Observe what issue? Looks like a block that is still in place so you need to
reach out to Yahoo.
From: mailop on behalf of Vaibhav
Date: Thursday, 10 May 2018 at 10:24 AM
To:
Subject: [mailop] Anyone from Yahoo ?
Hi Everyone,
Anyone from Yahoo over here ? We are facing blocking at Ya
Hi Everyone,
Anyone from Yahoo over here ? We are facing blocking at Yahoo for one of
our Banking domain where we tried to reach out yahoo postmaster team. As
per postmaster they have resolve the issue but we are still unable to
delivery email.
We are getting below SMTP error code. We tried to se
> On May 9, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Marc Goldman via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> For those of us who came tardy to the party can you share the signup details
> for the spam and messaging abuse lists and any related others we may be able
> to get on?
Some public, open access ones that are moderately ne
On 05/09/2018 12:19 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
take it to the spam or messaging abuse focused lists
Can I get some pointers to / names of such lists?
I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something.
Thanks in advance.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic
No problem.. end of thread.
In this case, it was reported due to a couple of factors..
* Relevant to previous thread about ESP's checking for obvious risk
factors (EnvelopeFrom vs From domains)
* Reminder to ESP's to use IP space that is properly SWIP'ed (contact info)
* A particularly severe
For those of us who came tardy to the party can you share the signup details
for the spam and messaging abuse lists and any related others we may be able to
get on?
On May 9, 2018 at 2:24:19 PM, Steve Atkins (st...@blighty.com) wrote:
It is never spam discussion day on MailOp, unless it's ope
It is never spam discussion day on MailOp, unless it's operationally relevant
to email. If it's not, like this, maybe take it to the spam or messaging abuse
focused lists, some of which I'm sure you're on or reach out to the relevant
company directly?
Cheers,
Steve
> On May 9, 2018, at 11:09
On 9 May 2018 at 18:38, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Sorry - i just noticed that the hand-typed message we had sent you was from
> 2017 - I had quickly copied and pasted the date and mistakenly assumed it
> was from 2018 - so ignore that part. (but that doesn't change what I stated
> above very much)
The
Return-Path:
Received: from mta65a.sparkpostmail.com (HELO mta65a.sparkpostmail.com)
(54.244.48.142)
Subject: Confirm your payment method !
From: =?utf-8?B?TtCV0KJGTEnQpQ==?=
List-Id:
Fake Netflix Account renewal spam, probably a Ransomware or Phishing..
Same issue as MailGun, when the Enve
John,
that's why I enabled it without worrying because my own mail was rejected I
think it was AOL because the internal host name used by postfix was not in the
DNS...
Anyway, solved with your help here, thx
Andreas
Am 9. Mai 2018 13:20:25 GMT-04:00, schrieb John Levine :
>In article
>
>you
On 9 May 2018 at 18:21, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Stefano,
>
> (can't speak for spamauditor... but regarding invaluement...)
>
> (1) To answer the question about "no false positive reports" - The general
> []
> - and while that is just one factor - and other things are considered, too -
> when weeks
In article
you write:
>I'm curious what your FP rate is on this strict checking of the HELO host
>name. I don't believe any of the major inbox providers do it, which should
>be a clue it is not very accurate of a signal.
It's pretty low. I happen to know that AOL does which is why it's
amusing
On 5/9/2018 12:21 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 5/9/2018 8:04 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Contacting ivm or spamauditor they often say they have no "false
positives for the block" so they are uneasy removing it and they also
don't have (or don't share) the issue that originated the block (we
are talki
Recommend that you do more checking when the From address domain portion
doesn't match the domain portion presented in the EnvelopeFrom
Return-Path: @mail.ismail.tech>
Reply-To:
From: "Pesch Bernd"
X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 198.61.254.41
X-Mailgun-Sid: WyJjNWE1OCIsICJzdXBwb3J0QGxpbnV4bWFnaWMuY29
On 5/9/2018 8:04 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Contacting ivm or spamauditor they often say they have no "false
positives for the block" so they are uneasy removing it and they also
don't have (or don't share) the issue that originated the block (we
are talking about shared IPs/domains), and I under
Thx for the hints, I adapted my settings.
Regards,
Andreas
Am 09.05.2018 11:43, schrieb Michael Peddemors:
Yes, the HELO having an A record is still something that you can't
expect to realistically happen all the time.
The HELO generally represents the host name of the server, but many
organi
Yes, the HELO having an A record is still something that you can't
expect to realistically happen all the time.
The HELO generally represents the host name of the server, but many
organizations might use internal naming conventions for these that
aren't meant to be used.
But in general you '
There is no requirement in any standard for HELO name to have A record.
It may e.g. have SPF TXT record.
RFC 5321 says
The domain name given in the EHLO command MUST be either a primary
host name (a domain name that resolves to an address RR) or, if
the host has no name, an add
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:03 AM, wrote:
>
> dcsactrans2.verizon.com
>
> The hostname is invalid.
>
I'm curious what your FP rate is on this strict checking of the HELO host
name. I don't believe any of the major inbox providers do it, which should
be a clue it is not very accurate of a signal.
__
Am 08.05.2018 um 23:22 schrieb Scott Undercofler:
> Out of some morbid curiosity, can you elaborate or post a session or log?
Here we go:
May 6 18:39:03 frodo postfix/smtpd[7158]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
dcrmsace03.verizon.com[192.76.84.75]: 450 4.7.1
: Helo command rejected: Host not found;
20 matches
Mail list logo
