On 31 Jul 2017, at 19:55, John Levine wrote:
Other than the usual horrible problems getting certs installed and
configured, it's a great way to do client authentication.
+1
Specially when you manage your own CA and can issue your own certs to
the clients at onboarding.
-lem
_
In article
you write:
>If someone connects to you, they don't send you a cert unless you're
>dealing with client certs, and I don't think
>DANE covers that at all, though I haven't read through it completely.
The client can present a cert in the TLS handshake if it wants to.
Few do and equally f
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, Ryan Harris wrote:
>Naturally we don't want to cause unrest within the ecosphere by keeping
>connections open for too long.
Have you looked at the related RFCs? (2821 and 1123 primarily but et
seq)
>>It would seem kind of pointless to keep a connection open for 10
>>minu
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2017, at 13:21, Ryan Harris via mailop wrote:
>
> Not that we're the best neighbors in this regard, but we don't reuse
> connections for the vast majority of endpoints, just the highest by volume,
> and we only keep connections ope
Anna's case is still uncanny, I trust her organization respects Gmail's
requirements to use identifiers for campaigns, and not being almost unique
per message sent. If it was the case anyway, she wouldn't get enough volume
per identifier to trigger any feedback.
I found a case in my data:
- number
Hi,
Not sure if anyone is here from 1&1 -- looking for someone within that
organization that I can work with on an abuse issue.
Thanks,
--Jaren
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
On 31 Jul 2017, at 13:21, Ryan Harris via mailop wrote:
Not that we're the best neighbors in this regard, but we don't reuse
connections for the vast majority of endpoints, just the highest by
volume,
and we only keep connections open for potential reuse for 30s.
Have you considered turning
I suggest “as short as possible” - 10, maybe 20 seconds with no mail?
laura
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Ryan Harris via mailop wrote:
>
>
> What are you optimizing for? Connection time/overhead?
>
> Optimizing for connection reuse since the overhead of creating connections is
> actua
What are you optimizing for? Connection time/overhead?
Optimizing for connection reuse since the overhead of creating connections
is actually high for us. So we want to send as many messages as we can over
a single connection before closing it.
Naturally we don't want to cause unrest within the
5 seconds :)
Really, opening a new connection is normally faster than that, and some
email endpoints might have a limited amount of SMTP sessions, so why hog
them when someone else can use them..
A Polite 'neighbour' would not hold it open 1 second longer than is
necessary...
On 17-07-31
What are you optimizing for? Connection time/overhead?
It would seem kind of pointless to keep a connection open for 10 minutes to
save 2s of connection time, for example.
Not that we're the best neighbors in this regard, but we don't reuse
connections for the vast majority of endpoints, just th
Well, actually it depends on how the identifiers are defined, if they are
almost unique per messages sent, that's normal, but we don't have enough
infos here on how the identifiers are assigned/defined.
users spam rate is the spam rate for your whole domain, not depending if it
reach any max spam
The good news is: DMARC has a built in method for alerting Amazon to this. And
if it’s widespread, then it will definitely come to their attention through
proper channels.
laura
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:19 AM, Carl Byington wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> A
Hello,
I was curious if anyone had documentation or knew appropriate times to keep
an SMTP connection open and when to close that connection. Would connecting
via telnet to an ISP and watching when that connection closes, be the
source of truth on how long an SMTP connection should be lasting with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Amazon.com asks that mail with header from: of amazon.com that fails
dkim should be quarantined.
dig _dmarc.amazon.com txt +short
"v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc-
repo...@bounces.amazon.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc-repo...@bounces.amazon
Digging up this topic,
@Anna> you might have had some feedback from Google about that since your
message?
I can still sleep at night, but I'm curious about the outcome!
--
Benjamin
2017-05-31 18:23 GMT+02:00 Nick Schafer :
> The feedback loop shouldn't include messages caught by their spam fi
16 matches
Mail list logo
