You have a good point in that the first and main problem is that the
forwarder cannot be trusted to not mangle or fake the original message.
Nothing else can be sorted out until this gets out of the way, including
OOB communication between originator and final receiver. Which is in
effect messa
of the
deliverability of their mailings while the big senders get even more
closely coupled to big mail providers.
BIMI is trying to do identity. IMO identity will not be solved in mail
inbox UIs. It'll come from concerted efforts elsewhere and mail will
t said, I am all for research on the subject of mail protocols
and practice and sincerely hope this work produces useful results,
hopefully also truly representative of practice in the field. Good luck
to you.
Best Regards,
G. Miliotis
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
On 3/2/22 13:59, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
To me any system that aims to replace email must be based on pushing
messages and have a distributed nature.
This means that deliverability issues are an inherent risk, in a way
that pulling messages from a central/unified service can avoid.
On 2021-12-31 13:42, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
The difference between them is that, although HTTP provides for put
and post verbs, the web evolved around clients downloading data from
the servers, while email dealed the opposite direction. The
implication with respect to spam is evi
On 2021-12-28 17:55, Nicolas JEAN via mailop wrote:
My conclusion is that today, there's no technical way to forward
client IPs from roundcube to dovecot/postfix.
Doesn't the XFORWARD feature work for postfix? I thought that's how
amavis for example talks to postfix. Usually via a dedicated ma
On 2021-08-05 21:51, Brielle via mailop wrote:
Looks like some of the topics of the spam is starting to gravitate
towards current events...
ESP to spamming customer: "improve the quality of your mailings, stop
sending people mail they don't want or we will have to ask you again to
stop, re
On 2021-07-30 11:30, mailop--- via mailop wrote:
I'm not sure that anyone can offer me anything other than sympathy but
I'm open to any advice or suggestions.
These huge freemail providers are killing email. Mail was never supposed
to be so centralized. We're just managing our misery here. I
On 26/8/2020 20:36, flo via mailop wrote:
I prefer not to put my private address unprotected on the internet.
Well duh.
Not everyone is a business with already-public information. I run my own
server and host some domains on that. What assurances do I have that my
personal information is pro
On 24/7/2020 8:12 μ.μ., Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
On 24 Jul 2020, at 7:48, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Not true, I was (and am) always delivering mail via IPv4 and had
mentioned
problems (and also other people whose complaints I have read don't
use IPv6
as well).
I see no diffe
On 24/7/2020 7:13 μ.μ., John Levine via mailop wrote:
In article <20200724160354.gg9...@ikki.ethgen.ch> you write:
I think it might happen that in past hetzner (my hosting provider) ...
Oh, there's your problem. Hetzner's network spews garbage. I don't
accept any mail from it at all.
That's
On 17/2/2020 22:39, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
One could state facts – i.e., pointing out that SPF will break
straight forwarding and mailing lists that do not rewrite – without
introducing judgement.
How about a small section in the FAQ about decisions that the mail admin
must make? Su
On 17/10/2019 22:05, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote:
Why doesn't Microsoft handle this internally instead of forcing the
reporter to jump through another flaming hoop? They got the report to
their whois-listed abuse contact based on originating IP. They know
what internal department should be
On 5/6/2019 20:23, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
That hasn't been determined as of yet. Comments and thoughts on that
subject welcome.
A good start would be VM/VPS/server provisioners actually putting
default firewall rules in their images. Especially outgoing rules to a
certain port w
On 23/4/2019 08:26, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
and also unfortunately, enough people now think of email
as unreliable,
I wonder why that is.
--GM
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mai
On 21/4/2019 22:39, Thomas Walter wrote:
And force people like me to resubscribe every 90 to 180 days, because I
don't allow tracking nonsense in emails?
Lists should send a warning "You have been inactive for 90 days, you
will be unsubscribed when you reach 180 days" message. I get those quit
On 21/4/2019 07:52, Sébastien Riccio wrote:
We also receive sometime a batch of complaints from the same outlook.com
recipient, for mails dated a few years ago. Like if the user was doing some
cleanup in his inbox and instead of deleting message he declares them as ..
guess it... junk!
This
On 19/4/2019 22:26, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
Please remember: Safe Sender always trumps Machine Learning.
As far as mails not being rejected silently outright maybe.
I seem to recall I've safe sender'ed senders in hotmail and mail still
went strght to spam folder.
--GM
_
On 19/4/2019 15:14, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
Some of us knew that doing anything other than accept/reject was a
very bad idea many years ago. Everyone should know it now. It has
become obvious on inspection by even the casual observer.
I see your point but I do not completely agree. I feel that,
On 28/12/2018 14:59, Laura Atkins wrote:
3) The closing of tickets without any response? We’ve told you
repeatedly what you need to do to fix things and you aren’t paying any
attention. We’re tired of sending you the same information, and
there’s nothing more we’re able to tell you.
That
Hi,
For a moment there I thought that there was a banner ad in your
signature. May I suggest you make it animated, it'll be a lot more catchy.
--GM
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailo
Hello,
Anyone have any btinternet contact info? I followed this:
http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/47055/~/bt-email---best-practices-for-postmasters-and-senders-of-bulk-mail
However, their postmaster@ is not functional ATM.
postmas...@btinternet.com host mx.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk [6
On 8/5/2017 5:00 πμ, John Cenile wrote:
Our customer, who is using a Hotmail address, then /marked the
bounceback email as Junk/, affecting our IP rating according to SNDS.
So your customer runs a website and doesn't know what the 'delete'
button does. Also, they (I imagine) pay for a domain n
On 16/2/2017 00:40, John Levine wrote:
OVH used to be hopeless but after some firm whacks they have started
to clean up, and their delivery while not great is not hopeless.
Define "whacks"?
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.n
On 15/2/2017 19:06, Al Iverson wrote:
Yes, that is what most of us who are paid to send email do. Email
Service Providers (ESPs) help their clients monitor this sort of
thing, by signing up for SNDS, using seedlist testing from companies
like Return Path and 250OK, monitor for blacklistings, and
On 15/2/2017 18:46, Laura Atkins wrote:
The statement I was replying to said MS should announce what they’re
blocking. I pointed out that MS does provide that information to the
appropriate parties. The sign up process is about ownership and
confirming that the person asking for the data has
On 15/2/2017 16:12, David Schweikert wrote:
In other words: if Hetzner doesn't behave well according to accepted
common rules, they should be publicly marked as such, so that it becomes
a problem between Hetzner and Microsoft
MS doesn't care about hetzner's customers and vice versa.
Now if MS
On 13/2/2017 14:43, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
All in all it seems with Microsoft nowadays you can get listed
without any explanation or way forward to remove yourself from the
blacklist. My plea that I would love to comply with the rules if only
I knew which ones I apparently violated has not ma
On 5/2/2017 12:35, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
Well, that is a fully ignorance of the world. There is many mailservers
in hetzner network (as well as there are some malicious hosts). Taking
all hetzner network in kin liability is something I will not tell on
this open list.
You will find it hard to get
On 17/11/2016 20:28, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:58:35 +0100, Hetzner Blacklist Support said:
our customers who use them on their own dedicated servers. They're the
ones having issues, since Microsoft has blacklisted large parts of our
network.
I'm a Hetzner customer a
On 13/6/2016 19:14, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
I would argue something differently: many email users (and postal
mail, for that matter), have an expectation that email is mostly but
not 100% reliable, due to spam false positives or just the lack of
delivery notification.
People can then c
On 9/6/2016 17:46, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
Actually, many small operators also silently discard email. Whether it's
by incompetence, or voluntarily doesn't matter much. It's just less
visible than hotmail.
Undoubtedly, but they can't use the scaling-is-hard argument as a free
pass. We
On 9/6/2016 16:44, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
These are hard issues to discuss, and I hope the view I present of how
certain issues are viewed from behind the trenches of a large scale
mail service are useful.
I for one appreciate the candor and have been helped by your
participation in
On 9/6/2016 16:13, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
The discussion is on-going.
This is at least one good thing about this whole deal. I think your
suggestion about deleted items (marked as such somehow) would be a good
compromise.
FWIW, personally, I find it all an interesting social mental
On 9/6/2016 05:08, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
At one point, Hotmail tried to turn off the delete action for sufficiently
spammy, and just delivered it into Junk; Customers complained. Loudly. So
whether the system is correctly classifying your traffic or not, I cannot say.
But the behavior
On 9/5/2016 22:20, Jay Hennigan wrote:
Their FAQ at betterbounces.net (bounce.io redirects there) claims that
they're just trying to send more human-readable bounce messages but
need advertising to pay for it. They also claim that one can opt out
of the advertisements but only on a domain-by-
On 13/4/2016 22:28, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
if you have sufficient volume and your mail authenticates and you keep
the same authentication when switching IPs, then your reputation
should transfer.
Does this mean having the same DKIM key or something else?
--GM
_
On 6/4/2016 20:27, Vick Khera wrote:
I use google groups for those things. You can have as many of those as
you like, and they can be configured as shared mailboxes or even a
simple ticketing system.
Jut noting that I have done this and the spam controls for google groups
are not the best. You
On 24/3/2016 18:17, Jay Hennigan wrote:
Once third-party mailers begin using the credentials of specific
freemail accounts to send bulk mail that generates a non-trivial
number of complaints and/or bounces, the battle has escalated.
I am only just recently mulling this over so I haven't really t
On 24-Mar-2016, at 7:27 PM, G. Miliotis wrote:
Now if you are suggesting that they will see multiple different logins on their
SMTP from the same IP address, yes they will. If they consider this an attempt
at spamming, i.e. I've harvested logins via phishing and am sending spam, maybe
On 24/3/2016 15:38, Steve Atkins wrote:
They do. And there are already quite a few dedicated B2B spammers taking
advantage of that. Most of the deluge of spam from gmail appears to be from
this sort of spammer at the moment. If gmail becomes concerned about that then
the ability to plug into a
>On 24-Mar-2016, at 6:33 PM, G. Miliotis wrote:
>
>In fact, as someone mentioned, we're currently looking into setting up our
outgoing SMTP servers to send via each client's freemail account via SMTP auth. So
that would cover the DMARC issue, too. Provided they don't b
On 24/3/2016 07:03, Dave Warren wrote:
Are there really that many customers using freemail domains, yet
paying for ESP services? For realsies? And if so, wouldn't this be an
obvious upsell opportunity or partnership to get these customers using
their own domain?
As a small ESP, my servers keep
On 18/3/2016 23:35, Hal Murray wrote:
In a way, I'm thankful that Microsoft is making it difficult to get delisted.
It makes people think about the cost-shifting they are doing. They probably
aren't thinking of it as cost-shifting, but at least they are becoming more
aware of the problem.
Ros
On 29/2/2016 04:52, Michael Wise wrote:
If you are about to move to a new IP, open a ticket and include the
following magic words in the comments:
"pre-emptive accommodation"
Then make your case.
Ah a way out!
Thank you very much. I'll try it immediately.
Best Regards,
--GM
__
On 15/9/2015 10:34, Dave Warren wrote:
On 2015-09-14 09:06, G. Miliotis wrote:
So the issue remains, what *is* the correct way to migrate to a new
IP that's been blacklisted by MS and how long should it take?
This isn't just for Microsoft, but for all the big providers. Usually
aft
On 15/9/2015 12:12 πμ, Michael Wise wrote:
Sooner or later, your discussions will end there, and the ticketing
will begin.
There is **NO** way around it; Microsoft Legal has been very clear on
the matter.
This is interesting, I was just instructed by my server provider to
contact del...@m
On 14/09/2015 06:44 μμ, Steve Atkins wrote:
Microsoft has the whole new range blacklisted (Getting SC-001
errors for 136.243.92.253; 136.243.92.252; 136.243.92.216).
I'm assuming those three IP addresses are for smarthosts
> that send outbound mail for you and your customers.
Only one is curr
Hello everyone,
We've just moved someof our MXs to a new IP and it turns out we didn't
plan this very well.
Microsoft has the whole new range blacklisted (Getting SC-001 errors for
136.243.92.253; 136.243.92.252; 136.243.92.216). The troubleshooting
form provides no real feedback and I coul
49 matches
Mail list logo
