Re: [mailop] Email Bounces

[Marco via mailop]

Am 16.11.2023 schrieb "Polath, Kiran via mailop" :

> 550 5.1.0 ...@... sender rejected. Please see
> https://www.spectrum.net/support/internet/{hash}-{hash}

Does that page show something about the issue?
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] How to report abuse to cloudflare? Only via Web-Form?!? Phishing sites not against cloudflare policy!?!

[Marco via mailop]

Am 16.11.2023 schrieb Laura Atkins via mailop :

> They protect a whole lot worse than phishing sites and have doxxed
> people who complain about abuse. 

Is there a source for the latter?
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Microsoft lays hands on login data: Beware of the new Outlook

[Marco via mailop]

Am 10.11.2023 22:27 schrieb Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop:

> Dnia 10.11.2023 o godz. 21:09:31 Louis Laureys via mailop pisze:
> > You can probably tell from my wording how I feel about this. I get
> > the battery efficiency part. Not the part where ActiveSync has an
> > exception to it, and their own battery efficient IDLE alternative
> > is not accessible to most. Let alone the fact that has caused
> > basically all third party emails to just capture your credentials.  
> 
> I don't understand, why the push notifications cannot work
> independently of IMAP?

It would be possible, but that needs to be polled (SPI firewalls, NAT
etc. need at least hole-punching).
Companies like MS or Apple don't look for such a solution when the
users accept that they have their credentials.

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

Re: [mailop] IPv6 capable servers send with IPv4 to me

[Marco via mailop]

Am 06.10.2023 schrieb Stuart Henderson :

> On 2023/10/06 13:08, Marco via mailop wrote:
> > Am 06.10.2023 schrieb Bjørn Bürger via mailop :
> >   
> > > 15 yrs ago I would have agreed to Wietse Venemas view, but
> > > nowadays this kind of "solution" is just adding confusion and
> > > makes debugging harder for everyone, unfortunately.   
> > 
> > And sadly it creates a comfortable solution for admins of
> > non-functional networks instead of fixing stuff.  
> 
> As does the standard mechanism used in browers for dealing with the
> same type of situation.

Although they try IPv6 first and don't do a "protocol balancing", at
least I haven't experienced that yet.

> RFC 8305 9.3 has a suggested approach to dealing with this.

|   The algorithm proceeds as follows: if a positive  response (a
|   response with at least one valid  record) is received first, the
|   first IPv6 connection attempt is immediately started.  If a positive
|   A response is received first due to reordering, the client SHOULD
|   wait a short time for the  response to ensure that preference is
|   given to IPv6 (it is common for the  response to follow the A
|   response by a few milliseconds).

For me that read more like "try IPv6 first and fallback to IPv4 quick
if IPv6 doesn't work".
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] IPv6 capable servers send with IPv4 to me

[Marco via mailop]

Am 06.10.2023 schrieb Bjørn Bürger via mailop :

> 15 yrs ago I would have agreed to Wietse Venemas view, but nowadays
> this kind of "solution" is just adding confusion and makes debugging
> harder for everyone, unfortunately. 

And sadly it creates a comfortable solution for admins of non-functional
networks instead of fixing stuff.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] IPv6 capable servers send with IPv4 to me

[Marco via mailop]

Am 06.10.2023 schrieb Bjørn Bürger via mailop :

> Some MTAs, like postfix for example, do load balancing across ip
> protocols. I have no idea, why they think, this might be a good idea,
> though.

At least sendmail doesn't seem to do that. :-)
I can understand very low timeouts for IPv6 and fast fallbacks and even
statistics for time-outs, so the servers won't be probed with IPv6
again for a certain amount of time, but I cannot see any reason for
balancing of IPv4 and IPv6 if a server offers both.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] IPv6 capable servers send with IPv4 to me

[Marco via mailop]

Am 06.10.2023 schrieb Stuart Henderson :

> Networks single-homed behind cogent can't connect to networks
> single-homed behind he.net and vice-versa.

Is that related to PMTU-blackhole?
Who is guilty for that?
Why isn't that going to be fixed?
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] IPv6 capable servers send with IPv4 to me

[Marco via mailop]

Am 06.10.2023 schrieb Stuart Henderson :

> On 2023/10/06 10:09, Marco via mailop wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > I have an IPv6 and IPv4 accessible server, both protocols work and I
> > receive mails with IPv6 too.
> > Although, I see that certain IPv6 capable servers send with IPv4 in
> > some cases.
> > I am not aware of any outages and the strange things is it is rather
> > random which protocol they use.
> > 
> > relay=mx.mailop.org [91.132.147.157] #never sent me mail via IPv6,
> > but I can send to them via IPv6
> > relay=bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100]
> > relay=bendel.debian.org [IPv6:2001:41b8:202:deb:216:36ff:fe40:4002]
> > 
> > What can be the reason for that?  
> 
> Postfix balances address families by default to avoid blockages if one
> isn't working:

Isn't a timeout of some seconds enough for that?

Most people have a working connection and most servers too.

> https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_address_preference
> https://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_balance_inet_protocols

Does the balancing test IPv6 first or is it just randomly?
Does it use the first address that works?

Then that explains the behaviour.

> Perhaps some other MTAs have similar too.

All of the MTAs that create that effect use Postfix, so it seems to be
related to it.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] IPv6 capable servers send with IPv4 to me

[Marco via mailop]

Hello!

I have an IPv6 and IPv4 accessible server, both protocols work and I
receive mails with IPv6 too.
Although, I see that certain IPv6 capable servers send with IPv4 in
some cases.
I am not aware of any outages and the strange things is it is rather
random which protocol they use.

relay=mx.mailop.org [91.132.147.157] #never sent me mail via IPv6, but
I can send to them via IPv6
relay=bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100]
relay=bendel.debian.org [IPv6:2001:41b8:202:deb:216:36ff:fe40:4002]

What can be the reason for that?

-- 
kind regards
Marco
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Recent increase in GMail 421-4.7.28 responses

[Marco via mailop]

Am 06.10.2023 schrieb Slavko via mailop :

> Dňa 5. 10. o 9:58 Bernardo Reino via mailop napísal(a):
> 
> > I have the same issue. Unfortunately there's a lot of servers which 
> > request DMARC reports, but then outright reject them (or use an
> > invalid address).
> > 
> > My list of no_dmarc_reporting_domains.txt (in RSPAMD) keeps
> > growing, slowly.  
> 
> But this is not usual SPAM with fake or misconfigured rua mailbox, it
> is domain (github.com) where i send reports for long time and only
> last days it  returns NDR...
> 
> Its settings is strange in result, as they ask report and then refuse
> to delivery it.

Have you tried to inform the postmaster of them to notice about the
problem?
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop