Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

On 28 Aug 2020, at 0:56, Chris via mailop wrote: I'm sure that some privacy advocate could word that in a sufficiently bowel-loosening fashion that brings out the torches and pitchforks. That's a very unusual storage choice for such things. -- Bill Cole b...@scconsult.com or

Re: [mailop] IP rental

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 07:38:38AM -0400, micah anderson via mailop wrote: > > I don't know about you, but we get contacted by these companies who want > to buy/rent our unused IP resources, fairly regularly. They claim to be > 'providers of proxy and email marketing resources', 'SEO Proxy,

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

Hey Marcel, > That is incorrect. There are exceptions to account for these situations > where mail sending entities are owned by larger, non-mail sending entities. I will happily be set straight on this. Reference please? I am going by

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 2:02 AM Atro Tossavainen via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > For example, take 13.111.0.0/16. A network of /16 size has 65,536 entries, > more or less. About one third are whitelisted by the CSA in this case. > All are however owned by the same op that is required

Re: [mailop] IP rental

Hello, On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 07:38:38AM -0400, micah anderson via mailop wrote: > This can't be anything other than a pipeline for spammers, and it must > work. I'm wondering if this can be shut down somehow, does it require > policy changes at RIRs? As an industry we haven't been massively

Re: [mailop] IP rental

Blake, I've pretty much seemed the same, and of course the people listed on SpamHaus' ROSKO asking for Dedicated servers always comes up. > -Original Message- > From: mailop On Behalf Of Blake Hudson via mailop > Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 9:32 AM > To: mailop@mailop.org > Subject:

Re: [mailop] IP rental

I've been receiving (and ignoring) these requests for years. I pity the folks that fall victim. On 8/28/2020 6:38 AM, micah anderson via mailop wrote: I don't know about you, but we get contacted by these companies who want to buy/rent our unused IP resources, fairly regularly. They claim to

[mailop] IP rental

I don't know about you, but we get contacted by these companies who want to buy/rent our unused IP resources, fairly regularly. They claim to be 'providers of proxy and email marketing resources', 'SEO Proxy, e-mail marketing, Hosting, VPS', etc (see below for an example). They are very

[mailop] Skynet.be / proximus.be contact

Hi, Is there anyone from Skynet.be / proximus.be on this list or anyone that can facilitate a contact? I'm not getting any response through their normal contact methods to try and get an ip delisted. -- BR/Mvh. Dan Malm, Systems Engineer, One.com pEpkey.asc Description: application/pgp-keys

Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

> and this also no guarantee for no spam. Recently I got some spam for > "dates18.com" sent via Casual Networks B.V (on the CSA whitelist) in > which even the "Imprint"-URLs lead to "Congratulations, you > confirmed your mailaddress". Whitelisted senders send plenty of spam. The requirements

Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

On 8/28/20 9:29 AM, Florian Vierke via mailop wrote: Hi everybody, the requirement for having an imprint in advertising mails is not limited to T-Online. It’s a legal requirement and also criteria for the Certified Senders Alliance (CSA) which is at least relevant in Germany. For those not

Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

Am 28.08.20 um 10:10 schrieb Bjoern Franke via mailop: > > and this also no guarantee for no spam. Recently I got some spam for > "dates18.com" sent via Casual Networks B.V (on > the CSA whitelist) in which even the "Imprint"-URLs lead to "Congratulations, > you confirmed your mailaddress".

Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

On 27/08/2020 16:53, Tim Bray via mailop wrote: The same kind of regulations exist in the UK, but everybody forgets about them.    You often see business names on websites that don't match their legal entity; confusions between sole trader (just a person) and a registered company (limited,

Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

Hi, the requirement for having an imprint in advertising mails is not limited to T-Online. It’s a legal requirement and also criteria for the Certified Senders Alliance (CSA) which is at least relevant in Germany. For those not having heard of it – it’s a whitelisting project originally

Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

PS: I have to correct myself – T-Online is not (yet?) participating in the CSA, but the remaining information is still true  The list of participants can be checked here: https://certified-senders.org/participants/ Sorry for the confusion. [signature_1395543467] Florian

Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

Hi everybody, the requirement for having an imprint in advertising mails is not limited to T-Online. It’s a legal requirement and also criteria for the Certified Senders Alliance (CSA) which is at least relevant in Germany. For those not having heard of it – it’s a whitelisting project

Re: [mailop] Deutsche Telekom rejects connections because of missing "provider identification"

Am 26.08.20 um 19:36 schrieb flo via mailop: > Hi there > > Have any of you had any bad experiences with Deutsche Telekom lately? > They put one of my servers on their blacklist after an IP change with > the reason that I have to provide an imprint on that machine. > Have I missed something? Is