Default behavior is always to retry 4xx if there isn't a rule in place that
overrides it. In this case, it was, and still is (i'm working on it)
hitting another rule that was put in place to *not* retry a very specific
4xx that would never result in a successful delivery.
The full response in
.
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 7:37 AM Bill Cole via mailop
wrote:
> On 2023-06-22 at 19:14:15 UTC-0400 (Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:14:15 -0700)
> Luke via mailop
> is rumored to have said:
>
>
> > Unfortunately we cant make a rule that retries all 4xx and doesn't
> > retry
> >
That's a very silly interpretation of what was said.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023, 11:01 PM Slavko via mailop wrote:
> Dňa 22. júna 2023 23:14:15 UTC používateľ Luke via mailop <
> mailop@mailop.org> napísal:
>
> >Unfortunately we cant make a rule that retries all 4xx and doe
hu, Jun 22, 2023, 12:10 PM Michael Orlitzky via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-06-22 at 10:52 -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
> > I got a rule in place that should cover this. I'll monitor and make sure
> > the desired behavior is occurring.
> >
>
&g
I got a rule in place that should cover this. I'll monitor and make sure
the desired behavior is occurring.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 7:27 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 2023-06-21 18:39:59, Luke wrote:
> > Ahh. Thats funny. Apologies. You'll have to refresh my memory.
> >
> > Happy to help if I
023-06-21 18:19:41, Luke via mailop wrote:
> >
> > I work at sendgrid and manage response handling. If someone were to reach
> > out with an obvious problem, I'd be willing and able to adjust our
> response
> > handling appropriately.
> >
>
> You're th
An alternative approach would be to admit that response handling at massive
sclae is very difficult to get 100% right. Give the sender the benefit of
the doubt that they are trying to do the right thing and attempt to reach
someone who works there to see if they can help. You could try mailop,
mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-02-27 at 18:53 -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
> > For better or worse, *not *retrying *some *4xx is even easier to
> > justify.
> > Here are a few massive examples.
> >
> > 421 4.7.1 Message permanentl
.
Unfortunately the real world isn't so simple
Luke
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 5:15 PM Michael Orlitzky via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-02-27 at 15:45 -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
> >
> > With that said, given the responses in this thread, we will be ta
I can't go into the specifics in great detail, but I want to make it clear
that these are rare edge cases. We aren't out there retrying 5xx every
chance we get because we don't care about being a good citizen. These are
small scale, often short-lived exceptions where retrying a very specific
5xx
I can assure you sendgrid retries 4xx. We also don't retry 4xx. We also
retry 5xx. We also don't retry 5xx. How is it 2023 and people still think
4xx means retry and 5xx means don't retry?
Luke
On Sat, Feb 25, 2023, 9:21 AM Michael Orlitzky via mailop
wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-02-24 at 15:57
global.com from the contact info for
> that Fidelity IP block, found via ARIN.
>
> Cheers,
> Al Iverson
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 4:24 PM Daniel J. Luke via mailop
> wrote:
>>
>> I run a smal mail server for friends/family (with a couple of tiny mail
>>
That sounds great, Marcel. But what we really need is an RFC for human
consciousness. RFCinfinity. I think some smart people in Brussels are
working on it. When they succeed we'll have a recommendation for every
possible problem, technological or otherwise. A recommendation drafted by
the only
I run a smal mail server for friends/family (with a couple of tiny mail lists
for local clubs). I noticed that I was rejecting discover.com bank's billpay
messages as they MAIL FROM billpay.discover.com, which doesn't appear in DNS.
I've worked around this locally, but it would be nice if they
You are missing something..and that's okay. Someday it will hit home.
For now, let's just keep pushing for just the right laws. There are
definitely no trade offs to consider. People are the problem. Government is
the answer.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 8:07 PM Ángel via mailop wrote:
> On
There's some serious irony throughout this thread. Out of one side of our
mouths we despise "oligopolies" and service providers who get too big to
block or, conversely, too big to care about their own spam footprint. And
out of the other side of our mouths we are begging for security and privacy
That account was terminated on the 14th. For what it is worth (and I know
this is worth very little here), our system did prevent more than ~90% of
their *attempted* mail from ever leaving our pipes. So I like to tell
myself we prevented 9 million phish instead of telling myself we sent 1
million
If you can take the activist hat off and think like an average person with
average objectives, Google is the right answer. There is nothing wrong with
suggesting this. There are pros and cons. As a grown up, I understand that
everything is a trade off. But for most people, Google is the right
Happy to chat offline about this. The mail they are attempting to send to
eastex.net is exclusively going to one address. This address returned *550
5.1.1 > is not a valid mailbox* on
December 23rd, 2021. After we receive a response like that, we add the
address to the sender's suppression list.
Interesting. I must be looking at something highly correlative rather than
causal here. Probably needs a closer look.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 7:54 PM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Luke via mailop said:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >Just to add anot
Just to add another layer to the fun, Gmail will also reject messages with
an @ sign in the Friendly From. For example, *"Luke @ Home"
>* will be rejected for having
two from addresses.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
PH01 is their phishing rejection. They see something they don't like in one
of the URIs. They usually fix these false positives pretty quick if you
submit a ticket here
021-10-20 18:12:32, Luke via mailop wrote:
> > For clarification, it has been 12 years. But point taken. Thanks.
> >
>
> The causal relationship may be me editorializing, but prior to the
> Twilio acquisition, I held no strong opinions about SendGrid and
> that's probably the b
For clarification, it has been 12 years. But point taken. Thanks.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 6:01 PM Michael Orlitzky via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-10-20 at 10:46 -0700, Luke wrote:
> > Thanks, John. The account in question is being looked at as we speak.
> > It should be
Thanks, John. The account in question is being looked at as we speak. It
should be terminated shortly.
Michael, do you have an example of a 4xx we aren't properly handling? Would
love to take a look and adjust handling.
Luke
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 5:08 AM Michael Orlitzky via mailop <
A copy and paste from a recent admin note feels relevant here:
All
Can we please try to retain at least a veneer of professionalism and
decency within posts? I remind you all of the list charter, here:
https://www.mailop.org/
Too many posts recently have been openly aggressive, attacking, and
Its 2021. You either love privacy or you hate privacy. Pick a side. Who has
time for nuance.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 1:11 PM Jarland Donnell via mailop
wrote:
> > What will be better with my services, when i publish my name? Do you
> > know me? What will prevent me to publish fictive name or use
AGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Wed, 2021-08-04 at 16:40 -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
> > Bounces and spam report percentages dropped.
>
> I am probably not the only one that has SA blocking all mail from some
> of those senders.
>
> header SENDGRID4 X-Entity-ID =~ /7mxhBNMk
-- Michael --
>
> PS, Luke at least you responded, which everyone on this list do
> appreciate.. honesty is still better than hiding.. And of course, the
> CEO doesnt' see the risk.. hey, Digital Ocean went public based on how
> many customers they have, didnt matter what they used the drop
The account in question was told they need to clean up their act about 4
weeks ago. A week later we saw their overall sending volume drop by more
than 66%. Bounces and spam report percentages dropped. That data, along
with some unscientific subject line analysis, it is clear that they have
made
That isn't one of the accounts reported by Micahel. However, it is being
investigated.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 8:12 AM Carl Byington via mailop
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Thu, 2021-07-08 at 09:14 -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
> > Bo
) to the open web, stuff happens.
Luke
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 10:46 PM Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> Am 08.07.21 um 18:14 schrieb Luke via mailop:
> > Just so the group is aware, our team is looking into the Zoom traffic.
> We aren't sure w
Just so the group is aware, our team is looking into the Zoom traffic. We
aren't sure what they are doing with that mail stream, but it doesn't look
good.
Both of the accounts reported by Michael have been suspended.
Thanks, everyone.
Luke
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 8:48 AM Michael Peddemors via
If you could share the return-path of the offending message, I can have it
looked at.
Cheers,
Luke
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:39 AM Brielle via mailop
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Anyone here have a contact for Zoom in re of webinar spam being sent
> from their platform via Sendgrid owned IPs?
>
> I'm
Has anyone gotten a firm answer on these scenarios yet?
5321.from: boun...@srv12.example.com
5322.from: cont...@example.com
The vast majority of our customers will have a subdomain on the 5321 from
that isn't present on the 5322 from. I'd like to know if this is a problem.
I'd
Addresses returning that response are invalid. They should be bounced and
suppressed from future mailing.
I have no idea why they chose 552, but the data shows that no one is home
at these addresses.
Luke
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 2:26 AM Mawutor Amesawu via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
Median and 75th Percentile delivery times to Yahoo and AOL for the past 30
days:
[image: image.png]
It isn't *way *out of normal bounds, but it is noticeable. However, I do
not see a significant uptick in errors so I can't say what is causing the
increase in delivery times.
I'll keep an eye on
Preventing outbound spam on a large system is a far greater challenge than
stopping inbound spam. The technical challenges are similar, but the
logistical challenges of preventing outbound spam without pissing off
customers is *far* greater than the challenge of preventing inbound spam
without
Super interesting, and very helpful. Thanks Paul.
Luke
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 9:37 AM Paul Gregg wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:52:49AM -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
> > Starting very precisely on January 6th, we started to see a number of
> > previously reliable
Starting very precisely on January 6th, we started to see a number of
previously reliable domains turn up with secondary MX records that look
like these:
cluster1a.us.messagelabs.com
cluster1a.eu.messagelabs.com
cluster1a.uk.messagelabs.com
The domains with these secondary records have primary
Unfortunately, consent isn't what matters to most people now. They want
dangerous ideas to be eliminated. And there can be no discussion about what
is declared dangerous. That kind of discussion is...dangerous.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 12:44 PM Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org>
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the mythic-beasts.com stuff being potentially
problematic? The host name, A record, mx record, ptr record are all
mythic-beast.com. If Google doesn't like them, all this stuff you're doing
is a moot point.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020, 6:49 AM Jim Popovitch via mailop
wrote:
In the Return-Path. "bounces+1234567" the number following bounces+ is the
SendGrid account ID.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:57 AM Carl Byington via mailop
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 15:23 +0300, Atro Tossavainen via mailop wrote:
> > The
I'm pretty sure "spammers lie" holds up in court. :P
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 5:59 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
>
> >> From the judgement:
> >> "The plaintiff has shown that it has complied with the Hague Convention
> and personally served a representative
Atro,
I did not forget that we know each other. I remember meeting you and Pekka
for the first time in Dublin back in 2015.
I appreciate the added perspective here. It sounded like you were
suggesting that ESPs do not suppress invalid email addresses. But it sounds
like you are aware that ESPs
This is wonderful. Thanks for the reply.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020, 6:55 PM Matt Palmer via mailop
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 06:06:25PM -0700, Luke wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 07:48:45AM -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
> > > > I cant tell if this the thing
5:30 PM Matt Palmer via mailop
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 07:48:45AM -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
> > I cant tell if this the thing about ESPs not removing bounces is a joke
> or
> > not. All of the major ESPs have logic for adding bad addresses to
> > suppression li
I cant tell if this the thing about ESPs not removing bounces is a joke or
not. All of the major ESPs have logic for adding bad addresses to
suppression lists. Of course their users can choose to unsuppress, but ESPs
certainly remove bounces. Seems like most people here should know this.
Maybe I'm
The very first reply to this thread was from a SendGrid representative.
They generally respond pretty quickly any time they are mentioned here.
Luke
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:24 AM Brielle via mailop
wrote:
> On 5/11/2020 11:45 AM, Matt V via mailop wrote:
> > On 2020-05-05 11:09 p.m., Andy
If the sender has established reputation on previous IP address(es), you
might be able to ask for the "preemptive accommodation" form. I've never
tried it under these specific circumstances, but it could be a workaround.
Luke
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 1:02 PM Brad Slavin via mailop
wrote:
>
verything you need to know.
>
Well. I guess that's that.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:58 AM Robert L Mathews via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> On 2/26/20 5:22 AM, Luke via mailop wrote:
> >
> > They also have no process in place for verifying From addresses. With
> &g
;
> On Tue 25/Feb/2020 16:30:29 +0100 Luke via mailop wrote:
>
> Some more detail on this would be helpful.
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:35:08 +0100 I received the first abusive message, with
> subject: "I have videos of you masturbating"
> sent by o2.ptr2321.cornerstoner.
Some more detail on this would be helpful.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:08 AM Alessandro Vesely via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue Dec 24 16:43:39 GMT 2019 Kevin A. McGrail wrote
> > We've been seeing the same over the past few weeks as a growing threat.
> > They are abusing
*>Let us await the economic outcome of this Free-Market-Based
corporatestrategy.*
I think the "free market" has found a solution already. Gmail.
The spam i get in my Gmail inbox is somewhat annoying. However, I'm not
sure the occasional interruption in my day to day activities rises to the
level
There isnt a ton of info yet, but based on the Twitter rant we can infer a
few things.
He's fed up with "big tech" doing nothing about spam and unwanted
messaging. This is funny for a number of reasons. But unless I'm
misinterpreting something, DHH seems to think the big providers are in
cahoots
I actually work for a company that sells a validation tool as a part of our
platform and I'm still pretty confused by the appeal of such a thing. As
Mr. Wise said before, "bounce processing!"
I want to believe a legitimate use case for validation exists but if you
collect addresses in an
mation not available
> elsewhere, or "just" put several relevant pieces of information in one
> place ?
>
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2019, Luke via mailop wrote:
>
> > DMARC rejects had great utility in my time working at an ESP. They would
> > have little or no utility for
useful to many significant parties.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 7:02 AM Steve Atkins via mailop
wrote:
>
> On 21/11/2019 13:10, Luke via mailop wrote:
>
>
>
> One of the features of email is that it you can send responses back about
> the status or handling of a message. Here's o
One of the features of email is that it you can send responses back about
the status or handling of a message. Here's one such response from a gmail
server:
*550 5.7.1 Unauthenticated email from domain.tld is not accepted due to
domain's DMARC policy. Please contact administrator of
I can't tell if people truly believe response codes and enhanced codes are
used uniformly and reliably out in the wild, or if they are just talking
about their own personal systems and the codes they throw. Setting any kind
of hard rule based on 5xx/4xxx or x.x.x is completely irresponsible if
Ah I see. That makes sense. Things like "Mailbox Over Quota" or a slew of
other errors that are "non-temporary" but don't specifically indicate "this
mailbox doesn't exist" are probably worth a couple of tries. I've heard
people say you should retry an address that returned "5xx No such user" or
Are you saying you should retry an address once or twice even if it bounces?
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 12:31 PM Michael Wise via mailop
wrote:
>
>
> And if it bounces …
>
> Emergency Stop Emailing Immediately!
>
>
>
> Maybe try again once of twice, but if all those fail, for goodness sake,
> remove
If you're philosophically opposed to clicking links in an email, I doubt
you'd be in a position to receive too many re-engagement campaigns from
email marketers. Unless they are spammers then the whole point is moot.
I guess you could argue that one should subscribe to a newsletter but only
There are a bunch domains that are incredibly sensitive to this kind of
thing. Crank up the concurrent connections and search logs for
"*connections*" You'll find the ones that care really quickly. There are
plenty of them.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:29 PM Blake Hudson via mailop
wrote:
> For
of concerted effort to normalize spammy
behavior? No.
I don't like the terms double opt in or cold outreach either and I don't
use them. But I don't think the term "spamspeak" and the allusion to 1984
is appropriate.
Luke
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Michael Rathbun wrote:
>
I did intend to send it to the whole list.
"Spamspeak" makes it sound so clandestine. So Orwellian. Like there is some
> subversive element on the list trying to turn the tides and normalize spam.
> Sounds spooky. Sounds provocative. Let's run with this.
> *Rolls eyes*
But yes, I was poking fun
This seems like a reasonable work around :p
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 7:19 PM Chris Adams via mailop
wrote:
> Once upon a time, Grant Taylor said:
> > On 8/15/19 11:17 AM, Mark Milhollan via mailop wrote:
> > >perhaps a way can be found for your MUA to help you
> >
> > It's a complete hack.
> >
>
67 matches
Mail list logo
