Re: [mailop] TALOS and newly created domains

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

Is it a newly registered domain, or a new sub domain?

New domains are frequently blocked just for being new. Normally I'd
recommend 30-90 days of ownership before trying to use it for anything
email related. Also ensure that is has a valid A record, or redirects to
the mail web page. Sometimes you just need to wait it out.

New subdomains shouldn't have this issue, unless it is not properly
authenticated?

~ Matt


On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 2:05 PM Scott Q. via mailop 
wrote:

> Hello list,
>
> this customer just created his domain, literally yesterday, they are
> legitimate and are trying to e-mail some recipient that uses Cisco Talos
> protection.
> The message is bounced with an error saying it's due to the poor
> reputation of a domain used in the transfer but the Cisco Talos website
> shows reputation: Unknown
>
> Could it be something else blocking it ?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
> ___
> 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] Virgina Media in UK bouncing emails with "550 Mailbox unavailable"

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

Random thought - Have you validated that their email authentication is
configured properly for the mail they are sending?

originprobate.com

"spf":
"record": "v=spf1 mx -all",
"valid": true,
"dns_lookups": 1,
"dns_void_lookups": 0,
"warnings": [],
"parsed": {
  "pass":
  "value": "cumaru.open-t.co.uk",
  "mechanism": "mx"

 "dmarc": {
"record": null,
"valid": false,
"location": null,
"error": "A DMARC record does not exist for this domain or its base
domain"

~ Matt


On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 7:21 AM Sebastian Arcus via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:

> Hello list. In the last few days Virgin Media in UK (@virginmedia.com,
> @ntlworld.com) have started to bounce emails from one of the domains I
> manage. There isn't a lot to go on - as being a 550 message, there isn't
> any info about being blacklisted or similar. I am working on the
> assumption that they have some sort of spam filtering in place, and this
> domain or its IP address might have been blacklisted somewhere. The
> domain name is @originprobate.com and it is a really low email volume
> domain, with no marketing or similar activities. I checked at MX Toolbox
> both the domain name and the MX IP address (which is used by a few other
> domains I manage) and both come back clean. The other domains haven't
> experienced any issues yet, so it seems the IP of the MX is clean. There
> hasn't been any recent change in settings at our end that I can think of.
>
> I've searched online but can't find if Virgin Media UK has some sort of
> form to fill in or contact details to check if a domain is blacklisted
> with them, or to submit an application to remove from such a blacklist,
> if one exists.
>
> Does anyone here have experience of dealing with Virgina Media UK or
> some insight as to what their approach is? I would think it is a poor
> idea to reply with "550 - Mailbox unavailable" when rejecting suspected
> spam, instead of some appropriate message - but different administrators
> seem to have different views on how email should work. Such is life.
>
> Any suggestions to move this further are much appreciated.
> ___
> 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] [External] Understanding why a spammer is doing this

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

 Have you also configured your DKIM to oversign your mail as well?

h= should include duplicate values for *Date: to: cc: Subject: From: Date:
to: cc: Subject: From:* to prevent abuse and the replay of the emails.

Also accessing an X= value to something reasonable (3 to 5 days) is a good
idea, if you're not doing that as well.

These changes have helped a lot of ESPs reduce the success of replay issues
with theirs and their client's DKIM keys.

~ Matt


On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 12:38 PM Mark Fletcher via mailop 
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for the responses and suggestions. I've deleted the old DKIM DNS
> record, and will be implementing a system to rotate the keys every 14 days,
> as a starting point.
>
> To answer some questions: I don't think the emails have been modified in
> any way, although I haven't seen a complete copy of one. At least some of
> the people that get these messages are not spammer accounts, at least
> judging by the angry "Unsubscribe me!" emails they send our support email
> address.  We currently sign all non X- email headers.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
> ___
> 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] Domains discrimination

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 3:39 PM Ralph Seichter via mailop 
wrote:

> * Jeff Pang via mailop:
>
> > Is there domain name discrimination in the email industry?
>
> That's a provocative way of asking your question. ;-)
>
> > For example, com, net, and org are considered to have higher
> > reputations, while info, xyz, and top are considered to have lower
> > ratings. [...] Will this lower the ratings of these domain names?
>
>
Spamhaus publishes a list of the TLD space and how many "bad things" are
happening on a specific TLD.

https://www.spamhaus.org/reputation-statistics/cctlds/domains/

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

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: AT&T Block

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 2:32 PM Ralph Seichter via mailop 
wrote:

> * Anne P. Mitchell:
>
> > Receivers don't block email from new IPs by default; they block them
> > when they notice something amiss with the email (be it improper
> > authentication, spam complaints, or something else).
>
> That looks like a too generalised assessment to me. As I mentioned in a
> different thread on this mailing list, my experience with Telekom /
> T-Online has been that their MXs soft-block servers with unfamiliar IPs
> from handing over email by default.
>
> One needs to contact them via a specific service address contained in
> the rejection message, and have the new IP address cleared for mail
> delivery to T-Online operated domains. That's not exactly in the spirit
> of a free Internet, but obtaining server clearance is a matter of a few
> hours only, based on my own experience with this process over the years.
> It is also a once-per-IP-address thing.
>
>
I'd say my usual experience is different, having worked with dozens of
organizations moving to new Dedicated IPs for sending marketing emails,
Rate limits and slow growth is usually the way to resolve these blocks. At
AT&T and other mailbox providers, such as Yahoo.you need to send a trickle
of email at first to their networks, fully authenticated, and of high
quality (Desired emails) that are going to get good engagement from the
initial users. Then you can gradually grow this number over the next
several weeks.

Grow to fast, or don't properly look at the MXs/domain groups associated
with the network (i.e. Bellsouth, att, SBC, etc...), and you'll trigger the
alerts and get blocked. These are generally temporary, so back off and wait
and try again at a lower volume later.

T-online has a very specific set of rules that they want senders to follow,
the same thing applies to them: follow the rules, send slow and grow and
you typically won't have generic problems out of the gate.

Some mailbox providers appreciate a heads up to say - NEW IP coming online
please be aware - and they will take steps to help you out Yahoo and
Outlook are examples of this.

Turning on the firehose of email is not usually the best option for new IPs
regardless of the mail being sent.

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

Re: [mailop] Email Bounces

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

Sounds like you're sending faster than your reputation allows based on the
indicated AUP-1310 flag:

1300 - 1340
Spectrum limits the number of concurrent connections from a sender, as well
as the total number of connections allowed. Limits vary based on the
reputation of the IP address. Reduce your number of connections and try
again later.

Try sending slower to spectrum domains.

~ Matt


On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 6:36 AM Polath, Kiran via mailop 
wrote:

> Hello Team,
>
> We at Broadridge Financial Solutions sends millions of email as financial
> customer communication on behalf of our clients .We see our emails are
> frequently getting blocked by charter.net
> 
>  & rr.com, this is impacting our reputation . Can you take it as high
> priority and remediate this as it is very important to our customers to
> have this resolved. please find the below reasons
>
> 550 5.1.0 ...@... sender rejected. Please see
> https://www.spectrum.net/support/internet/{hash}-{hash} for more
> information. AUP#In-1310
>
> rest
>
> 2023-11-15 02:52:11 EST
>
> charter.net
>
> 550 5.1.0 ...@... sender rejected. Please see
> https://www.spectrum.net/support/internet/{hash}-{hash} for more
> information. AUP#In-1310
>
> rest
>
> 2023-11-15 02:52:11 EST
>
> wi.rr.com
>
> 550 5.1.0 ...@... sender rejected. Please see
> https://www.spectrum.net/support/internet/{hash}-{hash} for more
> information. AUP#In-1310
>
> rest
>
> 2023-11-15 02:52:11 EST
>
> charter.net
>
> 550 5.1.0 ...@... sender rejected. Please see
> https://www.spectrum.net/support/internet/{hash}-{hash} for more
> information. AUP#In-1310
>
> rest
>
> 2023-11-15 02:52:10 EST
>
> wi.rr.com
>
> 550 5.1.0 ...@... sender rejected. Please see
> https://www.spectrum.net/support/internet/{hash}-{hash} for more
> information. AUP#In-1310
>
> rest
>
> 2023-11-15 02:52:10 EST
>
> wi.rr.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> *Kiran Kumar Polath* | ICS-Email Operations | Broadridge Financial
> Solutions (India) Private Limited
> Adjacent to Cyber Towers, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur | Hyderabad 500081
> Telangana | India | m +91 8008297767| m +91 9154044691
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> broadridge.com 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
> If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized
> representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
> ___
> 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] Intentionally vague SPF records.

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

+1 to Mark's comments... Without discovery you'll never know if you're over
the limits or not.

Setup a p=none policy, and see where the mail is coming from.

You may need to update systems, or change some domains to use subdomains,
or a different MailFrom: etc... but If massive global corporations like
Disney, HP, and Oracle, can figure it out you can too.

A lot of DMARC reporting services will likely offer some kind of SPF
flattening as part of their services without extra cost.

~ MV


On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 8:29 AM Mark Alley via mailop 
wrote:

> What makes you think you'd go over the limit if you haven't done the
> discovery? You might be surprised that you may not exceed the lookup count,
> as with optimization/analysis and proper SPF design (even without
> flattening), the lookup count can be quite easily managed. This sounds like
> a prime candidate for your mail source discovery with DMARC reporting
> .
>
> Using ?all (neutral) might be best for deliverability's sake while you
> build out this SPF record during discovery. This would have the same effect
> as your current scenario of having no SPF record, while still allowing for
> positive matches of your legitimate known mail-flow until you get to a
> point you move to ~all.
>
> - Mark Alley
> On 1/11/2023 7:08 AM, Simon Burke via mailop wrote:
>
> All,
>
> This is an odd scenario, but sadly one I find myself in.
>
> Work is a large organisation, and currently does not have an SPF record.
> The reason is that there are a large (and unknown) number of internal and
> external parties that send mail on our domain, as well as sub-domains.
>
> So, even if we do determine who sends email on the domain, we would then
> have an issue with max lookups and record length.
>
> I know we can use an SPF flattening service. However that either has a
> cost. Or, although we can develop something in house, there's a 'bought not
> built' ethos being pushed by management.
>
> As an out the box idea, what would the potential impact be of having an
> SPF record stating just:
>
> "V=spf1 a mx +all"
>
> How bad of an idea would this be? If we also had a DMARC record set to
> either quarantine or reject.
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> mailop mailing listmailop@mailop.orghttps://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
>
> ___
> 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] IBM: [to unsubscribe] please enter your first, last name, email and country

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

CAN-SPAM, CASL and several other Anti-Spam/Digital Marketing laws require
that the recipient only need to supply their email addresses to
unsubscribe. It may also be a requirement of their ESP, send a note to the
abuse desk for 1 unsolicited emails, 2 possible violations of local or
relevant legislation.

This process sounds like a direct violation of these laws (IANAL).

~ MV


On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 10:41 AM Lukas Tribus via mailop 
wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
>
> The URL in question is from an unsubscribe link in an opt-out-only
> unsolicited marketing email from IBM (no business has ever been
> conducted with IBM from this) through marketo.com (leopard.mktdns.com,
> return-path/dkim signed mktomail.com):
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20221206150930/https://www.ibm.com/account/reg/us-en/signup?formid=urx-42537
>
> Unsubscribe from Marketing: Opt-Out request
> We are sorry to see you go, but happy to process your request to
> remove you from future IBM marketing communications.
> Please enter your first, last name, email and country in this form to
> enable us to validate who you are and process your request**.
> ** Note that it may take a few business days to align all our systems
> to your request.
>
>
> nice!
> ___
> 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] WTaF? I just got spammed BY Active Campaign

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

Sure but Active Campaign sent this not Shopify. 

One rogue sales person sending cold email doesn’t mean the whole company is bad 
either. 

~
Matt

> On Apr 26, 2022, at 18:47, Richard W via mailop  wrote:
> 
> Isn't Shopify Canadian?  Hand it off to the CRTC
> 
> Richard
> 
> On 2022-04-26 4:27 p.m., Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote:
 On Apr 26, 2022, at 3:59 PM, Michael Rathbun via mailop 
  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:30:28 -0600, Anne Mitchell via mailop
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
 WTaF??
>>> 
>>> I presume they are encouraging you to spam your legal services through them,
>>> rather than on the cover and spine of the local Yellow Pages™?
>> It's worse than that, the spam is for *no* sort of business even remotely 
>> related to anything I do - it's for "my" Shopify store!  I've never had an 
>> ecomm store in my life, let alone a Shopify store.
>> And, it went to my normal ISIPP address, I mean, you'd think they'd know...
>> Anne
>> ---
>> Outsource your email deliverability headaches to us, and get to the inbox, 
>> guaranteed!
>> www.GetToTheInbox.com
>> Anne P. Mitchell,  Esq.
>> CEO Get to the Inbox by SuretyMail
>> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing 
>> law)
>> Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook
>> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
>> Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
>> Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
>> Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
>> Counsel Emeritus, MAPS: Mail Abuse Prevention System (now the anti-spam 
>> division of TrendMicro)
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] What am I supposed to do with abuse complaints on legit mail?

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:41 AM Jay Hennigan via mailop 
wrote:

> Agreed 100%.
>
> A single acknowledgement of a successful unsubscribe is fine, but don't
> make them jump through another flaming hoop. This goes double if the
> "subscription" is the typical webinar/whitepaper spam that they never
> wanted in the first place.
>
> In my opinion, a single reply email, "You have been unsubscribed from
> xyz mailing list" is a good thing to do.
>

A number of years ago while working at an ESP we tried this, sending a
notice that was along the lines of "Thank you for reporting this message as
spam, we have taken action to remove you from the mailing list and will
review the sending practices of XYZ Brand ."

Two things happened:

1 - People replied in large numbers "I never reported this as spam, I want
to continue receiving these emails" - depending on the day >20% of the
messages generated this reply
2 - People reported the reply/notification as spam.

Needless to say it was a short-lived experiment as it just created more
support overhead for us having to undo the unsubscribe or deal with angry
customers getting calls from their subscribers. Which is actually in line
with where this whole conversation started...

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

Re: [mailop] What am I supposed to do with abuse complaints on legit mail?

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

Also check which email client they are using. For example Thunderbird, or
another plugin, may move mail from the inbox to the junk folder without the
user taking action.

Thus potentially generating a complaint without the user's knowledge.

~ Matt

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 4:53 PM Brie via mailop  wrote:

> On 1/10/22 12:10 PM, Douglas Vought via mailop wrote:
> > I told the customer I removed her from email as I interpreted the abuse
> > report as a request to stop mailing her. She said, "no, I want to keep
> > receiving these emails and I didn't mark any of them as spam".
> >
> > But it happened again. The Yahoo anti-spam feedback system is saying an
> > email we sent her is abuse.
> >
> > Does anyone have any tips on handling abuse complaints on legit email?
>
>
> Once is an accident, two times is her being careless.  Unsub her, and
> block her from resubscribing.  If she can't use the Spam button
> responsibly even with the training wheels providers put on it...
>
> Well, that's her problem.
>
> --
> Brielle Bruns
> The Summit Open Source Development Group
> http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
> ___
> 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] Paging the Yahoo! postmaster

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

Ken,

Check out https://postmaster.yahooinc.com/ for help - there is a contact
form and an email address you can reach out to for help directly from the
Yahoo team.

Cheers,

~ Matt Vernhout

http://www.emailkarma.net
Twitter: @emailkarma/@CAUCE


On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 9:26 AM Ken O'Driscoll via mailop 
wrote:

> Hi there,
>
>
>
> I have an ESP client that appears to be stuck in an stock reply loop with
> a particular postmaster issue. The issue relates to 421’ing on a specific
> IP, which is used by a single sender for transactional messages. They have
> been trying to get this looked at for nearly a month, and I’m suspecting
> that their case is being misclassified or something like that.
>
>
>
> Would very much appreciate someone reaching out off-list.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ken.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Microsoft blocking/spammarking messages

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

You need to start here for help: 
https://sendersupport.olc.protection.outlook.com/snds/

~
Matt

> On Dec 10, 2020, at 12:11, Nate Burke via mailop  wrote:
> 
> Hello, I was hoping someone from Microsoft could contact me offlist for help 
> getting our server (66.151.17.22) removed from the Microsoft blacklist.  I'm 
> having problems sending to outlook.com/msn.com and others with domains hosted 
> at office365.  I can't find any issues with the server, and I don't appear to 
> be on any other blacklists, but all messages to Microsoft are either getting 
> rejected or sent to the spam folder.  The mailserver has been at this IP for 
> many many years, but these issues just started about 10 days ago.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated.
> 
> Error message;
> 
> <<< 550 5.7.1 Unfortunately, messages from [66.151.17.22] weren't sent. 
> Please contact your Internet service provider since part of their network is 
> on our block list (S3150). You can also refer your provider to 
> http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors. 
> [BN8NAM12FT057.eop-nam12.prod.protection.outlook.com]
> 
> The link does not appear to have any way for admins to view/remove the server 
> from the blacklist.
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> Nate Burke
> Blast  Communications
> ___
> 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] Microsoft contact for misclassified spam issue?

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

Start here: 
https://sendersupport.olc.protection.outlook.com/pm/policies.aspx

It has the rules and a link to get help from the support team. 

~
Matt

> On Aug 7, 2020, at 11:40, John Gateley via mailop  wrote:
> 
> Hi y'all,
> 
> I am using a user auth SaaS, and one of the actions it performs is sending 
> "Reset your password" emails.
> These emails have links inside for users to reset their passwords.
> 
> Delivery to most places is working (Google etc.) but Microsoft Office 365 
> users are consistently getting their emails in the junk folder.
> 
> I have tried everything I can think of... is there a contact at Microsoft 
> here that could give me a hand?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> John
> 
> ___
> 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] bell.ca?

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

Just in case I passed this along to one of my contacts at Bell... not sure if 
they are represented here or not. 

Cheers,

~
Matt

> On Jan 16, 2020, at 18:21, Steven Champeon via mailop  
> wrote:
> 

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

Re: [mailop] BIMI

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

Yes it’s a thing, Verizon (Yahoo web and Mobile) is supporting it now. Google 
has announced a pilot in 2020. VMC is not currently required at VZM, and the 
overall requirements are still being defined by the working group.

Stay tuned for more info on the bimigroup.org website, we are planning to add 
more info very soon. 

~
Matt

> On Dec 4, 2019, at 17:59, Doug Barton via mailop  wrote:
> 
> I'm starting to see requests for BIMI DNS records from clients. Is it a 
> thing yet? I'm not opposed to being an early (or early'ish) adopter, but are 
> there any caveats? Has anyone gone through the Verified Mark Certificate 
> process? Any other thoughts?
> 
> Doug
> 
> ___
> 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] Best strategy to prune address list

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

There are also several legislative hurdles you’ll need to evaluate the list 
against. Two that come to mind are: 

Canada’s Anti-Spam Law has a two year expiry on implied consent. If you have 
addresses older than that in Canada you would likely be in violation of the 
law. 

GDPR also has some rules around understanding why a business is processing your 
data, why they have your data, how they use it, etc... all of this beyond 
consent. It’s rather complex for older data. 

if you don’t have the right consent and proof to back it up, track the source, 
and user location just cleaning the list won’t matter. 
~
Matt

> On Nov 23, 2019, at 16:15, Rolf E. Sonneveld via mailop  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Steve,
> 
>> On 23-11-19 20:18, Steve Atkins via mailop wrote:
>> 
>>> On 23/11/2019 19:05, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via mailop wrote:
>>> "Rolf E. Sonneveld via mailop"  writes:
>>> 
 What would be a good strategy for this customer to update his list of
 contacts?
>> 
>> If it's old enough that they're asking the question, and are afraid of the 
>> impact of even a single "Hey, still interested?" email then toss the list 
>> and start over. Whatever process they go through to clean it up is going to 
>> leave it as still a junk list.
>> 
>> If some of it is "old" (6+ months, say) then that applies to the old 
>> segment. Newer email addresses are likely recoverable.
>> 
>> If there aren't any signup or last-mailed dates on the list then it's all 
>> old.
> 
> To be honest, I don't know how old the list is, but thanks for your advise, 
> seems a good strategy to me.
> 
>> 
>>> In the olden days, one would simply write a script, using expect(1) or
>>> similar, to go through the addresses, connect to the target MTAs, and do
>>> an SMTP VRFY on the recipient address.  Today, I suspect that most MTAs
>>> will refuse to service a VRFY request.
>>> 
>>> Anyone know if that assumption is good?
>> 
>> You're a couple of decades out of touch with email to even consider that 
>> approach.
>> 
>> More usually a list owner who is really convinced they can save a bad list 
>> would buy list cleaning services from one of the companies that offer them. 
>> They'll use a variety of approaches to categorize the email addresses on a 
>> list into deliverable vs not.
>> 
>> There are relatively reputable companies who offer email address validation 
>> or scoring, typically aiming at real-time validation at signup and similar 
>> situations. These are not the companies you go to for list cleaning.
>> 
>> They're generally pretty inaccurate, and in ethics / respect for the email 
>> ecosystem only a step or two removed from professional spammers. If that.
> 
> How can I distinguish one (list cleaning services) from the other (address 
> validation/scoring)? Do you have some examples of reputable list cleaning 
> services?
> 
> Thanks,
> /rolf
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] [EXTERNAL] Re: Reasons ISPs (Microsoft) ignore DMARC policy?

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

If a sender asked you to reject that mail with their policy do them a favour 
and send a bounce that says something like  ‘your DMARC said to bounce failed 
messages, if this is wrong fix your authentication and try again’   

Bounces like this tend to get people attention. 

~
Matt

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 17:48, Michael Wise via mailop  wrote:
> 
> if i rejected messages on dmarc failure, i would reject a lot of legitimate 
> messages (from well-intentioned but misconfigured senders and mailing lists) 
> but not so much spam

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

Re: [mailop] Bell Sympatico contact

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

I sent a note to my contact at Bell about this. They might reach out for more 
info if they need it. 

~
Matt

> On Sep 25, 2019, at 18:54, J Doe via mailop  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 25, 2019, at 2:24 PM, J Doe via mailop  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Is there a representative from Bell / Sympatico (Canada), on this list ?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> - J
> 
> To add some context: 
> 
> Is there a representative on this list from Bell / Sympatico that can help me 
> reach the postmaster(s) for @sympatico.ca e-mail ?  I am seeing evidence of 
> an Bell / Sympatico MTA that is relaying without STARTTLS.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - J
> ___
> 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] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:43 PM Al Iverson via mailop 
wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop
>  wrote:
> >
> > On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
> >
> > > In '1984' there's Newspeak.  Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak.
> Clarity in
> > > discussion is to be avoided at any (reasonable) cost.
> >
> > Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing
> > appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead
> > of "confirmed opt-in".
>
> It strikes me as shitty that when faced with the knowledge that
> somebody has implemented confirmed opt-in, you choose to attack them
> for calling it double opt-in, instead of being pleased that they've
> implemented the practice.
>

 +1 it's the practice that's important not the name you give it.

Many marketing people use these two terms interchangeably, I'm probably
guilty of it myself over the last 20 years. They are even listed as the
same thing in the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-in_email#Confirmed_opt-in_(COI)/Double_opt-in_(DOI)
where
people will find it when searching "What is confirmed opt-in"

Many also see the term confirmed as "I sent you a note confirming that you
are now subscribed" so it's an equally bad term to hold someone too.

Pick your battles, the difference between using COI/DOI when the net result
is the one you want is not worth fighting over.

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