Re: [mailop] IPv6 only MX

[Marco Moock via mailop]

Am Sat, 8 Jun 2024 10:24:41 +0800
schrieb Jeff P via mailop :

> Can cloudflare (or others) deliver messages correctly to this IPv6 MX?

If they support IPv6, this will work.
The interesting things is how is you priority set?
Is the IPv6 MX the highest?

Is it known that some MTAs have problems with IPv6-only high-prio MX
because there is no IPv4 address assigned?
It shouldn't, but I don't know what is out there.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] IPv6 only MX

[Cody Millard via mailop]

https://developers.cloudflare.com/email-routing/postmaster/#ipv6-support

On 6/7/2024 9:24 PM, Jeff P via mailop wrote:

Hello

I have a VPS which has IPv6 only.
If I setup a mailserver on it, and use cloudflare email routing as the 
front.

Can cloudflare (or others) deliver messages correctly to this IPv6 MX?

Thanks.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop


--
Cody Millard
https://email.broker
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] IPv6 only MX

[Jarland Donnell via mailop]

Cloudflare typically doesn't proxy SMTP traffic. Unless something 
changed from the last I knew, I believe an enterprise plan may be 
required for them to do it. You might need to proxy the SMTP yourself 
through another dual stack system.


If I'm wrong feel free to embarrass me. I've grown more comfortable with 
being wrong these days!


On 2024-06-07 21:24, Jeff P via mailop wrote:

Hello

I have a VPS which has IPv6 only.
If I setup a mailserver on it, and use cloudflare email routing as the 
front.

Can cloudflare (or others) deliver messages correctly to this IPv6 MX?

Thanks.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] IPv6 only MX

[Jeff P via mailop]

Hello

I have a VPS which has IPv6 only.
If I setup a mailserver on it, and use cloudflare email routing as the 
front.

Can cloudflare (or others) deliver messages correctly to this IPv6 MX?

Thanks.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] SORBS Closing.

[Andrew J. Caines via mailop]

On Wed 05 Jun 2024 10:36:58AM +1000, Michelle Sullivan via mailop wrote:
> For those that haven't heard.=C2=A0 Proofpoint is retiring SORBS effectiv=
e
> immediately(ish).

Thank you for your work over these many years helping keep our mailboxes
protected from the barage of abuse.

Good luck with your next adventure.

-- 
-Andrew J. Caines-   Unix Systems Architect   a.j.cai...@halplant.com
  "Machines take me by surprise with great frequency" - Alan Turing

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Debugging fwd issue meta.com to zoho.com (Help from user under meta.com needed)

[John Levine via mailop]

It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop  said:
>
>Moin,
>
>On Thu, 2024-06-06 at 12:44 +1000, Viktor Dukhovni via mailop wrote:
>> The distinction is essential, because it would be a terrible mistake
>> to, for example, RFC2047-encode the "mailbox" construct in "From",
>> "To", ... headers.  An RFC2047-ignorant MUA or MTA can still
>> correctly decode the addresses in those headers without caring about
>> the display name encoding.
>
>Kind of a point; However, if I got John correctly, an SMTPUTF8 mail
>having to go through a system that does not support it should simply
>bounce?

Right.  That's the 5.6.9 extended status message.

R's,
John
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Mail Rejected by Yahoo/Prodigy DNSBL:RBL 521

[Lili Crowley via mailop]

Please contact me off list.
thanks!

*Lili Crowley*

she/her

Postmaster








On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:58 AM Jim Greco via mailop 
wrote:

> I have had to deal with this several times with  my customers.  AT&T has
> been incredibly slow to respond in the past.  I have rarely received a
> response sooner than 2-3 weeks after I first contacted them. It has
> typically taken 1 to 2 months+ to get off the list so you will probably be
> in this for the long haul.
>
>
>
> We have noticed that they seem to actually be less responsive to
> “official” admin accounts like postmaster@... and administrator@...  and
> have had quicker response when we give a customers a template to mail from
> their user account.
>
>
>
> Twice when iit seemed to be stuck I posted to AT&T forums (which has other
> mail admins reporting the same issue) I get a boilerplate response that
> that I need to contact ATT via the abuse_...@abuse-att.net email.
> However I feel like I got a response sooner when I did so.  But that may be
> coincidence
>
>
>
> Also I frequently do not received a response when the customer server has
> been removed from their super double secret RBL, I just check the logs
> every few days and eventually notice email getting out.
>
>
>
> I think AT&T’s thought process is “a spammer will give up from the
> frustration of dealing with their glacial abuse team response only a real
> business would still be asking what is taking so long after 2 months”.
>
>
>
> If you find an easier way please share.
>
>
>
> Jim
>
>
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop__;!!Op6eflyXZCqGR5I!BI8P8l3VFGV0CHjRskSDmBMa7neensbr9ILhAR6mXx3nMxFBxeVq_NBljIJrmrMBVAQDcrU65I6UyTKIgRE$
>
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Mail Rejected by Yahoo/Prodigy DNSBL:RBL 521

[Jim Greco via mailop]

I have had to deal with this several times with  my customers.  AT&T has been 
incredibly slow to respond in the past.  I have rarely received a response 
sooner than 2-3 weeks after I first contacted them. It has typically taken 1 to 
2 months+ to get off the list so you will probably be in this for the long haul.

We have noticed that they seem to actually be less responsive to "official" 
admin accounts like postmaster@... and administrator@...  and have had quicker 
response when we give a customers a template to mail from their user account.


Twice when iit seemed to be stuck I posted to AT&T forums (which has other mail 
admins reporting the same issue) I get a boilerplate response that that I need 
to contact ATT via the abuse_...@abuse-att.net 
email.  However I feel like I got a response sooner when I did so.  But that 
may be coincidence



Also I frequently do not received a response when the customer server has been 
removed from their super double secret RBL, I just check the logs every few 
days and eventually notice email getting out.



I think AT&T's thought process is "a spammer will give up from the frustration 
of dealing with their glacial abuse team response only a real business would 
still be asking what is taking so long after 2 months".



If you find an easier way please share.



Jim

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Microsoft SNDS website not working

[Scott Mutter via mailop]

Yea, I got all of mine this morning when I checked.

I guess they found whatever was causing the issue and fixed it.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Debugging fwd issue meta.com to zoho.com (Help from user under meta.com needed)

[Slavko via mailop]

Dňa 7. júna 2024 14:37:24 UTC používateľ Alessandro Vesely via mailop 
 napísal:

>If I were Slavko I'd fix rspamd by adding bug reporting (if it's not already 
>there) rather than removing 2047-decoding.

Are you sure, that you did mean me?

I was just curious about IDNA syntax in this case...

regards


-- 
Slavko
https://www.slavino.sk/
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Microsoft SNDS website not working

[Hetzner Blacklist via mailop]

For what it's worth, I requested an authorization email on Wednesday, 
and it just arrived now (more than 50 hours later).


Regards
Bastiaan

Am 07.06.2024 um 04:46 schrieb Scott Mutter via mailop:

Yea, the authorization emails aren't coming through.  I don't know if they
aren't being sent or if they're being stopped some where else.  But it's
been 10 hours and I still haven't received the authorization verification
email.






___
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] Debugging fwd issue meta.com to zoho.com (Help from user under meta.com needed)

[Alessandro Vesely via mailop]

On Wed 05/Jun/2024 11:58:53 +0200 John Levine via mailop wrote:

It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop  said:
Well, that would then be rspamd and the python email parser; Question 
is whether that would qualify as a bug, i.e., 'should not validate'; My 
understanding would be more in a 'be liberal in what you accept and 
conservative and what you send'-sense, though; I.e., even though not 
technically allowed no harm in validating.


That's a common misunderstanding of the robustness principle. You 
should be liberal in what you accept *when the spec is ambiguous.* 
Other than that you should be prepared for people to send you any 
arbitrary garbage so you can reject it.


In this case, if DKIM validators correctly rejected the invalid 
signatures, this mistake would have been caught and fixed more 
quickly.



Would it?  That certainly depends on the ability of the signer to understand 
the reason a message bounced (assuming that a "fail" would have triggered a 
bounce.)  Unlikely.


There is a field in DMARC report where a generator can put a human readable 
sentence to describe DKIM verification results.  If I were Slavko I'd fix 
rspamd by adding bug reporting (if it's not already there) rather than removing 
2047-decoding.  Still, I wonder whether any report consumer highlights messages 
containing (new) human readable fields...



Best
Ale
--



___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Issues warming a server for Yahoo

[Gavin Montague via mailop]

Apologies for a repeat post, but I think some folks from the Yahoo team 
post here and I'm hoping one of them wouldn't mind an email from me off 
list.


For about 2 months now we've been trying to bring up a new Postfix 
server for our e-commerce site. We're fine with deliveries to every 
provider apart from Yahoo managed products.


If we send a trickle of email throughout the day we're fine, but as soon 
as we go above a limit of around 10 messages in 10m we get deferrals for 
several hours. Backing off and trying again the next day shows the same 
behaviour.


I've opened tickets with the Yahoo Postmaster site 4 times now and each 
one has ended with:


"Great news! The engineers let me know that they've fixed the issue with 
IP 151.236.220.98. You should be seeing improvements in deliverability 
shortly."


But no dice; we slowly try to increase delivery through the new IP and 
each time the deferrals start as before.


I'm aware that Yahoo do defer delivery from new IPs[1], but I'm at a 
loss as to what behaviour counts as "good" to get over the deferral 
threshold.


Thanks,

Gavin

[1] 
https://sendgrid.com/en-us/blog/ask-the-expert-lili-crowley#span-stylefontweight-4002-yahoo-is-known-for-deferring-email-from-new-domains-and-ips-can-you-explain-why-and-what-steps-senders-can-take-to-minimize-thisspan


On 2024-05-14 10:40, Gavin Montague wrote:

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone had any experience/suggestions regarding 
warming an IP address that delivers to  Yahoo managed domains (yahoo, 
aol, sky.com, etc)?


We're bringing up a new Postfix instance handling outbound 
transactional and marketing emails for our e-commerce site.  The IP 
doesn't appear on any spam-lists that I can find, we're signing all our 
emails and deliverability from the sibling Postfix instances to Yahoo 
addresses is entirely fine. List-unsubs & service-feedback on spam are 
all acted upon automatically. As best I know: we're a good citizen.


The new server has been delivering low-volume transaction messages 
(receipts, purchased vouchers, etc) for 6 weeks or so and we've been 
gradually delivering lower value, higher volume content to our 
subscriber list through it for about the past 2 weeks. Hotmail, Gmail, 
other big providers are all entirely fine with the volume and we're 
seeing accepted messages and expected levels of click-thought 
afterwards.


Except for Yahoo.

As soon as we send more than a couple of messages to yahoo within a few 
minutes we see...


Messages from 151.236.220.98 temporarily deferred due to unexpected 
volume or user complaints - 4.16.55.1; see 
https://postmaster.yahooinc.com/error-codes (in reply to MAIL FROM 
command)


Messages get deferred for 6-8 hours before being accepted.

Yahoo support have said a problem with the IP was "fixed", but the 
problem persists.


Has anyone had particular trouble convincing Yahoo to accept messages?

Thanks,

Gavin

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop