things break, it happens...
but why 5xx (vs 4xx) in this case?
this means means emails are being lost, some of won't/can't be resent
and recovered
with 4xx most of them would be delivered once things come right
the confidence in a hard-bounce in this instance seems misplaced
___
> Gmail was (and still is) sending out false ‘unknown address’
> responses. One person ever reported their own (working, logged into)
> gmail address bouncing.
can confirm
a quick twitter search indicates large numbers of people experiencing
the same
fwiw, i saw dead-air (messages accepted but
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/supportrequestform/8ad563e3-288e-2a61-8122-3ba03d6b8d75
is the SNDS unblock/reporting form
*maybe*
Request URL: https://support.microsoft.com/api/cases?iecbust=1601927382290
POST
gives a 401
Am I failing a turing test here?
I tried a dozen times
I have an IP that's spam free but appeared to be blocked by SNDS.
Poking about on the site I can't work out either of:
- why it's blocked
- how to unblock it
Am I missing something obvious?
Thanks!
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https:/
Does someone have a contact for aliexpress.com (or alibaba.com
perhaps?) email admins?
I see a persistent issue where some messages are generated with bogus
headers and also the retry policy seems flawed.
Thanks.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.
> Anecdotal, but last time I delved deep into this, apparently the
> majority of spam was sent via IPv6
i don't see this
a quick db query gives me:
v6 pct
-- --
0 89.45
1 10.55
it would probably be even more v4 as presently persisten
> I don't know if mass-market ISPs view it this way, but in my roles
> with email hosting providers I have never seen DMARC policies taken
> seriously except as a nuisance for the operation of discussion
> mailing lists.
this matches my experience
if i rejected messages on dmarc failure, i would
> Users can not be trusted to categorize emails.
who better than the recipient to decide if it's undesirable?
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
> We also have a lot of trouble with mails being sent to the junk folder on
> Microsoft hosted accounts.
> We have no problems with gmail or yahoo.
after reading this, i created an outlook.com account (awful UI)
some (not all) trivial messages end up marked as spam as others have
reported
there
> The problem isn't lack of honoring the bounce. The problem is what
> to make out of it when multiple recipients are present.
that's quite rare
usually it's 1:1
> Also, assuming that a reject after DATA is strictly content-related
> is, well, an assumption.
historically it could/did happen wit
> What MTAs do not honor this?
sorry, i don't know what's sending when this happens
> How does 550 after DATA result in backscatter?
perhaps because domain is 'old' spammers sometimes spam from $random@
those messages hit various providers which do *not* check dmarc, but
then forward (either as
> You have identified the problem 100% right. But "switch providers
> and pray that Google doesn't feel like blocking your new host" is
> not a solution, since it requires a lot of work (and money) on my
> part without any guarantee of success. So it seems that there's
> actually no solution and th
> Doesn't "550 Requested action not taken: We don't like you." apply
> after DATA?
it does
most severs honor this but not all
(i experience this sometimes, my domain somtimes gets a lot of
backscatter)
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https:/
> The question was about if we really need to *move* the messages
> marked as spam into a separate folder and hide it from user's view
> by default.
silently hiding messages would be very frustrating and hard to
understand and debug
___
mailop mailing l
as things stand today, i think we do
technology has gotten very good but it's not perfect; sometimes spam
isn't detected, and sometimes real messages are detected as spam
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mail
> It doesn't seem to be in a particularly bad neighborhood, either.
if i'm guessing your IP right, my local test sees 7 "bad actors" in
your /24 (2.73%) and 50 in your /16 (~0%)
whilst that's not nearly as bad as many sources, it's worse than most
that send legitimate email
_
> It's a basic mistake to operate on whole netblocks and not
> individual senders.
i somewhat disagree
i tested this a while ago and just did a quick test again
if i were to block a /24 containing a single bad actor, this usually
won't block any legitimate mail and usually will block other spam
> Just because you should by default accept mail from everyone
> *unless* the sender proved to be nasty/harmful/mailicious etc.?
what if the look quite plausibly harmful?
> Otherwise you are breaking the very purpose of e-mail.
surely the purpose depends on the user? different people will have
> Not exactly garbage: if it exists, it needs a '@' and the legal content is
> slightly less permissive than the 'addr-spec' definition (i.e. email
> addresses.)
some sources (aliexpress!) generate message-id lacking '@' (also '<'
and '>') so removed that as a hard-requirement when filtering here
> The second tech arrived at the conclusion that it was the Message-Id
> header. Messages that were delivered had an externally-resolvable domain
> as part of the Message-Id header. Messages that were 'disappeared' had our
> internal domain (i.e. whatever.local) as part of the Message-Id.
>
> I r
20 matches
Mail list logo
