Re: [mailop] Proofpoint Contact

> In the past, I've found them to be totally unresponsive and gave up on > them. That can't be right.  I literally contacted them a few days ago and had a successful response (unlisting) within minutes during US business hours.   Go here, put in your IP address, and they give you an opportunity

Re: [mailop] verifier.port25.com

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Lots of good responses for alternatives to verifier.port25.com, but do any of them support aliased feedback address whereby you could send an email to check-auth-lhs=domain@verifier.port25.com and the response would be returned to the aliased

Re: [mailop] Mailing lists, Apple and failing DKIM signatures

On Mon, 2023-05-22 at 22:18 +0200, Benny Pedersen via mailop wrote: > Jim Popovitch via mailop skrev den 2023-05-22 20:49: > > > DO use Mailman's built-in DMARC mitigations for re-writing From > > for DMARC identified domains, including p=none. > > fine tool to break

Re: [mailop] Mailing lists, Apple and failing DKIM signatures

On Mon, 2023-05-22 at 19:20 +0100, Simon Arlott via mailop wrote: > If you're running a mailing list that retains the original DKIM > signatures [that will fail because the message subject and body > have been modified] you might want to strip/hide them because... DON'T remove standard

Re: [mailop] Proofpoint bottleneck to ibm.com

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Someone has reached out to me off-list. Thanks all! - -Jim P. On Sun, 2023-02-05 at 19:48 -0500, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > Hello! > > Anyone else seeing a delay in delivering email to *.ibm.com via > Proofpoint? All

[mailop] Proofpoint bottleneck to ibm.com

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello! Anyone else seeing a delay in delivering email to *.ibm.com via Proofpoint? All IPs are good on ipcheck.proofpoint.com, have been getting 421's for ~8 hours now. Thanks! - -Jim P. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [mailop] DigitalOcean IP ranges gone

On Fri, 2022-11-25 at 18:05 +, Slavko via mailop wrote: > Hi, > > i was using https://digitalocean.com/geo/google.csv to fill my > internal rbldnsd, but recently i start getting 404 for it. I do not > update these IP ranges too often, thus i am not sure when it > starts to happen, but the

Re: [mailop] Postfix.org borked?

On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 17:52 -0800, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: > On 11/21/22 17:30, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 17:10 -0800, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: > > > On 11/21/22 16:24, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > > > &g

Re: [mailop] Postfix.org borked?

On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 17:10 -0800, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: > On 11/21/22 16:24, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > > I still think there's some weirdness going on. Firstly I'd be surprised > > if Wietse hung www off of 1 NS, and then the base domain off of 2 NSes >

Re: [mailop] Postfix.org borked?

On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 16:07 -0800, Dan Mahoney via mailop wrote: > > To be clear, I was also hitting errors when I was trying to (from a direct > google link) hit the www.postfix.org mailing lists page, and getting a safari > timeout. I still think there's some weirdness going on. Firstly I'd

Re: [mailop] DMARC Stockholm syndrome, Reject vs spam folders

On Mon, 2022-09-19 at 17:07 +0200, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: > > ARC is the authentication of choice in this case because, being devised for > this task, it is supposedly straightforward to configure for it, whereas > whitelisting after SPF or DKIM smells like a hack. I wish ARC was

Re: [mailop] DMARC Stockholm syndrome, Reject vs spam folders

On Sat, 2022-09-17 at 11:48 +0200, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: > > Yes, ARC can fix what DMARC broke. You must be new around here :) If ARC is fixing what DMARC broke, and DMARC was to fix what DKIM broke, and DKIM was to fix what SPF broke, and SPF was to fix (what was SPF suppose to

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On Wed, 2022-09-14 at 10:57 +0200, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: > On Wed 14/Sep/2022 00:09:49 +0200 Jim Popovitch wrote: > > On Tue, 2022-09-13 at 15:56 -0600, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > > > On 9/13/22 3:33 PM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > > >

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On Tue, 2022-09-13 at 15:56 -0600, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > On 9/13/22 3:33 PM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > Right, that's why I have said repeatedly that it is not super easy. > > It's not hard to do, it's just not super easy. > > I agree that it's no

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On Tue, 2022-09-13 at 15:18 -0500, Chris Adams via mailop wrote: > Once upon a time, Jim Popovitch said: > > I agree. Self hosted email is not hard, and it's just not super easy. :) > > > > The much harder aspect of email is getting your peers, family, and > >

Re: [mailop] The oligopoly has won.

On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 19:02 +0800, Henrik Pang via mailop wrote: > why bother to self host an email? using gmail/gsuite save a lot of > time. > > Why make a home cooked meal when you can buy the same processed meal that everyone else buys? Why make your kids custom toys, just buy them the same

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On Sun, 2022-04-17 at 11:06 -0600, Rob Nagler via mailop wrote: > Laura, did you notice the To line in the email to which I am replying > is "Bill Cole via mailop ".  The reason you see that is because your MUA is auto-saving email addresses of the people that email you. The "Bill Cole via

Re: [mailop] USPS mailing

On Fri, 2022-03-04 at 18:05 +, Matthew Stith via mailop wrote: > Hey there Mailop folks, > On Monday March 7th and going on for a few days Microsoft and Amazon > will be sending out messages on behalf of USPS in relation to Covid > Home-test-kits. They ask that these message be allowed. We

Re: [mailop] m-365 still works like a spammer !

On Sat, 2021-07-24 at 17:14 +0200, Xavier Beaudouin via mailop wrote: > Hello, > > > > But it seems they never trys the best preference first. > > > > > > > Are you greylisting or running pregreet tests on your MXes? > > > > Here's what I think is happening. MS first tries the priority 10

Re: [mailop] m-365 still works like a spammer !

On Sat, 2021-07-24 at 13:23 +0200, Xavier Beaudouin via mailop wrote: > > > But it seems they never trys the best preference first. > Are you greylisting or running pregreet tests on your MXes? Here's what I think is happening. MS first tries the priority 10 MX, and postscreen (or

Re: [mailop] Paging Barracuda/EmailReg

On Mon, 2021-04-05 at 09:06 -0700, Erwin Harte via mailop wrote: > On 4/3/21 8:59 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > Paging someone from Barracuda or EmailReg. EmailReg.org has been > > offline for a while now. > > > > https://www.barracudacentral.org/about/em

[mailop] Paging Barracuda/EmailReg

Paging someone from Barracuda or EmailReg. EmailReg.org has been offline for a while now. https://www.barracudacentral.org/about/emailreg -Jim P. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Yahoo: This mailbox is disabled (554.30)

On Mon, 2021-03-22 at 18:04 +, Laura Atkins wrote: > On 22 Mar 2021, at 16:06, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > Something I've never fully understood: Is a disabled account permanent > > or subject to reactivation upon some action? This is for a mailinglist > > subs

Re: [mailop] Yahoo: This mailbox is disabled (554.30)

On Mon, 2021-03-22 at 09:24 -0700, John Brahy wrote: > Pretty sure the only time it’s opened back up is to make a spam trap Heh, I've seen that. So, 554.30 is permanent disable. Is there any listing of these codes to better understand if an account is in-flux? Thanks! -Jim P.

[mailop] Yahoo: This mailbox is disabled (554.30)

Something I've never fully understood: Is a disabled account permanent or subject to reactivation upon some action? This is for a mailinglist subscriber, so I'd prefer to not remove the subscriber if there's a chance the participant can re-activate their account. -- Mar 22 13:37:33

Re: [mailop] Spamhaus Public Mirror Error Return Code Update

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 18:53 +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > Dnia 15.02.2021 o godz. 15:43:56 Matthew Stith via mailop pisze: > > Wanted to get this out to you all for awareness for anyone who is using > > the Spamhaus public mirrors to

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Note: Last post by me on this thread Graeme. On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 20:45 +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote: > At the time we were discussing this 24 hours ago, there were about ~2400 > IPs in their network that were flagged. This number

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 19:12 +0100, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: > On Thu 21/Jan/2021 19:09:04 +0100 Graeme Fowler via mailop wrote: > > [Admin note] > > > > Unless you are a representative of UCEPROTECT, or you have something to > >

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 18:36 +0100, Vittorio Bertola via mailop wrote: > > Il 21/01/2021 15:03 Jim Popovitch via mailop ha scritto: > > > > Neither of those situations describe the reality of what uceprotect is > >

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 17:33 +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote: > > > 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. > >

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 17:23 +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote: > > I'm not advocating anything, and that's again orthogonal to the point at > hand. The point is that when a website gets hacked and starts to send > spam, all other IPs of

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 17:07 +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote: > > > 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,

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 15:15 +0100, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 15:04, Jim Popovitch via mailop > wrote: > > > "Pay us for protection", when it really means "pay us or we'll [break &

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 16:44 +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote: > > > 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

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 16:20 +, Gregory Heytings via mailop wrote: > > 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. > > > >

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 14:38 +, Gregory Heytings wrote: > > > > 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

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 14:01 +, Gregory Heytings wrote: > > > > > 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),

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 08:54 -0500, Chris via mailop wrote: > On 2021-01-21 07:26, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:08 +0100, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: > > > So yes, perhaps it's not extor

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:44 +0100, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: > On Thu 21/Jan/2021 13:26:43 +0100 Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:08 +0100, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: > > > On Wed 20

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:08 +0100, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: > On Wed 20/Jan/2021 14:25:10 +0100 Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 14:10 +0100, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote: > > > On 1/20/21 1:58

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 08:27 -0800, Russell Clemings via mailop wrote: > I don't really understand why anybody would use UCEPROTECT3 anyway. > > The first sentence of their web page says: > > "This blacklist has been created for HARDLINERS. It can,

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 14:10 +0100, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote: > > On 1/20/21 1:58 PM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 13:29 +0100, Hetzner Blacklist via mailop wrote: > > > > &g

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 13:29 +0100, Hetzner Blacklist via mailop wrote: > > New/current policy: http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3=5 > You failed to mention this bit from that link: "UCEPROTECT-Level 3 lists all IP's within an ASN except

Re: [mailop] Is it something to worry about?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 11:21 +0100, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote: > > I agree with what you said. That said, those who use UCEPROTECT above > level 1 to unconditionally block mails deserve to lose mails. > For me, it's "appreciate never seeing

Re: [mailop] New server email being treated as spam by Google

On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 10:15 +0100, Ewald Kessler | Webpower wrote: > Hi Jim, > > There's one 'e' too many > > > googleemail.com smtp-v4: Heh, Thanks. I've had that like that for close to a decade now and never realized that. -Jim P. ___

Re: [mailop] New server email being treated as spam by Google

On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 13:59 +0100, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote: > Hello, > > On 21.11.20 12:54, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > > You can configure your MTA to disable IPv6 only for delivery to Google - at > > least with Postfix it should be possible. > > how would one do that? With a

Re: [mailop] opendkim bad signature data from mx.mailop.org

On Sat, 2020-11-07 at 17:08 +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > Dnia 7.11.2020 o godz. 11:58:03 Mary via mailop pisze: > > In another mailing list, they automatically replace the From: with > > something like "Mary via listname ", then its easy to > > re-sign the email with the list DKIM

Re: [mailop] [ADMIN] List migration complete

On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 22:07 +1300, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote: > I've just gone though some unsubscribes for the last few days ago > hopefully we are now synced. If you have unsubscribed from the list > recently and are still subscribed then please unsubscribe again and it > should stick. >

Re: [mailop] [ADMIN] List migration complete

On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 12:08 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter via mailop wrote: > Bjoern! > > * Bjoern Franke via mailop : > > Hi, > > > > > FYI we have, finally, completed the mailing list migration to a new VM. > > > > > > Firstly: many, many thanks to Andy Davidson for administering & hosting > >

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Mailman confirmation email denial of service

On Thu, 2020-08-20 at 09:43 +0800, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote: > On 2020-08-20 05:17:09 (+0800), Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > > BotNet? > > Were they listed in the SpamHaus XBL as being compromised? > > The problem is that the subscriptions come in through the Mailman web > interface, not

Re: [mailop] Mailman confirmation email denial of service

On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 12:24 +0200, Andreas Schamanek via mailop wrote: > On Wed, 19 Aug 2020, at 09:51, Andy Smith via mailop wrote: > > > Since yesterday I've been seeing a large number of attempted > > subscriptions to all the public lists on one of my Mailman servers. > > (...) > > I can

Re: [mailop] BIMI pilot @ Google

On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 11:56 -0700, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:35 AM Jim Popovitch via mailop > wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 14:49 +0200, Sidsel Jensen via mailop wrote: > > > but if the effect is that it will drive up the

Re: [mailop] BIMI pilot @ Google

On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 00:19 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > Dnia 22.07.2020 o godz. 14:27:52 Jim Popovitch via mailop pisze: > > "Once verified, the BIMI file tells the email service where to find the > > sender’s logo and the email service pulls that logo into the inb

Re: [mailop] BIMI pilot @ Google

On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 14:49 +0200, Sidsel Jensen via mailop wrote: > but if the effect is that it will drive up the adoption rate for DMARC then I > am clapping my hands. "Once verified, the BIMI file tells the email service where to find the sender’s logo and the email service pulls that logo

Re: [mailop] why does this list break DKIM?

On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 11:34 +0100, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: > On Sun 09/Feb/2020 00:33:34 +0100 Simon Lyall via mailop wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Feb 2020, Aragon Gouveia via mailop wrote: > > > Does anyone know why this list breaks DKIM verification? In particular it > > > looks like it's

Re: [mailop] Help - Tucows/OpenSRS

On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 08:15 -0500, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote: > On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 22:32:39 -0400, Jim Popovitch via mailop > wrote: > > > Oh my gawd, don't get me started on their support desk. > > I have to admit that I liked them a lot more when TUCOWS stoo

Re: [mailop] Help - Tucows/OpenSRS

On September 9, 2019 7:12:14 PM UTC, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: > Looks like OpenSRS is sending domain verification emails with a from > address of the domain technical contact. Not authenticated, as far as > I can tell, and it probably violates a domain's DMARC policy, if they > have a

Re: [mailop] Mail problem with Outlook/Hotmail and mail.python.org

On June 30, 2019 11:31:49 AM UTC, Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop wrote: >I'm in the postmas...@python.org team. >https://sendersupport.olc.protection.outlook.com/snds/ is displaying >the IP for mail.python.org (188.166.95.178) as red/yellow. > >We're seing a constant stream of mails to

Re: [mailop] Admin: Gmail users of mailop suspended due to bounces.

On April 29, 2019 3:46:03 AM UTC, John Levine via mailop wrote: > >Still waiting to hear when mailop.org adds its SPF record. Didn't it take almost 2 years the last time we waited on mailop.org to fix a cert? -Jim P. On mobile so pls excuse any brevity, typos, lack of taste, crudeness, down

Re: [mailop] Outlook/Hotmail Blacklist

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 13:50 -0400, Scott Mutter wrote: > >Received: from hawk.wznoc.com ([209.140.28.140]) > >envelope-from > >From: Scott Mutter > >Message-ID: <20190306210316.gb19...@ams-salesandsupport.com> > > > > That's 3

Re: [mailop] Outlook/Hotmail Blacklist

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 2019-03-06 at 16:03 -0500, Scott Mutter wrote: > Hello list > > I'm looking for any assistance in trying to get off of an Outlook/Hotmail > mailinst list with Microsoft. Received: from hawk.wznoc.com ([209.140.28.140]) envelope-from

Re: [mailop] how can we get better?

On Sun, 2019-01-20 at 09:28 +, Laura Atkins wrote: > > On 19 Jan 2019, at 09:42, Jim Popovitch via mailop > rg> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 17:07 +, Benjamin BILLON wrote: > > > I'm not convinced Mailop is the best place to get help

Re: [mailop] how can we get better?

On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 17:07 +, Benjamin BILLON wrote: > I'm not convinced Mailop is the best place to get help on your very > specific deliverability issues. You might want join slack workspaces > like "emailgeeks" to discuss that, FWIW, Slack's a bit odd about workspaces. From:

Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down

On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 11:37 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote: > On 1/10/2019 10:44 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > you are de-valuing mine,  > > Actually, your opinion about these organizations was important and > noteworthy. if someone has a conflict of interest, it *is* helpful

Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down

On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 09:33 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote: > ... [snip] ... > > So I'll stop here and quit before I put my foot in my mouth! But ya didn't, did ya? Look dude, everybody has opinions. You are de-valuing mine, strictly because I have a biz agreement with some entity you dislike.

Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down

On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 16:36 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote: > On 1/8/2019 4:26 PM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > Any value greater than a reasonable amount to provide a > > communications > > portal, and actual communications with, the entity requesting the > > de- >

Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down

On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 18:03 +, Olaf Petry - Hornetsecurity wrote: > > > If the barrier had been $1000, then sure > > > I would have said "it's extortion", but it wasn't.   > > Where does the extortion barrier start in your opinion? 1000, 500, > 100, 20 or 1 Buck? Any value greater than a

Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down

On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 12:04 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote: > On 1/8/2019 11:46 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > The same has been said about HTML emails...but that hasn't stopped > > folks from using them.;-) > > "apples to oranges" comparison - sort of like say

Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down

On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 11:26 -0500, Rob McEwen wrote: > On 1/8/2019 10:26 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > > Which spammer would not pay that fee if they would be interested > > > to > > > get whitelisted? > > > > That's not how it works, and fran

Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down

On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 15:06 +, Olaf Petry - Hornetsecurity wrote: > > > the $$ is to validate the responsible entity behind a sending > > > domain that is whitelisted > > > You are kidding, don't you? No I am not kidding. > Which spammer would not pay that fee if they would be interested

Re: [mailop] emailreg.org is down

On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 13:56 +, Mathieu Bourdin wrote: > Wasnt that the paying "service"? I think remember something like 20$ > for getting delisted for each IP or domain. Yep, that's $20 per year. The $$ isn't to fund their vacations or service, the $$ is to validate the responsible entity

Re: [mailop] Fwd: Looks like we'll be seeing a big breach notification surge...

On December 1, 2018 12:22:21 AM UTC, "Kurt Andersen (b)" wrote: >One of about 5 hyphenated *marriott* domains that I have received mail >from over the last year :-P > It's the not unique to Marriott, Prudential does the same..same exact format. I wonder if all these companies were

Re: [mailop] Unsubscribe

On October 31, 2018 3:37:12 PM UTC, Tracy Morgan wrote: >Please unsubscribe me. > >[id:image001.png@01D36CE4.60810D90] > >Tracy Morgan | DIGITAL CAMPAIGN SPECIALIST > There is a certain irony in a bulk sender asking for others to intervene and unsubscribe them. -Jim P.

Re: [mailop] Expires SSL cert for mailop

On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 13:18 -0400, Bill Cole wrote: > On 29 Oct 2018, at 12:41, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > > N.B. please don't CC me, I'm subscribed to the list. > > I normally wouldn't, but your posts all have this header: > >    Reply-To: Jim Popovitch &

Re: [mailop] Expires SSL cert for mailop

On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 12:32 -0400, Bill Cole wrote: > On 29 Oct 2018, at 10:40, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > > You allow nsupdate from your cgi/php/java enabled webserver(s)? > > My **what?*** Are you high? Do you mean to be insulting??? Of course not. I only asked

Re: [mailop] Expires SSL cert for mailop

On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 11:31 -0400, Dave Brockman wrote: > On 10/29/2018 10:40 AM, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > You allow nsupdate from your cgi/php/java enabled webserver(s)?   > > > > -Jim P. > > No, the whole point of using acme.sh and the nsupdate module

Re: [mailop] Expires SSL cert for mailop

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 09:52 -0400, Bill Cole wrote: > On 29 Oct 2018, at 5:44, Frands Bjerring Hansen wrote: > > > Noel,  > > > > LE does not insist on certbot. They recommend it, and why wouldn't  > > they? :)  > > > > Use acme.sh instead if you

Re: [mailop] RESOLVED messagingengine.com / fastmail.com

forwarding him the spam email that triggered the listing. There's a meme jpg floating around that I swear is not entirely accurate. ;-) - -Jim P. On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 08:05 +1000, Marc Bradshaw via mailop wrote: > Replied off list. > > > - Original message ----- > From

[mailop] messagingengine.com / fastmail.com

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Can someone from messagingengine.com/fastmail.com please contact me. I'm seeing lots of: 4251pv49w5z118G   5091 Wed Sep  5 11:35:35 list-boun...@spammers.dontlike.us (host in1-smtp.messagingengine.com[66.111.4.73] refused to talk to me: 451

Re: [mailop] DKIM headers - which do you sign and why?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Tue, 2018-07-24 at 00:30 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > And still I'm honestly looking for stats about how many domains are > really currently sending DMARC reports to senders (I get reports for > much less than 1% of my recipients: is it what

Re: [mailop] QQ Postmaster

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 17:46 -0400, Vick Khera wrote: > I'd be curious to know if you are successful. My recollection is they > just spam you if you are outside of China. FTFY! ;-) - -Jim P. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [mailop] Should mail servers publish IPv6 MX records? Could this harm your spam filtering?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 17:21 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 16:47, Jim Popovitch via mailop org> wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 10:27 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote: > > > there has to be some justified level

Re: [mailop] Should mail servers publish IPv6 MX records? Could this harm your spam filtering?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 10:27 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote: > there has to be some justified level of "collateral damage" these > days, due to the very high frequency of hijacked accounts, hijacked > websites, and spamming ESP customers (from ESP that are

Re: [mailop] No MX records for mail.mil

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 09:33 -0500, Frank Bulk wrote: > This doesn’t look so good, though: > http://dnsviz.net/d/mail.mil/dnssec/ but this did: http://dnsviz.net/d/mail.mil/WsaG2w/dnssec/   and before that there was:

Re: [mailop] Issues With the way Google Groups unsubscribe is used in headers..

On February 8, 2018 1:05:59 AM UTC, Michael Peddemors wrote: >Spammers are abusing Google Groups lists of course, and I am sure they >are working on it, but the issue is with the unsubscribe URL methods.. >Comments at the bottom of the example.. > I've been reporting

Re: [mailop] SPF recommendations (was: Re: Earthlink trouble with our PTR)

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Bill Cole <mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote: > On 14 Dec 2017, at 14:01 (-0500), Jim Popovitch wrote: > >> Aside from a few HUGE providers, those with very large and disparate >> networks/offices/topology > > > SP

Re: [mailop] SPF recommendations (was: Re: Earthlink trouble with our PTR)

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop wrote: > > In fact, you should not use "-all" for your mail domain if you care > about deliverability. FALSE! (Also, you should not randomly add CC recipients to the same mailinglist that you are responding to)

Re: [mailop] SPF failures at Yahoo

On Oct 27, 2017 11:42, "Jim Popovitch" <jim...@gmail.com> wrote: Is there someone from Yahoo! who can provide some insight into why there is always 1 SPF lookup failure in your DMARC reports. http://domainmail.org/reports/yahoo.com!netcoolusers.org!150 6556800!1506

Re: [mailop] SPF record

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > > At least a Mailing List is in a position to rewrite the headers so that SPF > works when it sends the traffic out. > Yep, but only those managed by ppl who know how to keep things updated, patched, etc.

Re: [mailop] Do we need a new list for reporting spam? (Was Re: Admin: This is not a place to report Spam. )

On Apr 10, 2017 12:15, "Laura Atkins" <la...@wordtothewise.com> wrote: On Apr 9, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Jim Popovitch <jim...@gmail.com> wrote: On Apr 9, 2017 13:07, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitch...@isipp.com> wrote: This brings up a good point...bac

Re: [mailop] AOL Service unavailable on connect

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Derek Diget wrote: > > Anyone else seeing connection issues to AOL? Saturday morning (EST) we > started getting > > 421 mtaig-maa03.mx.aol.com Service unavailable - try again later > Yep, ~$ mailq Queue ID-

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Eric Henson wrote: > Just be aware that using XY will have you labeled as misogynist , XX will > have you labeled a SJW, and XXX will get you blocked by porn filters. > > :-) Damn the world is complicated. All I was thinking of was Pokémon.

Re: [mailop] Storing 821 envelope recipients in an 822.Header?

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 12:17 PM, John Levine wrote: >>5. Does not override existing specifications that legislate the use >>of "X-" for particular application protocols (e.g., the "x-name" >>token in [RFC5545]); this is a matter for the designers of those >>

Re: [mailop] Yahoo blacklist removal

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:53 PM, David Sgro, Dataspindle wrote: > Check Proofpoint.com to see if you listed > https://support.proofpoint.com/rbl-lookup.cgi?ip= It's almost the end of the 2nd decade of the 2nd century that IPv6 has been in use... I would have thought

Re: [mailop] Barracuda hosted spam filtering having issues?

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Eric Tykwinski wrote: > I'm seeing a lot of session timeouts on connections to > .ess.barracudanetworks.com servers. > Just checking to see if it's a known issue... Same here (domainmail.org). At first it looked like they had SSL issues

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:12 PM, John Levine wrote: >>But I'm not sure what native would look like. After Lavabit, would the >>type of folks who use pgp actually trust our implementation if they >>couldn't see it and verify it? > > In my experience there are two kinds of PGP

[mailop] DKIM + mailinglists (rehash)

Hello! If Mailman (and other MLMs) would provide some header data that listed msg modifications (i.e. pre-pended subject with 6 chars, post-pended body with 6 lines, etc), would this be beneficial for anyone to use in order to reconstruct an original msg and validate the original DKIM sig

Re: [mailop] why "not comply with best practices" on SpamRats?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Peter Bowen <pzbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Jim Popovitch <jim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> <ops.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>

Re: [mailop] Multiple DKIM signatures -- any benefit or detriment?

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: > >> On May 21, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Jim Popovitch <jim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: >>> >>>>

Re: [mailop] Multiple DKIM signatures -- any benefit or detriment?

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: > >> On May 21, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Jim Popovitch <jim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Michael Rathbun <m...@honet.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 20 May 2016

  1   2   >