Re: [mailop] problem setting up open-dmarc
Am Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 06:41:48AM -0900 schrieb Royce Williams via mailop: > There are multiple reports on Reddit and other places of people getting the > explicit "authentication required" SMTP response at much lower volumes. > I've also experienced it directly myself, on domains that I directly > control that don't do 50 a day, let alone 5000. Can you confirm that these domains had a valid SPF record? Would you mind sharing the exact value of the SPF? ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] problem setting up open-dmarc
Am Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 02:20:25PM +0100 schrieb Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop: > For outgoing, Google requires that you have DMARC record set up. So if you > are sending anything to Google, you need that. This only applies if your sending more than 5000 messages per day. Most smaller senders are still fine using only "SPF *or* DKIM" and do not *need* a DMARC record: https://support.google.com/a/answer/81126 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Any evidence of SMTP smuggling in the wild - yet?
Am Mon, Jan 01, 2024 at 06:53:57PM + schrieb ml+mailop--- via mailop: > > I use sendmail 8.17.1.9 under gentoo -- any patch for that one to fix this? > > Upgrade to 8.18.0.2,: Additionally needs "Srv_Features: o" for sendmail to only accept CR LF . CR LF as end of an SMTP message. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] outlook.com 421 try again later S77719
Am Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 11:12:39AM +0200 schrieb Andreas via mailop: > since a few hours we have problems with sending to Microsoft. We get > hundreds of messages like in the subject with the reference to S77719. Also > colleagues from other companies in germany are seeing the same in their > logs. All mails that are blocked here are from Microsoft customers, but they I'm glad you're bringing this up. We're seeing this here as well. Microsoft status pages seem unaware of this issue (at least as of yet). ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Any old-school sendmail types here good with the m4?
Am Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 09:29:48AM + schrieb Dan Mahoney (Gushi) via mailop:
> It looks like the version of enhdnsbl.m4 simply checks for *any* return code
> and doesn't know how to skip those responses. And I don't know where to buy
> the brand of LSD that they did at UC Berkeley when they wrote this, in order
> to make m4 make sense.
Hi,
we're doing it this way:
FEATURE(`enhdnsbl', `.spamhaus.XXX', `"blocked by
zen.spamhaus.org see: http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip="$&{client_addr}',
`t', `127.0.0.2.', `127.0.0.3.', `127.0.0.4.', `127.0.0.9.')dnl
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] OpenDMARC
Am Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 10:36:50AM +0200 schrieb Mary via mailop: > I've never used rspamd but now its time to take a look. > > > Are there any alternatives to OpenDMARC and OpenDKIM? As an alternative to OpenDKIM, I'm happily using dkimpy-milter. The configuration is quite similar to OpenDKIM. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Anyone else seeing email backed up to Microsoft -- only IPv6
Am Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 09:40:41AM -0500 schrieb Frank Bulk via mailop: > We had it last night, too, but this morning seeing it again for hotmail.com, > outlook.com, and live.com: Confirmed: @hotmail.com>, delay=00:00:01, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=esmtp, pri=41706, relay=hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com. [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:7e8a:0:0:0:33], dsn=4.7.500, reply=451 4.7.500 Server busy. Please try again later from [2a01:111:e400:7e8f::47]. (AS750) [BN7NAM10FT103.eop-nam10.prod.protection.outlook.com] Quite a lot of mail queuing up already. Anybody know what's going on over there? ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud
Noticing lot's of noise from OVH adress ranges with "bouncer.cloud" PTR and HELO. Often they are trying only one recipient and seem to move on then. Can anyone shed some light on what these people are trying to accomplish? Could there be any kind of legitimacy, or are just plain bad guys? Seems like a lot of effort to push spam this way and that's what's holding me back from blocking them.. SPF pass: ip=135.125.128.56, fqdn=de1-mail-173.bouncer.cloud, helo=de1-mail-173.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=91.121.50.199, fqdn=sbg5-mail-160.bouncer.cloud, helo=sbg5-mail-160.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=51.89.19.107, fqdn=de1-mail-35.bouncer.cloud, helo=de1-mail-35.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=51.68.178.58, fqdn=de1-mail-5.bouncer.cloud, helo=de1-mail-5.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=46.105.33.125, fqdn=sbg5-mail-141.bouncer.cloud, helo=sbg5-mail-141.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=37.59.67.40, fqdn=sbg5-mail-37.bouncer.cloud, helo=sbg5-mail-37.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=178.32.167.75, fqdn=sbg5-mail-150.bouncer.cloud, helo=sbg5-mail-150.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=54.36.212.178, fqdn=sbg5-mail-147.bouncer.cloud, helo=sbg5-mail-147.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=135.125.224.91, fqdn=de1-mail-233.bouncer.cloud, helo=de1-mail-233.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=135.125.145.35, fqdn=de1-mail-185.bouncer.cloud, helo=de1-mail-185.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=188.165.49.25, fqdn=sbg5-mail-27.bouncer.cloud, helo=sbg5-mail-27.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=51.38.116.69, fqdn=de1-mail-1.bouncer.cloud, helo=de1-mail-1.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=178.33.42.186, fqdn=sbg5-mail-25.bouncer.cloud, helo=sbg5-mail-25.bouncer.cloud, from= SPF pass: ip=51.89.47.230, fqdn=de1-mail-108.bouncer.cloud, helo=de1-mail-108.bouncer.cloud, from= ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
