Re: [mailop] t-online.de outage?

On Tue, 09 Jun 2020 04:35:40 +0200, Ralph Seichter via mailop wrote: >>> 554 IP=47.190.44.19 - A problem occurred. (Ask your postmaster for >>> help or to contact t...@rx.t-online.de to clarify.) (BL) Connection >>> closed by foreign host. > >I remember seeing this particular error code when

Re: [mailop] t-online.de outage?

* Michael Rathbun via mailop: > After a telnet to an MX there, I see > >> 554 IP=47.190.44.19 - A problem occurred. (Ask your postmaster for >> help or to contact t...@rx.t-online.de to clarify.) (BL) Connection >> closed by foreign host. I remember seeing this particular error code when setting

Re: [mailop] t-online.de outage?

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 21:53:06 + (UTC), Jon Morby via mailop wrote: >We just get a 554 after connect and before any handshake. I’ve tried this from >various IPs, not just our mail server IPs in AS8282 It's not just you. After a telnet to an MX there, I see >554 IP=47.190.44.19 - A problem

[mailop] t-online.de outage?

We’re currently experiencing problems connecting to any / all of t-online.de’s MXs We just get a 554 after connect and before any handshake. I’ve tried this from various IPs, not just our mail server IPs in AS8282 Anyone aware of an outage or have a contact there that can shed some light? –

Re: [mailop] Which ESP forces double opt in?

On 2020-06-08 06:02, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: … it was whitehat.com  but the website isn’t loading for me. https://web.archive.org/web/20010609000944/http://www.whitehat.com/interactive/bestpractices.cfm is a copy of content from back in 2001. The current text on

[mailop] G Suite Support - Deliverability Issues

Hello, Is there anyone here I can speak to from G Suite support? AK ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT-Level1 listing

> problems as they solve. You're a large ESP so I'd expect more than one > UCEProtect listing... If you're policing your customer base, and customer > campaigns aren't using junk lists, there's not much else you can do. I only have limited visibility to *everything* that Webpower sends, of

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT-Level1 listing

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 16:37, Ewald Kessler | Webpower via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > Hello, > > One of our IP addresses (91.197.72.142) got blacklisted at > UCEPROTECT-Level1 with a "Last Impact" timestamp of 06.06.2020 16:57 CEST > +/- 1min. > > But the peculiar thing is, no mail was

Re: [mailop] UCEPROTECT-Level1 listing

On 08/06/2020 16:26, Ewald Kessler | Webpower via mailop wrote: Hello, One of our IP addresses (91.197.72.142) got blacklisted at UCEPROTECT-Level1 with a "Last Impact" timestamp of 06.06.2020 16:57 CEST +/- 1min. But the peculiar thing is, no mail was sent from that IP in at least the 48

[mailop] UCEPROTECT-Level1 listing

Hello, One of our IP addresses (91.197.72.142) got blacklisted at UCEPROTECT-Level1 with a "Last Impact" timestamp of 06.06.2020 16:57 CEST +/- 1min. But the peculiar thing is, no mail was sent from that IP in at least the 48 hours prior to their timestamp. Does this sound familiar? Am I missing

Re: [mailop] Which ESP forces double opt in?

Hi Laurent, we can enforce consent for an individual customer but for 99% of customers this is not practical. Our T require the customer to have a legal basis and all our customers are aware that we can request them to prove the date (and often do). On top of that all customer data goes through

Re: [mailop] Which ESP forces double opt in?

On Mon, 08 Jun 2020 09:28:27 + mailop@mailop.org wrote: > Which ESP does 100% (double/confirmed) opt in? We do by default. We then allow a customer to request that the opt-in requirement be relaxed. Of course, we can't guarantee that what a customer tells us is true when we process this

Re: [mailop] Which ESP forces double opt in?

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 11:33, Laurent S. via mailop wrote: > Which ESP does 100% (double/confirmed) opt in? > > I am looking for an ESP that will, in every case, send a confirmation > link without ever trusting their clients about the consent status of > lists they import? AFAIK no one. You can

Re: [mailop] Which ESP forces double opt in?

On 08.06.20 11:54, Jakub Olexa via mailop wrote: > > Hi Laurent, > > we force DOI for subscribe forms and treat everything else as recipients > without explicity consent. This means that the customer must have a > different legal basis to use the address (usually legitimate interest > based

Re: [mailop] Which ESP forces double opt in?

> On 8 Jun 2020, at 10:28, Laurent S. via mailop wrote: > My goal with this mail is not to debate the pros and cons of COI. I am > only looking for an ESP that enforces it strictly. I don’t think there is one. Rodney Joffe had one for a while, but it’s been so long I don’t remember the name

Re: [mailop] Which ESP forces double opt in?

Hi Laurent, we force DOI for subscribe forms and treat everything else as recipients without explicity consent. This means that the customer must have a different legal basis to use the address (usually legitimate interest based on prior business relationship). Some features of our platform are

[mailop] Which ESP forces double opt in?

Hi, Related to the thread of a few days ago "Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address": Which ESP does 100% (double/confirmed) opt in? I am looking for an ESP that will, in every case, send a confirmation link without ever trusting their clients about the consent