It appears that Slavko via mailop said:
>But joking apart, basically the 6.7 section gives answer to my question,
>that SPF -all is typically ignored for p= other than none.
I think you will find that rejecting on SPF -all (other than the special
case of a bare -all meaning we send no mail) will
On 2021-10-05 04:46:09 (+0800), Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 20.09.2021 o godz. 14:17:27 Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop pisze:
I want to return to an old issue, which repeatedly happens again and
again,
that is, Google putting emails from me to recipient's spam folder.
Well, this is getting
On 2021-10-05 05:17:33 (+0800), Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
Turn off IPv6 ;)
I see your ";)" but ... still ... this is terrible advice.
While IPv6 is not perfect, it is less bad than keeping IPv4 alive. IPv4
addresses were exhausted over ten years ago in some registries. It's
time
I agree with Brielle. Couldn't have said it better myself. It is getting tiring.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:18 PM, Brielle via mailop wrote:
> On 10/4/21 2:46 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
>> It's YOU, GOOGLE, who made me that "low reputation" by consistently putting
>> my messages to spam.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 5:27 PM Alexey Shpakovsky via mailop
wrote:
>
> On Mon, October 4, 2021 23:17, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> >
> > Turn off IPv6 ;)
>
> May I hop on the bandwagon and ask everyone on this list what was your
> experience with spam WRT IPv6?
My admittedly US-centric a
On Mon, October 4, 2021 23:17, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
>
> Turn off IPv6 ;)
May I hop on the bandwagon and ask everyone on this list what was your
experience with spam WRT IPv6?
I heard some bad thoughts about it on HN, but still can't be convinced.
With IPv6 adoption <100%, doesn't
Hey Jaroslaw, may I message you off-list and from a third email address with a
permissive ingress policy? I noticed something that might be salient in your
email headers.
On 4 October 2021 21:33:16 UTC, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
>Dnia 4.10.2021 o godz. 14:17:33 Michael Peddemors via mai
On 10/4/21 2:46 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
It's YOU, GOOGLE, who made me that "low reputation" by consistently putting
my messages to spam. Now you are blocking me because of "low reputation"
that you made yourself.
Get a proper domain name perhaps?
Just throwing that out there.
I
Dnia 4.10.2021 o godz. 14:17:33 Michael Peddemors via mailop pisze:
>
> Turn off IPv6 ;)
Never used it in the first place. All my mail is going via IPv4 only.
It is the question of my domain, they clearly say it in the message. We have
already discussed that quite recently in this thread.
--
R
I've sent a reply off list.
Thanks,
Erwin
On 10/4/21 1:15 PM, Michael Sofka via mailop wrote:
Most of our SMTP servers started being rejected by systems using
barracuda. The rejection included a link that provided no additional
information. I was able to find Barracuda's reputation page, and
On 2021-10-04 1:46 p.m., Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 20.09.2021 o godz. 14:17:27 Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop pisze:
I want to return to an old issue, which repeatedly happens again and again,
that is, Google putting emails from me to recipient's spam folder.
Well, this is getting more an
Dnia 20.09.2021 o godz. 14:17:27 Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop pisze:
> I want to return to an old issue, which repeatedly happens again and again,
> that is, Google putting emails from me to recipient's spam folder.
Well, this is getting more and more ridiculous and annoying at the same
time.
Until n
Most of our SMTP servers started being rejected by systems using
barracuda. The rejection included a link that provided no additional
information. I was able to find Barracuda's reputation page, and the
IPs were listed as having "poor" reputation, even as the domain was fine.
I've already do
Hi,
Dňa Mon, 4 Oct 2021 21:15:25 +0200 Alessandro Vesely via mailop
napísal:
> That's if exim can lookup dnswl and accept spf=fail for whitelisted
> IPs.
Ah, i understand now, thanks. I think about it too awkwardly ;-)
regards
--
Slavko
http://slavino.sk
pgpF0bsgW4OUX.pgp
Description: Digi
On Mon 04/Oct/2021 20:31:54 +0200 Slavko via mailop wrote:
Honoring SPF -all is too harsh anyway. It is very efficient because
you can reject before DATA, but needs to be softened. IME, using a
whitelist such as dnswl.org is enough to get rid of clowns pretending
to be your domain (if you publi
Hi,
thanks for all answers, all was useful.
Note: I am talking (asking) about incoming emails, not about my domain.
Dňa Mon, 4 Oct 2021 14:15:03 +0200 Alessandro Vesely via mailop
napísal:
> You can consider either the union or the intersection.
OK, i read suggested 6.7 and 10.1 sections of R
On 2021-10-04 at 12:52:40 UTC-0400 (Mon, 4 Oct 2021 18:52:40 +0200)
Leandro Santiago via mailop
is rumored to have said:
> Hi list,
>
> How feasible to you folks think having a DNSBL server that accepts only
> connections from a group of IP is?
Works for me. I've been running a local DNSBL for
Am 04.10.21 um 18:52 schrieb Leandro Santiago via mailop:
> Hi list,
>
> How feasible to you folks think having a DNSBL server that accepts only
> connections from a group of IP is?
I'm afraid it most likely won't work. Even if you use your server as the NS
record for the DNSBL domain, clients
This is a standard feature of RBLDNSD, we use it all the time.
You can use the ACL either to refuse, ignore, or accept from IP Ranges.
But of course, re-inventing the wheel, when there are so many good RBL's
out there (including our own ;) not sure what your differentiator would be.
You can
Hi list,
How feasible to you folks think having a DNSBL server that accepts only
connections from a group of IP is?
By that I mean that the server will accept (UDP) DNS requests from an
"allow list", refusing requests from anyone else (basically answering
"nothing" from any dns question from
On Mon 04/Oct/2021 12:24:31 +0200 Slavko via mailop wrote:
AFAIK, even when SPF in DMARC fails, there still can be DMARC success
with DKIM and this can leads to ignore SPF -/~all. I am confused...
You can consider either the union or the intersection.
Honoring SPF -all is too harsh anyway. I
On 4-10-21 13:27, Dan Mahoney via mailop wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 2021, at 3:24 AM, Slavko via mailop wrote:
>>
>> please i want to ask how to deal with pure SPF when DMARC is in use. I
>> understand how to deal with SPF within DMARC checks and i do not want to
>> diskuss this.
>>
>> But what if domain
> On Oct 4, 2021, at 3:24 AM, Slavko via mailop wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hi,
>
> please i want to ask how to deal with pure SPF when DMARC is in use. I
> understand how to deal with SPF within DMARC checks and i do not want to
> diskuss this.
>
> But what if domain owner specify eg. -all
Hi,
please i want to ask how to deal with pure SPF when DMARC is in use. I
understand how to deal with SPF within DMARC checks and i do not want to
diskuss this.
But what if domain owner specify eg. -all (or ~all) and SPF check
against SMTP.From (or EHLO) fails (or softfails) with this rule?
Hav
Hello,
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 23:43, Jaren Angerbauer via mailop
wrote:
>
> Sent an off list reply to Lukas.
On Aug 23th, Jared did contact me off list and connected me with some
people. The portal bug indeed got fixed.
Yet I still don't have any feedback regarding the blacklisting, after
7 we
Hi,
Thank you for bringing this to our notice. I would be grateful if you could
share some evidence/details so that we can further investigate this issue.
Please share the header/sample of the malicious mails which were delivered to
the user. Also, you can share the details as asked below:
Sen
26 matches
Mail list logo
