
>> Message-ID: <20170920085245.4qsgcqikh6bbh...@seti.u-strasbg.fr>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are a University in France. The IP range containing
>> our email relays (130.79.222.208/28) is blocked by hotmail :
>>
>> $ telnet mx1.hotmail.com 25
>> Trying 104.44.194.236...
>> Connected to mx1.hotmail.com.
>> Escape character is '^]'.
>>
>> 220 SNT004-MC10F10.hotmail.com Sending unsolicited commercial or
>> bulk e-mail to Microsoft's computer network is prohibited. Other
>> restrictions are found at http://privacy.microsoft.com/e
>> n-us/anti-spam.mspx. Wed, 20 Sep 2017 01:40:31 -0700
>>
>> EHLO mailhost.u-strasbg.fr
>> 250-SNT004-MC10F10.hotmail.com (3.21.0.283) Hello
>> [130.79.222.211]
>> [...]
>> 250 OK
>>
>> MAIL FROM: <...@unistra.fr>
>> 550 SC-002 (SNT004-MC10F10) Unfortunately, messages from
>> 130.79.222.211 weren't sent. Please contact your Internet service provider
>> since part of their network is on our block list. You can also refer your
>> provider to http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors.
>>
>>
>> When looking in SNDS, everything seems OK: all IP address are green and
>> said not filtered (though this could reflect old data).
>>
>> However, the IP status says the whole range is blocked. The reason stated
>> is "E-mail address harvesting".
>>
>> We already submitted the Outlook deliverabilty issue form twice but we
>> are still blocked.
>>
>> Could this be related to t

[mailop] DMARC reports not received from Google

[Bressier Simon]

Hey guys,

Are you guys receiving ruf DMARC reports since 17th of Sept from Google ?
The last one I have was sent on 17th, nothing since that.

Best,

Simon
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?

[David Hofstee]

... sorry ... not James... I meant Romain of course.


David

On 20 September 2017 at 10:30, David Hofstee 
wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> Your website indicates you provide services that "just do not work" for
> email. It may be legally allowed but that does not mean your recipients
> want and expect those emails.
>
> E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that did
> that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This translates
> to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So basically these
> emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after, but not the
> email. Unsubscribing is usually a problem as well (you should be able to
> unsubscribe as easily as you subscribed; which is technically difficult if
> you sell your list to 20 organisations). I have never seen it work even if
> executed perfectly and fool-proof (bigger fools exist than you can imagine).
>
> So people complain on these emails. The definition of spam. It does not
> work. Similar stuff for your other services. Be happy you are not on
> Spamhaus. Change business model while you can.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
> On 19 September 2017 at 15:32, James Hoddinott  wrote:
>
>> You appear to do epending. This pretty much ends any discussion.
>>
>> On 18 September 2017 at 16:38, Romain Cambien via mailop <
>> mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Friday, Cloudmark blocked multiple IPs on our main IP bloc.
>>> I tried the reset form and multiple contact forms from their website
>>> without any response.
>>>
>>> How can I contact the support to discuss our problem ?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Romain Cambien
>>> Directeur Technique
>>>
>>> [image: WebRivage]  [image: OptinCollect]
>>> 
>>> [image: société du groupe WebRivage] 
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> My opinion is mine.
>



-- 
--
My opinion is mine.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] IMAP load and iOS 11 release

[Kirk MacDonald]

Hello,

I’m wondering if any mailbox operators out there noted a significant lift in 
IMAP traffic/load yesterday, roughly coinciding with the iOS 11 release (for us 
approximately 1pm EDT). While I didn’t dive into the IMAP operations performed 
by clients, observations made on our backend storage array showed the increased 
load was all “read” operations, as if the clients might have been 
(re)fetching/(re)syncing messages.

Kirk MacDonald
Eastlink
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?

[Vick Khera]

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:30 AM, David Hofstee 
wrote:

> E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that did
> that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This translates
> to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So basically these
> emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after, but not the
> email. Unsubscribing is usually a problem as well (you should be able to
> unsubscribe as easily as you
>

Do you really expect raffles like that to imply "never contact me again"?
That's not just unrealistic, it is the exact opposite of what people
expect.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] mailop] Hotmail is blocking our mail relay IP range

[Alexander Burch]

mbien via mailop <
> > mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Friday, Cloudmark blocked multiple IPs on our main IP bloc.
> >> I tried the reset form and multiple contact forms from their website
> >> without any response.
> >>
> >> How can I contact the support to discuss our problem ?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Romain Cambien
> >> Directeur Technique
> >>
> >> [image: WebRivage] <http://www.webrivage.com/> [image: OptinCollect]
> >> <http://www.optincollect.com/>
> >> [image: société du groupe WebRivage] <http://www.webrivage.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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> --
> My opinion is mine.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/mailop/attachments/20170920/a74a2e76/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:52:45 +0200
> From: Jean Benoit 
> To: mailop@mailop.org
> Subject: [mailop] Hotmail is blocking our mail relay IP range
> Message-ID: <20170920085245.4qsgcqikh6bbh...@seti.u-strasbg.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi,
>
> We are a University in France. The IP range containing
> our email relays (130.79.222.208/28) is blocked by hotmail :
>
> $ telnet mx1.hotmail.com 25
> Trying 104.44.194.236...
> Connected to mx1.hotmail.com.
> Escape character is '^]'.
>
> 220 SNT004-MC10F10.hotmail.com Sending unsolicited commercial or
> bulk e-mail to Microsoft's computer network is prohibited. Other
> restrictions are found at
> http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/anti-spam.mspx. Wed, 20 Sep 2017
> 01:40:31 -0700
>
> EHLO mailhost.u-strasbg.fr
> 250-SNT004-MC10F10.hotmail.com (3.21.0.283) Hello [130.79.222.211]
> [...]
> 250 OK
>
> MAIL FROM: <...@unistra.fr>
> 550 SC-002 (SNT004-MC10F10) Unfortunately, messages from
> 130.79.222.211 weren't sent. Please contact your Internet service provider
> since part of their network is on our block list. You can also refer your
> provider to http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors.
>
>
> When looking in SNDS, everything seems OK: all IP address are green and
> said not filtered (though this could reflect old data).
>
> However, the IP status says the whole range is blocked. The reason stated
> is "E-mail address harvesting".
>
> We already submitted the Outlook deliverabilty issue form twice but we
> are still blocked.
>
> Could this be related to the problem that occured on monday and tuesday ?
> What shall we do ?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> --
> Jean BENOIT
> Security Officer
> Direction Informatique
> Université de Strasbourg, France
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:56:07 +
> From: Udeme Ukutt 
> To: David Hofstee , James Hoddinott
> 
> Cc: mailop 
> Subject: Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?
> Message-ID:
> <
> cahoqypdem5kdeutscowudw4p38545mczs34h6p-7es7fvwb...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> David - I'm guessing you mean Romain, not James? ^^
>
> - Udeme
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:37 AM David Hofstee  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Your website indicates you provide services that "just do not work" for
> > email. It may be legally allowed but that does not mean your recipients
> > want and expect those emails.
> >
> > E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that did
> > that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This
> translates
> > to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So basically
> these
> > emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after, but not the
> > email. Unsubscribing is usually a problem as well (you should be able to
> > unsubscribe as

Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?

[Udeme Ukutt]

David - I'm guessing you mean Romain, not James? ^^

- Udeme

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:37 AM David Hofstee 
wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> Your website indicates you provide services that "just do not work" for
> email. It may be legally allowed but that does not mean your recipients
> want and expect those emails.
>
> E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that did
> that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This translates
> to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So basically these
> emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after, but not the
> email. Unsubscribing is usually a problem as well (you should be able to
> unsubscribe as easily as you subscribed; which is technically difficult if
> you sell your list to 20 organisations). I have never seen it work even if
> executed perfectly and fool-proof (bigger fools exist than you can imagine).
>
> So people complain on these emails. The definition of spam. It does not
> work. Similar stuff for your other services. Be happy you are not on
> Spamhaus. Change business model while you can.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
> On 19 September 2017 at 15:32, James Hoddinott  wrote:
>
>> You appear to do epending. This pretty much ends any discussion.
>>
>> On 18 September 2017 at 16:38, Romain Cambien via mailop <
>> mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Friday, Cloudmark blocked multiple IPs on our main IP bloc.
>>> I tried the reset form and multiple contact forms from their website
>>> without any response.
>>>
>>> How can I contact the support to discuss our problem ?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Romain Cambien
>>> Directeur Technique
>>>
>>> [image: WebRivage]  [image: OptinCollect]
>>> 
>>> [image: société du groupe WebRivage] 
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> My opinion is mine.
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>
-- 
- Sent from my iDevice, kindly excuse any typos.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] Hotmail is blocking our mail relay IP range

[Jean Benoit]

Hi,

We are a University in France. The IP range containing 
our email relays (130.79.222.208/28) is blocked by hotmail :

$ telnet mx1.hotmail.com 25
Trying 104.44.194.236...
Connected to mx1.hotmail.com.
Escape character is '^]'.

220 SNT004-MC10F10.hotmail.com Sending unsolicited commercial or bulk 
e-mail to Microsoft's computer network is prohibited. Other restrictions are 
found at http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/anti-spam.mspx. Wed, 20 Sep 2017 
01:40:31 -0700 

EHLO mailhost.u-strasbg.fr
250-SNT004-MC10F10.hotmail.com (3.21.0.283) Hello [130.79.222.211]
[...]
250 OK

MAIL FROM: <...@unistra.fr>
550 SC-002 (SNT004-MC10F10) Unfortunately, messages from 130.79.222.211 
weren't sent. Please contact your Internet service provider since part of their 
network is on our block list. You can also refer your provider to 
http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors.


When looking in SNDS, everything seems OK: all IP address are green and
said not filtered (though this could reflect old data).

However, the IP status says the whole range is blocked. The reason stated
is "E-mail address harvesting".

We already submitted the Outlook deliverabilty issue form twice but we
are still blocked.

Could this be related to the problem that occured on monday and tuesday ?
What shall we do ?

Thanks for your help.

-- 
Jean BENOIT
Security Officer
Direction Informatique
Université de Strasbourg, France

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Contact Cloudmark ?

[David Hofstee]

Hi James,

Your website indicates you provide services that "just do not work" for
email. It may be legally allowed but that does not mean your recipients
want and expect those emails.

E.g. co-registration. In my opinion, many of the companies I met that did
that, just use it for "want to win an Ipad? Register here". This translates
to "spam me with your emails for a chance of happiness". So basically these
emails are unwanted. It is something else they are after, but not the
email. Unsubscribing is usually a problem as well (you should be able to
unsubscribe as easily as you subscribed; which is technically difficult if
you sell your list to 20 organisations). I have never seen it work even if
executed perfectly and fool-proof (bigger fools exist than you can imagine).

So people complain on these emails. The definition of spam. It does not
work. Similar stuff for your other services. Be happy you are not on
Spamhaus. Change business model while you can.



David


On 19 September 2017 at 15:32, James Hoddinott  wrote:

> You appear to do epending. This pretty much ends any discussion.
>
> On 18 September 2017 at 16:38, Romain Cambien via mailop <
> mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Friday, Cloudmark blocked multiple IPs on our main IP bloc.
>> I tried the reset form and multiple contact forms from their website
>> without any response.
>>
>> How can I contact the support to discuss our problem ?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> --
>> Romain Cambien
>> Directeur Technique
>>
>> [image: WebRivage]  [image: OptinCollect]
>> 
>> [image: société du groupe WebRivage] 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
--
My opinion is mine.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop