> 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 t
-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 add
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
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 pre-exist
-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 IPs
-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-
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE3RmV4WutJ2K
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 prob
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
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
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
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 s
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
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:
> > > >
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
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
> > friends to adopt encryption.
>
> Se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 2022-09-13 at 09:12 +0200, Dominique Rousseau via mailop wrote:
> Le Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:57:26AM -0400, Jim Popovitch via mailop
> [mailop@mailop.org] a écrit:
> > On Mon, 2022-09-12 at 19:02 +0800, Henrik Pang via
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
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 mailop
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 were
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
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 such
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/email
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
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
> >
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.
_
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 smt
-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 query
-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 su
-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
> > actually
-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
> > doing.
-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.
> >
>
-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 th
-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,
-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
-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 c
-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.
>
> > > It
-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 blo
-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), 24
-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 ext
-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
-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
-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,
-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
-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&s=5
>
You failed to mention this bit from that link:
"UCEPROTECT-Level 3 lists all IP's within an ASN excep
-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 t
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.
___
m
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 custo
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 sign
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.
>
>
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
> > >
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
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 conf
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
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
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 in
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 al
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
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 restric
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 Outlook/Hotm
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
-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 diff
-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
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
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: https://emai
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
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. Pffft.
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-
>
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 reas
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 lik
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
On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 15:06 +, Olaf Petry - Hornetsecurity wrote:
> > > the $$ is to validate the responsible entity behind a sending
> > > domain that is whitelisted
>
>
> You are kidding, don't you?
No I am not kidding.
> Which spammer would not pay that fee if they would be interested to
On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 13:56 +, Mathieu Bourdin wrote:
> Wasnt that the paying "service"? I think remember something like 20$
> for getting delisted for each IP or domain.
Yep, that's $20 per year. The $$ isn't to fund their vacations or
service, the $$ is to validate the responsible entity be
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 identified
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.
_
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: J
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
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
-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
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 -
>
-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 4.7
-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 yo
-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-
iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEPxwe8uYBnq
-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
-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 o
On May 3, 2018 5:02:22 PM UTC, Frank Bulk wrote:
>It's all good now -- someone figured it out and fixed it. =)
>
Thank the stars that this month has 31 days, so June is a bit further out
before we have to hear about this again. :-)
-Jim P
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
-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:
http://dnsviz.net/d/mail.mil/Wusx
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 this to Google for 4 week
87 matches
Mail list logo
