Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project
That might be a dangerous assumption (admittedly I'm no lawyer) that this means zip. It may not mean much against Spamhaus directly, but any kind of injunction against them could in theory be used against anyone who uses Spamhaus services. It could also be argued as case law against other blacklist providers. I don't know who DatabaseUSA is, from the description really sounds like an email marketer, aka spammer, so this could potentially force mail providers to accept their spam. -Original message- From:Ralph Seichter via mailop Sent:Mon 08-03-2020 06:23 pm Subject:Re: [mailop] This is..Concerning: DatabaseUSA Wins Case Against The Spamhaus Project To:mailop@mailop.org; * Brandon Long via mailop: "Founded in 1998, Spamhaus is based in Geneva, Switzerland, and Andorra la Vella, Andorra [...]" >From what I understand, DatabaseUSA's "win" therefore means zip. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] AT Block - abuse_...@abuse-att.net still valid?
Last time I shot something to it, response was almost a full week. -Original message- From:Scott Mutter via mailop Sent:Tue 02-11-2020 11:06 am Subject:Re: [mailop] AT Block - abuse_...@abuse-att.net still valid? To:mailop@mailop.org; * On Tue, Feb 11 11:19AM Ken O'Driscoll via mailop said : > On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 10:50 -0500, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: > > I suppose it's possible that AT is just inundated with abuse > > requests - but maybe there is a better way to weed out the valid > > requests from the invalid requests. > > > > If abuse_...@abuse-att.net is no longer valid, then perhaps the > > rejection notice needs to be updated. > > It's still valid and they do respond. But as you correctly surmise, > they are very busy answering tickets from non-customers so patience is > required. I'd typically give a request at least a week before poking > them again. > > Ken. Well... I guess my thought is, if it takes them a week to weed through all of their requests... maybe there's a better way to optimize this? Or maybe they need more personnel manning these positions? Your statement is certainly valid, and I don't mean to sound whiny. But it is also frustrating when providers (usually large providers, like AT) appear to block an IP for... no apparent reason. The IP is clean on all blacklists and SenderScore is 99. If there were other factors in play I'd be more apt to understand and investigate who is sending out spam on this server. But it's just AT blocking it. ___ 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] Is Spectrum trying to sunset rr.com and twc.com emails?
Several months ago I could no longer deliver to @kc.rr.com, and this went on for months, finally mx records changed one day and all of a sudden its working again. I have to wonder if that wasn't some kind of test or mistake, and then they realized that yes, customers do still use those addresses. -Original message- From:Jay R. Ashworth via mailop Sent:Sat 02-08-2020 08:54 pm Subject:[mailop] Is Spectrum trying to sunset rr.com and twc.com emails? To:mailop@mailop.org; A client got an email that appeared to be from Keap, or maybe InfusionSoft, suggesting that Spectrum was trying to do that, and that users shouldn't add contacts with those emails unless they were "bone-fide" (which was my only hint)... but my experience of email carrier buyouts is that no-one *ever* sunsets the domain names, cause there's no real reason to do so, and it pisses off end-users. The email also pointed to this domain name, which looks semi-official, and I can't decide if the whole thing is some clever spear-fishing attempt, or just someone who misunderstood something and is trying to be helpful. Does anyone on the list know if there's such a sunset policy in process? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 ___ 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] Looking for a Charter e-mail admin
I saw (for at least kc.rr.com) their mx records changed about two weeks ago. Is this an ongoing problem or a new problem? I was having trouble before the change, now they seem to pass (although I'm not confident they are being delivered to user yet). -Original message- From:Mark Dale via mailop Sent:Mon 12-02-2019 05:04 pm Subject:Re: [mailop] Looking for a Charter e-mail admin To:mailop@mailop.org; We're also seeing a sudden spate of bounces with mail to stny.rr.com A contact address Charter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Mark Dale MailmanLists On 3/12/19 2:35 am, Paul Gover via mailop wrote: > I'm in search of someone from Charter who can help get a small ISP's > email servers off the blacklist for stny.rr.com. If you could reach out > off list, it would be much appreciated. (Email to > priorityescalationt...@charter.com was rejected as undeliverable.) > > Kind regards, > Paul Gover, Adams Cable Service > > > ___ > 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] Weird blocking by outlook.com (S3150)
The whole "default for companies to hide their information" seems to be a reaction to all the European privacy laws (which I admit I know exist, but otherwise don't know anything about them or what they say). One of the registrars I use on a regular basis (Moniker, based out of Florida) went through and changed most of mine and all of my customers whois records to their version of privacy records, and they did this with no notification or choice what so ever. When I asked Moniker about it, they send me a canned reply about complying with current privacy laws (even though as far as I can tell, they mostly don't apply to me). -Original message- From:Steven Champeon via mailop Sent:Thu 08-29-2019 12:50 pm Subject:Re: [mailop] Weird blocking by outlook.com (S3150) To:mailop@mailop.org; *claps* I can't be the only person who believes the whole "privacy" claim for failing to provide accurate information about who is using the Internet to be complete and utter nonsensical bullshit, right? I make a living classifying PTR naming conventions, so I spend much of my day (and the past 13 years) looking at WHOIS and rwhois lookups. In the past few years it has become more or less the default for companies and organizations and ISPs and telcos to hide their information, even though you can go to their Web site and find out who they are and how to contact them and where their locations are and so forth. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
