Apparently Gmail is now using very strict rules for replies sent to both
the mailing lists and the OP (aka Reply to all):
to=<...>, relay=alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[142.251.9.27]:25,
delay=73156, delays=73155/0.04/0.56/0.17, dsn=4.7.28, status=deferred
(host alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.
I've been a steady user of UCEPROTECT for years now. I use their levels
1, 2, and 3 with postscreen rankings along side other popular RBLs. On
my systems a UCEPROTECT level 3 rating will reject, unless the IP is
listed in ips.whitelisted.org.
IOW, on your systems any mail coming from an
Bulk mail, email marketing, consumer email, enterprise email. Those are
all different businesses. Just because a company does one thing doesn't
mean it should be doing (or be good at) the other.
That's correct, but in that case what Sendgrid should do is to use a
specific subdomain for
Are you sure that it was Sendgrid that blocked the message ? Looks to
me as if ab...@sendgrid.com is hosted at gmail and it was *gmail* that
objected to the content ...
Or am I misunderstanding something ?
No, of course you're right.
But forwarding an abuse address that is somewhat expecte
This make me think to the "First the came..." thing: saying that around
1 million OVH customers *chose* to operate in *shady area* is a strong
statement.
... and OVH cleaned up their act.
Yet they are (black)listed by uceprotect. OVH is AS16276, the one with
2327 of their 3583744 IPs tha
Apparently that's not a good strategy: their 509952 IPs are blocked by
uceprotect, too; 217 of these IPs (again 0.05%) sent spam in the last
seven days. And indeed what you suggest is not a solution for the
WordPress site of a honest customer that get hacked, for instance.
You keep bringing
One concrete example: AS16276 has 3583744 IPs. Out of these, 2327 sent
a spam in the last 7 days according to uceprotect. That might seem
like a high number, but it's only 0.05% of the address space of that
AS. Because of this all IPs of AS16276 are blacklisted.
2327 IPs from that ASN sent
How can a server provider do this? Apart from blocking port 25 of
course, and forcing all emails of their customers to go through their
SMTP server, in which case they wouldn't be selling a bare machine
anymore. If it was "not even that difficult", I'd guess they would all
do it.
Linode b
while it is feasible for ISPs to eradicate spam on their network, it is
impossible for server providers to do this:
Umm.. it's not impossible, and it's not even that difficult..
How can a server provider do this? Apart from blocking port 25 of course,
and forcing all emails of their custo
First off, I'm subscribed to this list, there is no need to email me AND
the list.
Sorry, I was just honoring the "Reply-To:" header set by the list.
It's what they themselves say: they changed their formula two days ago,
and because of this thousands IP addresses that were not listed ar
That's a fair point, there's no reason to not question their motives.
I just personally don't see that it's a profit center for them.
Just do the math. They blocked at least 100K IPs, because 1% of these
IPs sent spam in the last 7 days. If 0.5% of those 100K IPs decide to
subscribe to the
From their web site: WHITELISTING IS RECOMMENDED FOR IP
217.182.79.147. Registration is available for 1 Month (25 CHF), 6
Month (50 CHF), 12 Month (70 CHF), 24 Month (90 CHF) . So yes,
perhaps it's not extortion. We may call it demanding money with
menaces, exaction, extraction, blackmail...
Brandon Long:
sender in addressbook is definitely a whitelisting signal, as is
replying to a message the user sent or on the same thread. They used to
be much stronger whitelisting signals than they are now, but were abused
by spammers, so it's not a guarantee.
I stand corrected on tho
For SPF, the "all" keyword is only reached if processing the previous
policy rules did not result in a positive answer, which means
"interpret this a sign that the email is likely not spam, but use the
other filtering mechanisms before taking a decision" (it's a "+1").
At that point:
"?al
There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?all" (or perhaps
"~all").
Using "-all" as the default in a SPF record does not have any readily
apparent effect on "Inbox" deliverability of SPF-authenticated mail to
GMail relative to "~all" based on domains whose mail and SPF records
I
For example, I see that your email address is @jfoo.org, and that you
have:
jfoo.org. 6 IN MX 0 mx.oustrencats.com.
jfoo.org. 6 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:50.116.29.164 ip6:2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe6e:7287
-all"
This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all".
Hogwash.
If you sa
In my opinion, "-all" is good only when it is the *only* entry in the
SPF record, ie. SPF record indicates that the domain does not send mail
*at all*. In all other cases, I think that even if original SPF record
specifies "-all", the receiving server should override this and
interpret it a
Laura Atkins:
The OP asked for advice on delivery, not his SPF setup. His SPF setup is
fine and is absolutely not the problem here.
There is one, he should at least change "-all" to "?all" (or perhaps
"~all"). And by the way this wasn't the only advice I gave. I never
wrote "do this a
Hi,
This is not optimal, your SPF record should be "v=spf1 mx ?all".
I disagree.
"v=spf1 mx ..." requires a DNS lookup which their existing SPF record
doesn't. Lots of people telling you how to set up SPF will say 'use
v=spf1 mx' because they don't want to explain the entire SPF record
Hi,
It is postfix, and has DNS, SPF and DKIM set up correctly.
Are you sure about this? Did you check your configuration, for example
with check-a...@verifier.port25.com (mail-based) or mail-tester.com
(web-based)?
Another way to check what happens is to send an email to a Gmail addres
20 matches
Mail list logo
