> On Sep 26, 2019, at 12:13 AM, Matt Vernhout wrote:
>
> I sent a note to my contact at Bell about this. They might reach out for more
> info if they need it.
>
> ~
> Matt
Hi Matt,
Thanks! I’ll pass along the DNS name of the MTA as well as my log data (date,
time, etc.).
- J
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
> 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
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 1:23 PM Bill Cole via mailop
wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2019, at 5:18, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
>
> > Just had a bunch of people at a domain get unsubscribed from this
> > list.
>
> Something is very wrong there...
>
> 4xx failures, even persistent ones that ultimately fail
We also heavily debated supporting PRDR, even though it never really went
anywhere, as a way to handle that case, but even then you end up making
things even more complicated by having to evaluate against multiple domain
rules, probably in parallel, which would have meant rearchitecting the
whole
On 25 Sep 2019, at 5:18, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
Just had a bunch of people at a domain get unsubscribed from this
list.
Something is very wrong there...
4xx failures, even persistent ones that ultimately fail the message for
queue timeout, should not cause an instant unsub from one
> I don't quite get this. Your outbound MTA is grouping separate domains
> together into one queue based on MX?
There are various ways to do it, but the basic idea is to reuse connections
and even transactions based on different domains translating to a common
set of MXes, for some defintion of
On 2019-09-25 at 21:18 +1200, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
> Just had a bunch of people at a domain get unsubscribed from this list.
> Appears to be some weird Google rule (which probably made sense with they
> were not the MX for 30% of all active domains)
>
> Any chance of them fixing it (or
On 25 Sep 2019, at 2:18, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
Just had a bunch of people at a domain get unsubscribed from this
list. Appears to be some weird Google rule (which probably made sense
with they were not the MX for 30% of all active domains)
I've seen similar behavior for large ISPs,
We've had that rule for probably 10y or so at this point, as to why, blame
SMTP for rcpt and data being separate. GSuite domains can define rules on
what they will/won't accept, and in order to deny such messages in the smtp
transaction and not create backscatter by bouncing them later, we have
Hi,
Is there a representative from Bell / Sympatico (Canada), on this list ?
Thanks,
- J
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
I don't quite get this. Your outbound MTA is grouping separate domains
together into one queue based on MX?
Or is it trying to relay some other mail through Google when at least
one recipient is hosted on a Google MX?
Cheers,
Al Iverson
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 4:27 AM Simon Lyall via mailop
This form seems to be erroring out:
https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=614866
Multiple folks seeing it here. Others, are you seeing it too?
Microsoft, heads up.
Getting this error upon submission:
We're sorry, but something went wrong on our end. Please try again later
Cheers,
Al Iverson
Just had a bunch of people at a domain get unsubscribed from this list.
Appears to be some weird Google rule (which probably made sense with they
were not the MX for 30% of all active domains)
Any chance of them fixing it (or failing that a quick work-around for
mailman)? . It looks like
14 matches
Mail list logo
