Re: [mailop] Firefox Phishing Protection says 413: Your client issued a request that was too large.
On 14/10/2021 17.31, Al Iverson wrote: > Otto! Long time no talk. Hope you're doing well. :) > > If it's any consolation, Gmail thinks that your post to Mailop is a > phish, so perhaps the bad domain made it to the Google Safe Browsing > blacklist, at least. :) Interestingly enough, I sent the message with the URL edited to start with hxxps:// so I assumed it couldn't end up triggering phishing filters. Little did I know :-D -- /* * * Otto J. Makela * * * * * * * * * */ /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */ /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */ /* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */ ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] DKIM signing with ed25519 keys - leap of faith
On 10/12/21 2:02 AM, Sidsel Jensen via mailop wrote: *My question to you: What are your thoughts on starting to sign with ed25519 keys and what is currently holdning you back?* As soon as Mail::DKIM supports it I'll probably do it (dual sign). ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] DKIM signing with ed25519 keys - leap of faith
opendmarc was very recently updated due to a security issue IIRC, I think was end of May start of June, v 1.4.1. Might have been on spamassassin list. I had a discussion with that person who's told me opendkim (which wont build on current supported openssl's without a patch), is being worked on next - though he gave me no time frame. I do share your concern, if we are all applying a patch for past year or 2, it would take mere minutes for them as well and update the site, so people can at least build it and use it, and add anything new afterwards for another release, given this was about 5 months ago now, it's obvious they don't seem to give two 's about it really. On 15/10/2021 06:10, Mary via mailop wrote: I've tried to get in touch with the OpenDKIM developers with little success, it appears that the project was alive 10 years ago with lots of development effort, which eventually died along with all their other projects (OpenDMARC, OpenARC, etc) Some poor dev seems to make a few adjustments here and there, but with no real commitment. They seem like dead projects to me. On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 21:35:02 +0200 Alexey Shpakovsky via mailop wrote: 1) install OpenDKIM 2) set it to use rsa-sha256 What means two things: first, self-host email admins might simply be not aware of ed25519; Second, OpenDKIM seems to be the most popular tool for this job (please correct me if I'm wrong here). Worth noting that OpenDKIM's latest stable release was in 2015, and latest beta in 2018. The app seems to be in somewhat active development on Github, but to see it you must switch from default "master" branch to more active "develop" one. Ed25519 signing and verifying is supported in the latest beta, but dual-signing is not supported at all. So maybe someone bigger than me can approach those guys and ask them to add a dual-signing (issue #6 in their github), and make a release already? Also, someone could've implemented DKIM signing primarily in hope to increase mail _deliverability_, not _security_. Note that there is a support.google.com page titled "Prevent mail to Gmail users from being blocked or sent to spam" which also mentions DKIM signatures. So maybe to make a wide public interested in ed25519, one of big players could start a _rumor_ that using ed25519 DKIM signatures _might_ increase chances that your message passes GMail spam filter? After all, they were able to push everyone to turn to HTTPS in WWW-world, so why not do the same in SMTP-land? Heck, I have a friend who annoyed me hard enough that I've enabled TLS for outgoing SMTP connections just so that he could see a gray padlock in his GMail client instead of red! Given that my VPS provider seems to have direct peering with Google, I doubt it improves real security in any way. Thanks for reading so much, Alexey. -- Regards, Noel Butler This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged information, therefore at all times remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate this message without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message.___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] SendX?
It appears that Jarland Donnell via mailop said: >I have none, and ordinarily I would take that as a reason to not >respond. However, I was highly motivated by the first Google result, >which was a paid advertisement, which immediately stated "Sendx.io - No >More Monkey Business - We Will Never Ban You." Poking around their web site I found this: https://www.sendx.io/blog/send-bulk-emails-without-spamming/ Build an email list from scratch and don't acquire one externally Buying an email list from someone on the internet is almost like shooting yourself in the foot. First of all, it's not legal to send emails to people who haven't opted-in to receive those emails. It's clearly stated under CAN-SPAM laws. You can face legal consequences if you end up pissing-off someone with your unsolicited emails. While that is wrong, I'm not inclined to correct them. R's, John ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Fighting spam
Since you use SpamAssassin, you are welcome to use my rule set: https://config.mxroute.com/spam/local.cf It's automatically updated every day based on my rspamd rules: https://github.com/mxroute/rspamd_rules On 2021-10-14 16:20, Mohit Godiya via mailop wrote: Hey All, I am sure this topic has come up in the past. I am wondering if anyone with more experience than me can comment on what they do to fight spam. I have a pretty basic and effective setup that I feel might become a little unmanageable in the future. I am using greylisting, SA, DCC, Razor and SPF filtering. (as I am still with qmail, I cant used DKIM) I am also using SA --ham on all users sent emails and SA --spam on a folder called LearnAsSpam SA --ham and SA --spam update the bayes score. I ask my customers to drop all spam emails (not newsletters and flyers) into the LearnAsSpam folder once in a while I also take emails from the LearnAsSpam folders, pick keywords and put them in my local.cf file for SA As my customer base increase, I want a more manageable solution. I donot want to use the 3rd party spam filtering service as I haven't had positive experiences with them. I would rather allow couple spam emails to slip through my filters than causing a plethora of problems when using the 3rd party spam filters. Please suggest. PS: I am aware that some one out there has written a patch for qmail to used DKIM, but I am about to move away from qmail and move to exim. I am seeing that the amount of time I spend on writing the rules of SA in taking up more and more time. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] SendX?
I have none, and ordinarily I would take that as a reason to not respond. However, I was highly motivated by the first Google result, which was a paid advertisement, which immediately stated "Sendx.io - No More Monkey Business - We Will Never Ban You." I can't bring myself to read "we will never ban you" as anything other than "everything is permissible on our platform." To me, that implies that they are a utopia for spammers. A quick run through my fleet for the string "sendx" was completely empty of result. Though they may not use their name in the relay hostnames. On 2021-10-14 16:14, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop wrote: We have someone asking us for info on SendX, their reputation, etc., and honestly we have never heard of them; while ordinarily we would consider that in and of itself as a data point, I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with them? Anne --- Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. CEO ISIPP SuretyMail Author: Section 6 of the Federal Email Marketing Law (CAN-SPAM) Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: MAPS Anti-Spam Blacklist Location: Boulder, Colorado ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Fighting spam
Am 14.10.21 um 23:20 schrieb Mohit Godiya via mailop: > Hey All, > > I am sure this topic has come up in the past. > I am wondering if anyone with more experience than me can comment on what > they do to fight spam. I'm using two pretty different systems on different mail servers which have different strengths and weaknesses: 1. Rspamd (embedded in a Mailu installation) for low-maintenance operation. That packages includes several mechanisms to score messages and handle them according to score intervals. This does a relatively good job but isn't really able to detect persistent spammers using their own IP ranges. Since the system is well extendable using Lua (though the documentation is somewhat lacking), it's possible to tweak it considerable. It includes a fuzzy matching component that is trained by messages moved into the Junk folder, so after a while the detection quality should improve somewhat. 2. A homebrew system on another mailserver with a manually maintained list of rules. The rules are maintained based on observations in spam traps and in the logfile, and allow me to block based on ip ranges, AS numbers, name server names, etc. This system tries to work on information in the SMTP dialog, so most spam would be rejected before the DATA phase. Of course, there are still some header patterns to reject some common kinds of spam. Rspamd has the big advantage that it has really low maintenance requirements, especially as part of the Mailu package. However, I can't really judge how scalable it is, we're running a couple domains with a few dozen users. The other system (which is essentially a work in progress, I'm already thinking about a somewhat different approach) requires a lot of manual tweaking but excels at keeping persistent spammers out pretty reliably, and allowing me to adjust rules quickly when needed. I would not recommend that way of working to anybody but people who get their kicks out of successfully stopping spammers at any cost :-) This one runs on a system with several hundred domains and several thousand users, but the overall traffic is still not huge (about 5000 non-spam and 6000-7000 spam messages received and 8000-9000 messages sent, non-spam I suppose :-) ) My personal opinion is that rejecting mail from obviously dynamic IPs, cloud services, and persistent spammer IP ranges goes a long way. What's left are the freemailer spammers (Google by far the biggest), hacked mail accounts and servers, and the gray area of promotional mail which may or may not be opt-in. Some parts of that would probably be caught by bayesian or other content analysis. Cheers, Hans-Martin ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Fighting spam
Hey All, I am sure this topic has come up in the past. I am wondering if anyone with more experience than me can comment on what they do to fight spam. I have a pretty basic and effective setup that I feel might become a little unmanageable in the future. I am using greylisting, SA, DCC, Razor and SPF filtering. (as I am still with qmail, I cant used DKIM) I am also using SA --ham on all users sent emails and SA --spam on a folder called LearnAsSpam SA --ham and SA --spam update the bayes score. I ask my customers to drop all spam emails (not newsletters and flyers) into the LearnAsSpam folder once in a while I also take emails from the LearnAsSpam folders, pick keywords and put them in my local.cf file for SA As my customer base increase, I want a more manageable solution. I donot want to use the 3rd party spam filtering service as I haven't had positive experiences with them. I would rather allow couple spam emails to slip through my filters than causing a plethora of problems when using the 3rd party spam filters. Please suggest. PS: I am aware that some one out there has written a patch for qmail to used DKIM, but I am about to move away from qmail and move to exim. I am seeing that the amount of time I spend on writing the rules of SA in taking up more and more time. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] SendX?
We have someone asking us for info on SendX, their reputation, etc., and honestly we have never heard of them; while ordinarily we would consider that in and of itself as a data point, I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with them? Anne --- Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. CEO ISIPP SuretyMail Author: Section 6 of the Federal Email Marketing Law (CAN-SPAM) Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: MAPS Anti-Spam Blacklist Location: Boulder, Colorado ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] DKIM signing with ed25519 keys - leap of faith
I've tried to get in touch with the OpenDKIM developers with little success, it appears that the project was alive 10 years ago with lots of development effort, which eventually died along with all their other projects (OpenDMARC, OpenARC, etc) Some poor dev seems to make a few adjustments here and there, but with no real commitment. They seem like dead projects to me. On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 21:35:02 +0200 Alexey Shpakovsky via mailop wrote: > 1) install OpenDKIM > 2) set it to use rsa-sha256 > > What means two things: first, self-host email admins might simply be not > aware of ed25519; Second, OpenDKIM seems to be the most popular tool for > this job (please correct me if I'm wrong here). > > > Worth noting that OpenDKIM's latest stable release was in 2015, and latest > beta in 2018. The app seems to be in somewhat active development on > Github, but to see it you must switch from default "master" branch to more > active "develop" one. > > Ed25519 signing and verifying is supported in the latest beta, but > dual-signing is not supported at all. > > So maybe someone bigger than me can approach those guys and ask them to > add a dual-signing (issue #6 in their github), and make a release already? > > > Also, someone could've implemented DKIM signing primarily in hope to > increase mail _deliverability_, not _security_. Note that there is a > support.google.com page titled "Prevent mail to Gmail users from being > blocked or sent to spam" which also mentions DKIM signatures. > > So maybe to make a wide public interested in ed25519, one of big players > could start a _rumor_ that using ed25519 DKIM signatures _might_ increase > chances that your message passes GMail spam filter? > > > After all, they were able to push everyone to turn to HTTPS in WWW-world, > so why not do the same in SMTP-land? Heck, I have a friend who annoyed me > hard enough that I've enabled TLS for outgoing SMTP connections just so > that he could see a gray padlock in his GMail client instead of red! Given > that my VPS provider seems to have direct peering with Google, I doubt it > improves real security in any way. > > Thanks for reading so much, > Alexey. > > > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] DKIM signing with ed25519 keys - leap of faith
On Tue, October 12, 2021 11:02, Sidsel Jensen via mailop wrote: > My question to you: What are your thoughts on starting to sign with ed25519 keys and what is currently holdning you back? > Is this something that we could push for in 2022 together? While this question is likely to be aimed mostly at big players, let me speak for the "long tail" of "self-hosted email" servers. When I search online for guides about setting up dkim on postfix, majority of guides (some even written in 2021), suggest two things: 1) install OpenDKIM 2) set it to use rsa-sha256 What means two things: first, self-host email admins might simply be not aware of ed25519; Second, OpenDKIM seems to be the most popular tool for this job (please correct me if I'm wrong here). Worth noting that OpenDKIM's latest stable release was in 2015, and latest beta in 2018. The app seems to be in somewhat active development on Github, but to see it you must switch from default "master" branch to more active "develop" one. Ed25519 signing and verifying is supported in the latest beta, but dual-signing is not supported at all. So maybe someone bigger than me can approach those guys and ask them to add a dual-signing (issue #6 in their github), and make a release already? Also, someone could've implemented DKIM signing primarily in hope to increase mail _deliverability_, not _security_. Note that there is a support.google.com page titled "Prevent mail to Gmail users from being blocked or sent to spam" which also mentions DKIM signatures. So maybe to make a wide public interested in ed25519, one of big players could start a _rumor_ that using ed25519 DKIM signatures _might_ increase chances that your message passes GMail spam filter? After all, they were able to push everyone to turn to HTTPS in WWW-world, so why not do the same in SMTP-land? Heck, I have a friend who annoyed me hard enough that I've enabled TLS for outgoing SMTP connections just so that he could see a gray padlock in his GMail client instead of red! Given that my VPS provider seems to have direct peering with Google, I doubt it improves real security in any way. Thanks for reading so much, Alexey. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Weird delays for email forwarded to Gmail
Fair. To be frank, when I appear to blame all of my challenges on Google it isn't actually blame in the traditional sense. Today is a good day, things are more balanced than some days. That means today 40% of all outbound mail from customers is going to Gmail. Next in line, 4% to Hotmail. Of course, Microsoft accounts for more than that with Office365 and other domains. It still wouldn't hold a candle to the Gmail traffic though. So as you noted, that's what leads my priorities. The majority of my stack, preferences, and actions are based around Gmail. It's quite understandable that Google has their own way of dealing with some things, they do face unique challenges. Gmail is leading the pack, and all things considered I think they've been pretty fair to me in how they handle our large daily transactions. This is why I'm really a big fan of ZoneMTA. It helps me to identify smaller trends as well as the larger ones, and change how I operate based on those unique conditions. Andris is nothing short of a genius. On 2021-10-14 11:52, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: On 2021-10-12 at 15:59:20 UTC-0400 (Tue, 12 Oct 2021 21:59:20 +0200) Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop is rumored to have said: Well, I would say that any need to communicate with Google users from outside Google will infuriate the random user. s/Google/the Freemail Giant Cartel/g It's not accurate or useful to view this as just a Google problem. It's a collective problem of Google, Microsoft, Oath, and a small crowd of smaller regionally/nationally prominent mailbox providers, acting accidentally as a sort of collective. They do what works for them and their *paying* customers, who may have no connection to their mailbox users. They manage to support insane scales only through automated monitoring, meaning that they can't even see any problem limited to any one mail operator too small to be in that club of giants. They can't even see some problems that may affect significant quantities of mail via a myriad of tiny sites. They are not actively hostile to those of us in the world of <20k-user operations, they just can't see us in the 'noise' under the massive signals they get in their exchange of traffic amongst themselves, handling the predominantly legitimate traffic of big non-mailbox senders like ESPs and e-commerce operations, and withstanding insane volumes of garbage from the ever-changing sea of gutter-grade spam sources. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Weird delays for email forwarded to Gmail
On 2021-10-12 at 15:59:20 UTC-0400 (Tue, 12 Oct 2021 21:59:20 +0200) Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop is rumored to have said: Well, I would say that any need to communicate with Google users from outside Google will infuriate the random user. s/Google/the Freemail Giant Cartel/g It's not accurate or useful to view this as just a Google problem. It's a collective problem of Google, Microsoft, Oath, and a small crowd of smaller regionally/nationally prominent mailbox providers, acting accidentally as a sort of collective. They do what works for them and their *paying* customers, who may have no connection to their mailbox users. They manage to support insane scales only through automated monitoring, meaning that they can't even see any problem limited to any one mail operator too small to be in that club of giants. They can't even see some problems that may affect significant quantities of mail via a myriad of tiny sites. They are not actively hostile to those of us in the world of <20k-user operations, they just can't see us in the 'noise' under the massive signals they get in their exchange of traffic amongst themselves, handling the predominantly legitimate traffic of big non-mailbox senders like ESPs and e-commerce operations, and withstanding insane volumes of garbage from the ever-changing sea of gutter-grade spam sources. -- Bill Cole b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) Not Currently Available For Hire ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] DKIM+DMARC at t-online.de (Deutsche Telekom's ISP branche)
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 11:45, Florian.Kunkel--- via mailop wrote: > the requirements posted before only apply to ESPs (email service providers | > mass mailers | ... mailhosters). > Mailing lists should not be concerned as far as I can tell from our stats. > [] > that's the reason we didn't start with DMARC policy enforcement so far. > it's to gamy to adhere the domain policy without regard of the source IP you > see the message from. Hi Florian, do you have any update about this DMARC enforcement "experiment" @t-online.de ? -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Firefox Phishing Protection says 413: Your client issued a request that was too large.
Otto! Long time no talk. Hope you're doing well. :) If it's any consolation, Gmail thinks that your post to Mailop is a phish, so perhaps the bad domain made it to the Google Safe Browsing blacklist, at least. :) Cheers, Al Iverson On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:12 AM Otto J. Makela via mailop wrote: > > We received some phising emails, and when you access the phishing > site redirector > x > > you will be redirected to a website using such a long URL (about 15k) > that when you try to report it to Firefox Phishing Protection it fails > with 413: Your client issued a request that was too large. This URL > contains a base64-encoded html file, and without it trying to access > the site just produces a "this account has been suspended" message. > > I don't doubt this is the reason why they chose to do it like this. > > -- >/* * * Otto J. Makela * * * * * * * * * */ > /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */ > /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */ > /* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */ > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop -- Al Iverson // Wombatmail // Chicago Deliverability: https://spamresource.com DNS Tools: https://xnnd.com ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Firefox Phishing Protection says 413: Your client issued a request that was too large.
We received some phising emails, and when you access the phishing site redirector hxxps://googleweblight.com/i?u=sso-webmailsrvr-s334bggbh.pages.dev?user=em...@example.com you will be redirected to a website using such a long URL (about 15k) that when you try to report it to Firefox Phishing Protection it fails with 413: Your client issued a request that was too large. This URL contains a base64-encoded html file, and without it trying to access the site just produces a "this account has been suspended" message. I don't doubt this is the reason why they chose to do it like this. -- /* * * Otto J. Makela * * * * * * * * * */ /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */ /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */ /* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */ ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Google Postmaster Tools - No data since October 4th
ADMIN NOTE On 14 Oct 2021, at 10:39, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: [ yet more content about a specific problem unrelated to the thread subject ] All: please desist from turning every single thread on this list into discussion of Jaroslaw’s Google issue. I have had more than one email sent to me about this in response to my last comments about decency (thanks for those) - the feelings expressed were that the thread hijacking that keeps occurring is making the list dysfunctional and tedious. This thread is specific to the loss of functionality of Google’s Postmaster Tools. Please keep it that way. Thanks Graeme ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Google Postmaster Tools - No data since October 4th
Dnia 14.10.2021 o godz. 11:00:50 Lena--- via mailop pisze: > > But possibly content of your emails causes Gmail users to click "Spam" > more often than caused by average user stupidity. > Or you pissed off one Gmail user, and now he clicks "Spam" on every your > email. I know these people. I ask them specifically (using other means like text messages on the phone) to click "this is not spam" on my messages. They do. > Or he always deletes everybody's emails with the Spam button. That is possible. What is more possible - from what I think - the issue may be related to mailing lists. I am subscribed to a few lists and I used to be quite active on them (used to be, because since the "spam" issue started, I try to limit my sending to mailing lists as much as possible, but it's still sometimes necessary). In fact, I usually send significantly more messages to mailing lists than directly to people. And I don't know (nor can control) how many people on the list are on Gmail or are forwarding their mail from the address subscribed to the list to Gmail (!). While people who I send messages directly may expect my messages, may look for them in the Spam folder and click "this is not spam", it is not the case for a mailing list. If a message from a mailing list, from a guy you don't know (so don't expect the message to come) lands in your Spam folder, would you notice its absence? Would you look for it? Even if you see somebody's reply to that message on the list, you wouldn't usually look for the original message. So the messages stayed in Spam folders of those people from mailing lists, which only acted as a signal to Google that they are actually spam (because nobody clicked them out of the Spam folder). 50 (roughly estimating) people whom I mail directly and who are clicking "this is not spam" cannot balance 500 (just estimating) people from mailing lists who have my messages in Spam folder, never saw them and never clicked on them. It's a kind of a "dead loop": once your messages start falling into Spam folder, you have little chance to get out of it, as people just don't see your messages, so can't click "this is not spam" on them. So you are just building up "bad reputation". This is just something I assume, but what speaks in favor of this assumption is that I had no problems mailing to Google for about two years since I started using my current e-mail address and server (it was 2017), then suddenly the issue started in 2019. And from that time it is reappearing. There are times when the issue disappears and mailing to Google works correctly, but then it is reappearing again. If this is the case, changing my e-mail domain - which some of the people here suggested - will not help, because the same will happen for that new domain, if I start to use it on mailing lists. Please note that I wrote my message in reply to message from someone who has an *.org domain, yet still has the same problem as me (and there are more people with this problem, who wrote about this - here and on Postfix mailing list, that I'm subscribed too - during those two years, all with non-free domains). So that can happen for *any* domain, not just *.eu.org. It will work for some time, and then again it will gain "bad reputation". Then what? Get a new domain again, chasing for domains like spammers do and playing cat-and-mouse game with Google? This is just plain stupid. It is also worth noting that I have *no* issues with sending to any other email recipient besides Google (I had some issue in past with my mails being rejected by mail.ru, but this has been solved very quickly - they are *extremely* responsive and helpful on that topic). Only Google is the problem. Also, to all the people who suggest that I change my domain, I would like to ask - if the largest shopping network in your country would ban you from entering their shops just because they don't like your name on the credit card (you didn't steal from them, beat up someone in the shop or anything like that - they just don't like your name), and people suggested you to change your name to be able to shop again, what would you say to them? This is exactly the same case. -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub." ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Google Postmaster Tools - No data since October 4th
> From: Jaroslaw Rafa > "low reputation of the sending domain" I'm afraid that it'll be the same for any free domain name (because of abuse by spammers). Unfair, yes. But possibly content of your emails causes Gmail users to click "Spam" more often than caused by average user stupidity. Or you pissed off one Gmail user, and now he clicks "Spam" on every your email. Or he always deletes everybody's emails with the Spam button. Influence of IP block or AS reputation also is possibile, despite the text of the error message. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Google Postmaster Tools - No data since October 4th
We do not get any data since 4 October On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:32 AM Maarten Oelering via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > We are monitoring hundreds of domains in GPT. Some of these domains never > showed any data. > But since October 8 all domains are returning 404 errors on the GPT API. > So something is wrong at Google. > > Maarten > > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Google Postmaster Tools - No data since October 4th
We are monitoring hundreds of domains in GPT. Some of these domains never showed any data. But since October 8 all domains are returning 404 errors on the GPT API. So something is wrong at Google. Maarten ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Google Postmaster Tools - No data since October 4th
> Anyone here from Google who can unplug GPT and plug it back in? > It seems to have stopped working on October 4th. We have similar, VERY nasty problems in August/September. Google downgraded our @imp.ch domain reputation form 'high' to 'bad' from one day to the other effectively shutting down our complete business communication with customers using Google Email services. Emails were not just put in the spam folder, where, when something similar happened in the past, our customers could flag some emails as 'not spam' and fixing the issue quite fast. But Emails were being rejected during SMTP. Not a single one getting through. So for emergency we switched to another email domain and I kept sending 1-2 emails per day from @imp.ch to google, to see if they accepted emails again and monitored the domain reputation. It went back up to 'good' within about 3 days, but just when that happened (I think 28. of August or so) no more data was collected and it took more than a month until Google stopped rejecting emails from @imp.ch despite the now restored reputation (until the begin of October). So IMHO something is definitely broken with GPT since end of August. -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen -Benoît Panizzon- @ HomeOffice und normal erreichbar -- I m p r o W a r e A G-Leiter Commerce Kunden __ Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00 CH-4133 PrattelnFax +41 61 826 93 01 Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch __ ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
