Am 20.01.22 um 01:23 schrieb Michael Peddemors via mailop:
Received: from 45-79-16-32.ip.linodeusercontent.com (HELO
in.constantcontact.com) (45.79.16.32)
by fe3.cityemail.com with SMTP
(f72f79fe-7953-11ec-b9b5-5f141a28f7b3); Wed, 19 Jan 2022 10:16:48 -0800
I presume
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 22:01:49 -0600, Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
>Further from that, I'm not really sure if that's the type of abuse contact
>the OP was referring to in this thread.
At various times over the past 26 years I have been responsible for the
various kinds of activities one needs
I didn't really mean to go all out, anti-AT or anything. I was just
merely using them as an example because when they block an IP address the
bounce back message says to contact them directly at an email address. If
instead of the email address this pointed to a form on their website, I
think
Nice to hear, but only posted here because it will probably affect other
hosters as well, and I am sure Constant Content would like to know this
as well..
But curious, how are these fraudsters getting around the port 25
blocking by default?
-- Michael --
(You can reply off list if
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:55:40 -0600, Scott Mutter via mailop
wrote:
>(AT is just an example here, but serves to better illustrate how a form
>could be useful in this situation)
Based on their corporate behaviour in recent experience, I would assert that
AT is not a useful case, comparable to the
Hi Michael,
On 1/19/22 7:23 PM, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
Ten minutes of free time got me trolling my spam folder, and saw this
interesting spam message.. and found the headers really interesting.
Might explain a small uptick in spam from Linode servers..
"THIS IS A TEST EMAIL
Ten minutes of free time got me trolling my spam folder, and saw this
interesting spam message.. and found the headers really interesting.
Might explain a small uptick in spam from Linode servers..
"THIS IS A TEST EMAIL ONLY.
This email was sent by the author for the sole purpose of testing a
It depends on what context you are referring to.
Are you talking about abuse contact as a means to dispute abuse
complaints? In that case, I'd say a form is better. An example is AT
When AT blocks our server, the bounce back message tells us to send an
email to abuse_...@abuse-att.net. I'm
Some may see that as a good thing. It's the old Office Space scene where
one thing happens and the guy has multiple bosses come by and tell him
the same thing all day long. When I worked at a big cloud I'd catch a
spammer and terminate them, then I'd have to talk to 16 different people
over
It appears that Grant Taylor via mailop said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On 1/19/22 2:54 AM, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
>> I guess it is difficult to process, but I fail to understand how
>> forms can ease that task,
>
>I think it comes down to unstructured vs structured data. Forms
On 1/19/22 2:54 AM, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
I guess it is difficult to process, but I fail to understand how
forms can ease that task,
I think it comes down to unstructured vs structured data. Forms can
have fields for each pertinent piece of information thus applying
structure
getting a 550 response to mail volume implies a volume well over 1M
messages a day (though, it could just be a temporary spike and not
sustained)... 400 messages/day is about what we estimated a customer
service rep could handle in a shift if the replies are basically just FAQs,
do you think they
Hi all,
I'd like to point out, that "css.one.microsoft.com" still has a broken SPF
record:
css.one.microsoft.com. 86400 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:outlook.com
~all"
css.one.microsoft.com. 86400 IN TXT "v=spf1
include:_spf-ssg-a.microsoft.com -all"
The use of two SPF
On Wed 19/Jan/2022 01:40:41 +0100 Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote:
Most companies seem to be using abuse forms to make up for it and to some
degree I get it, forms require intentional input where as people dumping
fail2ban logs (and similar) at abuse@ emails renders them so terribly
difficult
14 matches
Mail list logo
