[mailop] DKIM temperror from Microsoft on SFMC delegated domains

[Marco Franceschetti via mailop]

Dear Mailop,

I am seeing an unusual amount of DKIM "temperror" reports from Microsoft for 
these two domains (only):
preventivo.6sicuro.it
news.6sicuro.it

The sources of this information are:

  *   Headers of emails received at Hotmail.com with temperror as DKIM 
Authentication results
  *   DMARC reports for both domains showing only 80% valid DKIM checks.

It was like this the first SalesForce Marketing Cloud sendings, end of June.
I have requested Microsoft support but after the usual contact practices, they 
said they don't do DNS error checks.
On SFMC side, they suggest contacting Microsoft.

As far as my DNS checks go, I am not able to spot weakness on the domains.

Any suggestions/contacts?

Thanks

Marco Franceschetti
Head of Deliverability | ContactLab
M. +39 331 1717 978 | T. +39 0228311887
marco.francesche...@contactlab.com

Via Natale Battaglia, 12 | Milano
contactlab.com/it


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

[mailop] t-online.hu contact?

[Marco Franceschetti via mailop]

Hi

Here is Marco from ESP Contactlab. 
t-online.hu is blocking our emails. 
It's small traffic, but it's very problematic because there are transactional 
messages too. 

Is anybody in the list from t-online.hu who might help?
I've tried abuse@ and postmaster@ but had no responses.

Kind regards

Marco Franceschetti
Head of Deliverability | ContactLab
marco.francesche...@contactlab.com

Via Natale Battaglia, 12 | Milano
contactlab.com/it 


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

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

[Marco Franceschetti via mailop]

Hi Maarten

By one specific customer, whose lists are more b2b oriented to be honest, we 
enountered a false positive rate of abount 7%.
This customer regularly sends to us small lists of addresses to be reactivated 
– and I must say, these do not bounce.
So, I think a further investigation on this matter is worth.

Sure, we use text, enhanced status code and status code to classify the bounces 
in our bounce rule management process.
It the rules don’t match, we classify the bounce as “unknown” and we examinate 
the unknown bounce regularly to do some fine tuning.

Kind regards
Marco


From: Maarten Oelering 
Sent: mercoledì 27 febbraio 2019 22:02
To: Marco Franceschetti 
Cc: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

Hi Marco,

I am curious what false positives you encountered.

We suggest to classify bounces using multiple features, the text, the enhanced 
status code, and the status code. If the bounce is clearly an invalid address, 
then remove it after the first bounce. For example when the text contains 
“mailbox” or a synonym, and “unknown” or a synonym. Bounces which are 
ambiguous, or with inconsistent features should be treated as soft bounce.

Maarten
Postmastery

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 17:27, Marco Franceschetti via mailop 
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:
Hello,

We at contactlab are considering a change in the deactivation of hard bounces.
Currently, we suppress not existing mailboxes at the first hit.

We are aware of a small percentage of false positives.

Recent admissions criteria for Certified Senders states:
"The CSA sender must take email addresses from mailing lists, if, after sending 
to this address,
the mailbox is identified as non-existent; at the latest, however, this must 
occur after three hard
bounces".

We are evaluating to remove not existing mailboxes from the lists of our 
clients after the second hit instead of the first one.

Do you have any considerations, suggestions about this?

Marco


Marco Franceschetti
Head of Deliverability | ContactLab
marco.francesche...@contactlab.com<mailto:marco.francesche...@contactlab.com>
Via Natale Battaglia, 12 | 
Milano<https://maps.google.com/?q=Via+Natale+Battaglia,+12+%7C+Milano=gmail=g>
contactlab.com/it<http://contactlab.com/it>

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org<mailto: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] deactivation of hard bounces

[Marco Franceschetti via mailop]

Good morning

I want to say a great "thank you" to all of you for the precious suggestions. 
All of your contributions will help us in the evaluation of a possible approach 
on this matter. 

Regards
Marco 

-Original Message-
From: mailop  On Behalf Of Bill Cole
Sent: mercoledì 27 febbraio 2019 18:27
To: Marco Franceschetti via mailop 
Subject: Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

On 27 Feb 2019, at 11:16, Marco Franceschetti via mailop wrote:

> Hello,
>
> We at contactlab are considering a change in the deactivation of hard 
> bounces.
> Currently, we suppress not existing mailboxes at the first hit.
>
> We are aware of a small percentage of false positives.
>
> Recent admissions criteria for Certified Senders states:
> "The CSA sender must take email addresses from mailing lists, if, 
> after sending to this address, the mailbox is identified as 
> non-existent; at the latest, however, this must occur after three hard 
> bounces".
>
> We are evaluating to remove not existing mailboxes from the lists of 
> our clients after the second hit instead of the first one.
>
> Do you have any considerations, suggestions about this?

There are subtle but important distinctions between types of "hard bounce" 
which you should take into account. ANY 5xy reply in SMTP (or asynchronous DSN 
message citing a 5xy reply) should be considered a "hard bounce." However, 
there are specific basic and enhanced SMTP reply codes which are direct 
explicit statements that an address is non-existent which should be honored 
immediately rather than taken as possibly mistaken and retested later with a 
different message. For example, a 550 reply to RCPT (or either stage of DATA, 
if there's only one accepted RCPT)  without any enhanced status code should 
ALWAYS be treated as an indication of a non-existent address, as should 550 
followed by any 5.1.x enhanced status code. It is debatable how other 5xy + 
5.x.y combinations at various stages should affect sending a different message 
at a later time to the same address, but as every modern SMTP RFC has made 
clear: ANY 5xy reply should be considered a "hard bounce" for the specific 
transaction being tried. That means you must not try to resend the same message 
to the same address in any way: 
not 5 minutes later, not through a different outbound IP or to a secondary MX, 
not with a different envelope sender address, NOT AT ALL.

It is good practice to remove an address from a list after just one hard bounce 
of the subset that clearly indicate that an address does not exist or after 
consecutive hard bounces (i.e. for different messages) with less certain 
meanings. Whether you make 2 or 3 your limit for hard bounce codes that might 
indicate problems other than address non-existence is unlikely to make much 
difference.


--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org (AKA @grumpybozo and many 
*@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) Available For Hire: 
https://linkedin.com/in/billcole

___
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] deactivation of hard bounces

[Marco Franceschetti via mailop]

Hello, 

We at contactlab are considering a change in the deactivation of hard bounces. 
Currently, we suppress not existing mailboxes at the first hit. 

We are aware of a small percentage of false positives. 

Recent admissions criteria for Certified Senders states:
"The CSA sender must take email addresses from mailing lists, if, after sending 
to this address,
the mailbox is identified as non-existent; at the latest, however, this must 
occur after three hard
bounces".

We are evaluating to remove not existing mailboxes from the lists of our 
clients after the second hit instead of the first one. 

Do you have any considerations, suggestions about this?

Marco 


Marco Franceschetti
Head of Deliverability | ContactLab
marco.francesche...@contactlab.com
Via Natale Battaglia, 12 | Milano
contactlab.com/it 

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

Re: [mailop] Spamcop IP blacklisted

[Marco Franceschetti via mailop]

Thanks for your considerations Laura, I totally agree on your points. Anyway, 
there has been no vague “oh well” here.
Also, there is no sending emails to rejected domains for years, as we have like 
most ESPs a well trained bounce management system.

I don’t think it’s a spamtrap mantainer problem at all; in the fact we did not 
contact spamcop yet but focused on explaining to the customers first.
This is because we are aware of the function and value of spamtrap data. And as 
I said, results are coming.
I mainly wanted to share the experience that yes, something has changed at 
Spamcop in the last days.

Regards



From: Laura Atkins 
Sent: venerdì 16 novembre 2018 12:04
To: Marco Franceschetti 
Cc: feder...@aruba.it; mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] Spamcop IP blacklisted




On 16 Nov 2018, at 10:33, Marco Franceschetti via mailop 
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:

Hi

Same situation here at Contactlab (Italy).
Our hypothesis is that Spamcop has activated a few obsolete domains (typos, 
repurposed domains) as traps from one day to the other, or radically and 
suddenly changed the threshold - therefore, a few brand/senders with not 
brilliant list hygiene practices started to trigger IP blocks. Of course, this 
is a big issue for shared IP pools.

We have contacted some of these brands and involved them in a “crash course” on 
spam traps and segmentation.
I see some results, which is great because improves the overall quality of the 
traffic, but requires individual contact and relevant effort.
I will contact SpamCop as well because maybe they did’nt foresee the mass 
impact of this change.

Having gone through this with Spamcop in the past and being on relatively good 
terms with the people who work there, I think you’ll find that they possibly 
did forsee the impact of the change, but decided that the problems experienced 
by companies continuing to send mail to users who never opted in and/or who 
have been sending to domains rejecting emails for years were not of much 
concern to them.

Last time I talked to a SC employee, which admittedly was more than a few years 
ago, about their trap conditioning they were using a 2+ year cycle of actively 
rejecting mail to trap domains. If your users can’t figure out how to stop 
mailing domains that never accept a single email over the course of 2 years, I 
don’t think that’s really a trap maintainer problem.

I’ve taken the position, and tell my clients this, that EVERY SINGLE EMAIL that 
bounces is a potential spamtrap.This has been reinforced by the commercial 
services selling access to spamtrap data - where the spamtrap data is simply 
domains maintained by the commercial service. If your customers are bouncing 
mails then your response should be “they hit a spamtrap” not some vague “oh, 
well.”

laura

--
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
la...@wordtothewise.com<mailto:la...@wordtothewise.com>
(650) 437-0741

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog






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

Re: [mailop] Spamcop IP blacklisted

[Marco Franceschetti via mailop]

Hi

Same situation here at Contactlab (Italy).
Our hypothesis is that Spamcop has activated a few obsolete domains (typos, 
repurposed domains) as traps from one day to the other, or radically and 
suddenly changed the threshold - therefore, a few brand/senders with not 
brilliant list hygiene practices started to trigger IP blocks. Of course, this 
is a big issue for shared IP pools.

We have contacted some of these brands and involved them in a “crash course” on 
spam traps and segmentation.
I see some results, which is great because improves the overall quality of the 
traffic, but requires individual contact and relevant effort.
I will contact SpamCop as well because maybe they did’nt foresee the mass 
impact of this change.

Regards
Marco


Marco Franceschetti
Head of Deliverability | ContactLab
M. +39 331 1717 978 | T. +39 0228311887
marco.francesche...@contactlab.com

Via Natale Battaglia, 12 | Milano
contactlab.com/it



From: mailop  On Behalf Of Federico Bartolucci
Sent: venerdì 16 novembre 2018 11:08
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] Spamcop IP blacklisted

Hi,

I'm not from Spamcop but I manage a large email system in Italy, recently we 
often find out ips going into Spamcop for uncertain reasons, can I ask if you 
checked for compromised accounts used to send out emails?

Regards

federico bartolucci
mail systems administrator
Aruba.it
Il 16 novembre 2018 10:31:24 CET, Laura Atkins 
mailto:la...@wordtothewise.com>> ha scritto:
Send mail to deput...@spamcop.net. They’re 
generally pretty helpful.

You can also sign up for their report cards, which can sometimes be useful in 
identifying problems. 
https://wordtothewise.com/2013/11/getting-spamcop-summary-reports/ You’re an 
ISP so you may even get better reports than us mere plebs.

If this is a new issue, you may want to read back a few threads on mailop - it 
seems that microsoft is currently experiencing an infestation of the i have 
your password and you watch porn bitcoin spam. That may have generated enough 
complaints / trap hits (and those emails are going to traps) to cause the 
issue. I’m pretty sure they’re going to tell you to clean your outbound stream 
before they’ll consider delisting you.

laura


On 16 Nov 2018, at 08:16, Andy Onofrei via mailop 
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:

Hi guys,

Can someone from SpamCop reach out to me offlist ? Or if anyone has a contact 
for SpamCop or how it’s the best way to dispute or at least to find out more 
details about a certain IP block ?

Thank you

Andrei Onofrei
Dynamics 365 Email Deliverability Engineer
andrei.onof...@microsoft.com | +420 720 
359 205
BBC Delta Building, Vyskočilova 1561/4a, 140 00 Prague, The Czech Republic


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

--
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
la...@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog






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

[mailop] Anyone from Onet Poczta on this list?

[Marco Franceschetti via mailop]

Hello, 

I am looking for a contact person at Onet Poczta for mitigation request on 

Op.pl
Poczta.onet.pl
Vp.pl
Onet.pl
Etc. 

I am having difficulties in finding a contact form for online request. 

Thanks

Marco Franceschetti
Head of Deliverability | ContactLab
M. +39 331 1717 978 | T. +39 0228311887
marco.francesche...@contactlab.com

Via Natale Battaglia, 12 | Milano
contactlab.com/it 


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

[mailop] Multivariate Subject testing influences Gmail's filters?

[Marco Franceschetti via mailop]

Hi 

I am writing from ContactLab's Deliverability Team. One of our client has 
introduced multivariate testing on subject lines in the last 3 months. 
Gmail's inbox is since then more and more difficult to reach. 

I am not aware of all the methodological details... 
The multivariate tests are performed only on a variable portion of the list, 
from 10% up to 40% in recent sends, and not on all campaigns. 

Gmail's Postmaster tool shows that Domain and IP Reputation are generally 
decreasing in the last 3 months, after being almost stable for around 1 year. 
Inbox Placement on Mailbox Monitor in Gmail is also getting more and more 
problematic.

The multivariate tested subject lines are supposed to be more intriguing: they 
have introduced capital letters, special characters and symbols. 
Some examples:

 WOW  We've chosen [...]
❯❯ Oh... Look ❯❯ You've just discovered [...]
✔ We've Picked You For Extraordinary Deals

Apparently, nothing changed (i.e. unsub or complaint rate...) but:
-  the introduction of multivariate testing and 
- the new approach in the subject line's "style" in part the campaigns. 

So, my question is: anyone has noticed if multivariate testing per se can have 
a negative impact on Gmail's filters? 
Or, could the new style approach be to blame? 
Or both?

Regards, Marco

Marco Franceschetti
Head of Deliverability | ContactLab
M. +39 331 1717 978 | T. +39 0228311887
marco.francesche...@contactlab.com

Via Natale Battaglia, 12 | Milano
contactlab.com/it 

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