On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:53 AM Scot Berggren via mailop
wrote:
>
> We have a sender that's shown good results delivering to docomo.ne.jp until
> the end of May, but messages are timing out since.
from docomo.ne.jp SOA:
postmaster at spmode.ne.jp
Best Regards.
Dikshie
Thanks, I assumed this was an issue, but our vendor who controls our DKIM
(Sophos) addded the record and we have no control over it. I am going to have
our network team contact them and get this fixed.
From: mailop On Behalf Of Alan Hodgson via mailop
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 4:57 PM
To:
On Fri, 2023-06-16 at 18:05 +, Salvatore Jr Walter P via mailop
wrote:
>
>
> Getting reports back from several ISPs like the one below.
> It shows dkim failing for the IP, but successful for the domain?
> The domain “mail-dkim-us-west-2.prod.hydra.sophos.com” uses
> multiple IPs,
> One of
We have a sender that's shown good results delivering to docomo.ne.jp until the
end of May, but messages are timing out since.
Checking to see if anyone has a contact there.
Thanks,
--
Scot Berggren
Sr. Deliverability Strategist
720-320-5365
scot.bergg...@messagebird.com
> On 16.06.2023 at 16:13 Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
>
> At some time I noticed that Gmail started to indicate DMARC failure. I
> checked and found out that the admins of parent eu.org domain put a DMARC
> record on it, which caused emails from my domain rafa.eu.org (not from the
> parent
Getting reports back from several ISPs like the one below.
It shows dkim failing for the IP, but successful for the domain?
The domain "mail-dkim-us-west-2.prod.hydra.sophos.com" uses multiple IPs,
One of which is "198.154.181.72". We do receive failures on all other IPs as
well.
Is this an
On 2023-06-16 at 13:37:19 UTC-0400 (Fri, 16 Jun 2023 13:37:19 -0400)
John Possidente via mailop
is rumored to have said:
> A sender of legally mandated bulk mail who are very conscious of making
> sure they're dotting every i and crossing every t (because they're required
> to) asked me today
Getting reports back from several ISPs like the one below.
It shows dkim failing for the IP, but successful for the domain?
The domain "mail-dkim-us-west-2.prod.hydra.sophos.com" uses multiple IPs,
One of which is "198.154.181.72". We do receive failures on all other IPs as
well.
Is this an
We deliver over v4/v6. It generally works rather well for us. We do
occasionally see someone who publishes a v6 MX and doesn't seem to properly
test (there was a .gov a few weeks ago for example, since resolved in some
way).
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Am 16.06.23 um 20:02 schrieb Benny Pedersen via mailop:
Mike Hillyer via mailop skrev den 2023-06-16 19:48:
Sources or hosts?
I don’t expect a given host to answer on port 25 just because it
sends, but the domain in the return path should be accepting mail
properly. If they can’t be bothered
Mike Hillyer via mailop skrev den 2023-06-16 19:48:
Sources or hosts?
I don’t expect a given host to answer on port 25 just because it
sends, but the domain in the return path should be accepting mail
properly. If they can’t be bothered to receive their DSNs then they
are not likely a
Am 16.06.23 um 19:37 schrieb John Possidente via mailop:
A sender of legally mandated bulk mail who are very conscious of making sure they're dotting every i and crossing
every t (because they're required to) asked me today whether port 25 pingback is still necessary. I immediately
thought, "Of
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 12:41 PM John Possidente via mailop
wrote:
>
> A sender of legally mandated bulk mail who are very conscious of making sure
> they're dotting every i and crossing every t (because they're required to)
> asked me today whether port 25 pingback is still necessary. I
We have a sender that's shown good results delivering to docomo.ne.jp
until the end of May, but messages are timing out since.
Thanks,
--
Scot Berggren
Sr. Deliverability Strategist
720-320-5365
scot.bergg...@messagebird.com
___
mailop mailing list
Sources or hosts?
I don’t expect a given host to answer on port 25 just because it sends, but the
domain in the return path should be accepting mail properly. If they can’t be
bothered to receive their DSNs then they are not likely a good-faith sender.
Mike
From: mailop On Behalf Of John
A sender of legally mandated bulk mail who are very conscious of making
sure they're dotting every i and crossing every t (because they're required
to) asked me today whether port 25 pingback is still necessary. I
immediately thought, "Of course not," but on second thought (before
speaking, yay)
Hi Todd,
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 09:31:58AM -0400, Todd Herr via mailop wrote:
> Yes, the DMARC protocol does describe the search for the organizational
> domain for the RFC5322.From domain in an email message.
Yep, got itnow; I want the subdomain policy ("sp"). Not sure how I
missed that, or
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 10:11 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
> Dnia 16.06.2023 o godz. 09:31:58 Todd Herr via mailop pisze:
> > Yes, the DMARC protocol does describe the search for the organizational
> > domain for the RFC5322.From domain in an email message.
> >
> > It doesn't rely on the
Dnia 16.06.2023 o godz. 09:31:58 Todd Herr via mailop pisze:
> Yes, the DMARC protocol does describe the search for the organizational
> domain for the RFC5322.From domain in an email message.
>
> It doesn't rely on the "_domainkey" hostnames (that's DKIM), but it does
> currently rely on the
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 9:21 AM Andy Smith via mailop
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let's say I have domain example.com with SPF, DKIM and DMARC
> records. I've put an A record in there to point foo.bar.example.com
> at someone else's IP address.
>
> Probably some cron job or other automated task on that
Hi,
Let's say I have domain example.com with SPF, DKIM and DMARC
records. I've put an A record in there to point foo.bar.example.com
at someone else's IP address.
Probably some cron job or other automated task on that host has sent
an email from usern...@foo.bar.example.com that has ended up at
Am 16. Juni 2023 01:24:41 MESZ schrieb James Cloos via mailop
:
>Would any common MTAs in use have any problems with delivery to a
>destination where a subset of its MXs are v4-only and another (non-
>intersecting) subset are v6-only?
I tried it for a while and it's somewhat broken...
In
22 matches
Mail list logo
