On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:16 PM Grant Taylor via mailop
wrote:
> On 12/14/2017 06:23 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> > If you want to argue more loudly that you *do* understand what it means
> > you could publish a matching DMARC record with p=discard. Doing that
> would
> > tell recipient ISPs that ei
On 14 Dec 2017, at 22:09 (-0500), Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
What happens when a lot of people shoot themselves in the foot and
receivers start giving DMARC less and less credence. Will we then
need something new to convince them that I really do mean what I
publish?
Yes.
It will happe
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:05 PM Noel Butler wrote:
> On 15/12/2017 10:29, st...@greengecko.co.nz wrote:
>
>
>
> December 15, 2017 1:12 PM, "Noel Butler" wrote:
>
> On 15/12/2017 09:27, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
>
> On 12/14/2017 03:28 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
>
> My point is that
In article <6582089ce2ad3fb3fd074ada73672...@ausics.net>,
Noel Butler wrote:
>Agreed, if I publish a -all (which I do and have done for a very very
>long time), I expect receivers doing SPF processing of my domains
>messages, to honor that! Who the hell are they to assume they know my
>network a
On 15/12/2017 10:29, st...@greengecko.co.nz wrote:
> December 15, 2017 1:12 PM, "Noel Butler" wrote:
>
> On 15/12/2017 09:27, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
> On 12/14/2017 03:28 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: My point is that -all
> is policy, and most people ignore the policy portions of
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Bill Cole
wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2017, at 14:01 (-0500), Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
>> Aside from a few HUGE providers, those with very large and disparate
>> networks/offices/topology
>
>
> SPF isn't related to the complexity of a network, but control of users using
>
On 12/14/2017 06:23 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
If you want to argue more loudly that you *do* understand what it means
you could publish a matching DMARC record with p=discard. Doing that would
tell recipient ISPs that either you've actually done appropriate analysis
of your mail stream, you under
On 12/14/2017 05:29 PM, st...@greengecko.co.nz wrote:
given just how hard it is to ensure your SPF is followed in these days
of mobile devices I don't think you should
I'll argue that mobile devices should be connecting to MSAs that are
under full control and configured to work within SPF (et
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> On 15/12/2017 09:27, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
>
>> On 12/14/2017 03:28 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
>>> My point is that -all is policy, and most people ignore the policy portions
>>> of SPF because it completely fails a lot of
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Grant Taylor via mailop
> wrote:
>
>> In practice, very few receivers implement SPF policy (except -all by itself
>> for domains which don't send mail as a special case).
>
> What sort of data / experience do you have to back that statement up? (I've
> not look
It seems to raise some feelings...
On 15-12-17 01:06, Noel Butler wrote:
On 15/12/2017 09:27, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
On 12/14/2017 03:28 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
My point is that -all is policy, and most people ignore the policy portions of
SPF because it completely fails
On 14 Dec 2017, at 14:01 (-0500), Jim Popovitch wrote:
Aside from a few HUGE providers, those with very large and disparate
networks/offices/topology
SPF isn't related to the complexity of a network, but control of users
using a domain name, which is a very different thing.
-all means
December 15, 2017 1:12 PM, "Noel Butler" wrote:
On 15/12/2017 09:27, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: On 12/14/2017
03:28 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:My point is that -all is policy, and
most people ignore the policy portions of SPF because it completely fails a lot
of forwarding c
On 15/12/2017 09:27, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
> On 12/14/2017 03:28 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
>
>> My point is that -all is policy, and most people ignore the policy portions
>> of SPF because it completely fails a lot of forwarding cases.
>
> Every postmaster (or organization b
On 12/14/2017 03:28 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
My point is that -all is policy, and most people ignore the policy
portions of SPF because it completely fails a lot of forwarding cases.
Every postmaster (or organization behind them) has the prerogative to
run their mail server(s) the wa
Thanks for your time and insights Mihai. Incredibly helpful.
Is it safe to assume that this recipient feedback has always been captured
by Microsoft's reputation systems and the only change is that senders are
now being exposed to it? I'm just trying to gather as many talking points
as I can in pr
My point is that -all is policy, and most people ignore the policy portions
of SPF because it completely fails a lot of forwarding cases.
-all is asking receivers to reject mail that doesn't pass.
~all isn't policy.
In practice, very few receivers implement SPF policy (except -all by itself
for
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Brandon Long via mailop
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:09 AM Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > In fact, you should not use "-all" for your mail domain if you care
>> > about delive
I'm attempting to get an IP de-listed that has been blocked for sending
legitimate mail (Network notifications..etc). My requests for delist have
been denied referencing the legitimate email as spam. My delist is replied
to from a devnull address and I'm told to request delist again when the
is
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:09 AM Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop
> wrote:
> >
> > In fact, you should not use "-all" for your mail domain if you care
> > about deliverability.
>
> FALSE! (Also, you should not randomly add CC recipients to th
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop
wrote:
>
> In fact, you should not use "-all" for your mail domain if you care
> about deliverability.
FALSE! (Also, you should not randomly add CC recipients to the same
mailinglist that you are responding to)
Aside from a few HUGE
Hi all,
I will try to explain what happened with the Microsoft FBL signal over the past
year from the Microsoft side.
There were three factors at play
a. We slowly transitioned the traffic away from the legacy Hotmail.com
infrastructure to Office365. Started moving some recipient domains in
> If you want to be a good neighbour, you should have a restrictive (not
> ~all) SPF
This is quite common misconception. In fact, you should not use "-all"
for your mail domain if you care about deliverability.
You can find this fact and many more SPF misconceptions explained here:
https://hacker
Any filtering is an evil and there is not any standard on how to
implement spam filtering. Any spam filter has false positives, and
Earthlink probably accepts false positives from this rule because it's
effective.
DKIM and DMARC require message DATA to be sent, especially corporate /
smaller ISP
On Thursday, 14 December, 2017 15:35, "Rob McEwen" said:
> I think that the importance of FCrDNS, and of setting FCrDNS up with a
> PTR record ending with the sender's PRIMARY domain name (or at least
> using an important domain - not some throwaway or utility domain - so
> that both identity
The PTR check is a lot older than checking for SPF, DKIM, and DMARC.
It's probably a 15+ year old MTA rule and you're getting blocked
before Earthlink would even have the chance to check for
authentication via DKIM or SPF. (And I'm not even sure if they do,
personally.) So yes, DKIM/SPF matter, els
On 12/14/2017 09:27 AM, Ryan Prihoda wrote:
>
> What about SPF, DMARC, DKIM ? I am sending 250k/day and only Earthlink
> seems to care.
Out of the box, SpamAssassin will penalize you too:
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/RDNS_NONE
___
mailop
On 12/14/2017 10:09 AM, Ryan Prihoda wrote:
What I was saying is FCrDNS /that /important to fail delivery when the
others are readily available to verify ?
I think that the importance of FCrDNS, and of setting FCrDNS up with a
PTR record ending with the sender's PRIMARY domain name (or at leas
Yes, I have proper SPF DMARC and DKIM set. What I was saying is FCrDNS
/that /important to fail delivery when the others are readily available
to verify ? I am not trying to push back , just understand. I'll be
fixing this issue as soon as we can.
So, what other email authentications methods a
If you want to be a good neighbour, you should have a restrictive (not
~all) SPF, DMARC, DKIM and a FcRDNS coherent with your HELO. If you have
all that, you should be able to send to anyone (besides hotmail).
Obviously, you should also not be in any major blacklists.
On 12/14/2017 03:27 PM, Ryan
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Ryan Prihoda
wrote:
>
> What about SPF, DMARC, DKIM ? I am sending 250k/day and only Earthlink
> seems to care. How many checks are actually necessary ?
>
>
You should look to implement SPF and DKIM for sure.
As for only earthlink seeming to care, how do you know
What about SPF, DMARC, DKIM ? I am sending 250k/day and only Earthlink
seems to care. How many checks are actually necessary ?
-Ryan
On 12/13/2017 03:32 PM, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop wrote:
Not only Earthlink cares, it's a standard procedure.
This validation confirms your IP really belo
Le 14/12/2017 à 00:06, Chace Barber via mailop a écrit :
Microsoft recently added the ability to report emails as "junk" in
mobile devices, something not previously available from them. This is
resulting in many more users being able to report emails as junk than
was the case a few months ago.
On 14 December 2017 at 00:06, Chace Barber via mailop wrote:
> Microsoft recently added the ability to report emails as "junk" in mobile
> devices, something not previously available from them. This is resulting in
> many more users being able to report emails as junk than was the case a few
>
The very same here.
Initially I was a bit concerned since Hotmail FBLs skyrocketed all of a
sudden but actually they halved few months ago and this could be an
adjustment.
Alberto
2017-12-13 13:00 GMT+01:00 Benjamin BILLON via mailop :
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Not especially on Nov. 18th, but starting 2
35 matches
Mail list logo
