Re: [mailop] protection.outlook.com refusing to accept mail with misleading temp error message

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 10:50:05 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >I think the system has accreted and evolved to a point where not even the >folks inside Microsoft can tell you why a mail was delivered where it was. I >mean, that’s been true for more than a decade now. It’s not, somehow, that

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Wed, 12 May 2021 10:47:34 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >Or… care? Heh. The difference between not knowing and not caring is in the time lapse between the offence and the inevitable "time wounds all heels" event(s). mdr -- There's a funny thing that happens when you know the

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Wed, 12 May 2021 09:27:40 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >The things we normally recommend to folks don’t always work as expected. >Sometimes they do and we can fix things no problem. But sometimes they are >just an inscrutable black box with variable responses. This is a

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Wed, 12 May 2021 10:08:37 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >Your second paragraph can be basically summed up that there is no economic >incentive for Microsoft to care about the quality of email service they >provide - right? Tochno. >If yes, don't you agree that Microsoft should ;)

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Wed, 12 May 2021 09:59:35 +0200, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: >I'm not talking about hotmail/outlook, I'm talking about Office365 customers >who *do* pay and who would be pretty much >not amused if their mails were broadly rejected. Ah. As one who was a Spam Analyst in the

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Wed, 12 May 2021 09:29:13 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >But if they do provide it, they should do it well. It's no justification for >providing a crappy service that it is free. If you are doing something, do >it well, or don't do it at all. > >Sadly, they are so big that they can

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Wed, 12 May 2021 08:37:30 +0200, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: >Yet at the same time Microsoft expects "the world" to accept mail from their >customers. It would be difficult to verify this. There is nobody at MSFT (or at least wasn't when I worked there) that pays any attention to

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Registered @ Microsoft JMRP - blacklisted without feedback received

On Tue, 11 May 2021 19:45:28 +0200, André Peters via mailop wrote: >What is this crap good for when it sends one out of 1000? You may wish to take into account economic realities. YOU are not a Microsoft customer. The RECIPIENTS are not Microsoft customers. None of the above parties pays

Re: [mailop] Duplicate duplicate mail mail from from Gmail Gmail ?

On 9 May 2021 21:37:35 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >The only thing I have changed lately is that I added CHUNKING so it sends the >mail using >the SMTP BDAT command rather than DATA. As far as I can tell that is working >correctly >and other places send me mail with BDAT without

Re: [mailop] How stale is too stale for contacts?

On Tue, 4 May 2021 10:50:22 -0600, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: >I'd like to know if I'm off my rocker or if the person / company that >sent the message with the following excerpt is using purportedly once >good contact information /well/ /past/ it's best by date. In my experience, this

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Consumer Email Deliverability Issue

On Sat, 1 May 2021 16:22:13 -0500, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: >The fact that filling out their support ticket does nothing except generate >canned responses and that you have to come here to Mailops to get any >movement on a blocked IP address or blocked server - you would think that >that

Re: [mailop] What's w/ .bl.score.senderscore.com?

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:30:15 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Schamanek via mailop wrote: > >Did I miss something? Since days .bl.score.senderscore.com returns >NXDOMAIN or SERVFAIL, and apparently I am not the only one affected. It's been that way for well over a week. I retired those lookups for the

Re: [mailop] +addressing ... any reason to NOT use it? {dkim-fail}

On Wed, 03 Feb 2021 18:08:16 -0800 (PST), Ned Freed via mailop wrote: >Speaking as someone who has been using +subaddress forms extensively for >25 >years, the main problem is broken web forms that don't handle +'s well. Maybe >now that Exchange online supports it there will be some impetus to

Re: [mailop] nolisting, was What's the point of secondary MX servers?

On 18 Dec 2020 19:29:21 -, John Levine via mailop wrote: >As I recall some sites were getting stuck on the nolist host for every >message. That would be the expected result. Few servers retain much in the way of state, beyond an optional "always use the first outgoing IP". The expectation

Re: [mailop] Delivery problem on Microsoft e-mail (code 250 but does not receive)

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 12:41:25 +0200, Daniele Rossi via mailop wrote: >The problem is that the mail does not arrive either in spam or in the inbox. >This happens for most of our ip's. > >Can anyone explain this abnormal behavior to me? Back when I worked there, my analysis of the architecture

Re: [mailop] Just trying to see if I can still post.

On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 03:52:38 +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > >Huh. >Maybe some issues with outgoing connections to mailop for some reason? I see lots of "Microsoft still having Azure and O365 issues" in news. And the constant load of ddns dot net spamming has moved to other providers.

Re: [mailop] 0Spam down

On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:27:42 +0200, Hetzner Blacklist via mailop wrote: >Just a quick heads-up: the 0spam blacklist is down. > >The website (0spam.org) can't be reached, and the domain appears to be >for sale. > >Queries to bl.0spam.org are currently failing. At least that's better >than listing

Re: [mailop] Outlook SNDS unblock?

On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 12:52:03 -0700, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote: >Am I failing a turing test here? >I tried a dozen times. Try using a "Private" window. The page assumes all kind of nuttiness based on whatever it finds in the cookie cache. mdr -- Those who can make you believe

Re: [mailop] sendgrid.net

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 08:36:32 -0500, Michael via mailop wrote: >What's the consensus on sendgrid.net? I don't know anything about them, >but I had the impression that they were a reputable company. Lately, >I've noticed a lot of phishing emails coming from them. Does anyone just >block them

Re: [mailop] MTA Server IP "Warm Up" Reputation Recommended Best Practices

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:00:59 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >Oh. > >You’re trying to send mail from an Amazon compute server sitting in the middle >of a range of IPs that have the generic aws rDNS.You’re being blocked because >you’re sending from a place many, many people don’t want

Re: [mailop] MTA Server IP "Warm Up" Reputation Recommended Best Practices

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 08:34:15 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >Microsoft doesn’t just block new IP addresses for being new. Actually, there was a mechanism in place when I worked there that would refuse traffic from an IP if (a) no traffic had ever been received from it; and (b) there

Re: [mailop] MTA Server IP "Warm Up" Reputation Recommended Best Practices

On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 13:07:35 + (UTC), "L. Mark Stone via mailop" wrote: >So, asking what you all would recommend we do with this IP, and how best we >should warm up a new IP in future to avoid finding ourselves in this same >situation again. [Just my opinion based on experienc] An IP

Re: [mailop] ANNOUNCEMENT: The NEW invaluement "Service Provider DNSBLs" - 1st one for Sendgrid-spams!

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 00:52:10 +0200, Bjoern Franke via mailop wrote: >Did you send this mail two times or is something wrong again with the >listserver? The message ID strings are identical. mdr ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org

Re: [mailop] Delisting request from sendgrid customer about ip used in recent phishing campaign.

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 10:40:40 -0500, Mickey Chandler via mailop wrote: >And yet ESPs, like many other businesses, can sometimes look at abuse >desk operations as a cost center, not as a core functionality. It's >way easier to justify paying for new salespeople who will bring in >several times

Re: [mailop] Google and Spam detection

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 18:45:19 +0200, Ralph Seichter via mailop wrote: >So please, give us Hetzner customers a break if we're doing things The >Right Way(TM). I don't block the list of Hetzner prefixes I have amassed, because the individual senders do it for me. 100% of all Hetzner IP traffic

Re: [mailop] Digital Ocean Broken Bot attack, just in case it's you and not me..

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:45:24 -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: >Very High volume SMTP Auth type attacks, but either a broken bot, or an >attempt at Denial of Service.. > >Range, 192.241.227.0/24 One connect each on Thu, Sat, Sun, and Mon. Did EHLO after banner, then closed the

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Microsoft Block list (S3150)

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:11:18 -0500, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: >All the while, our users see us as being the bad guys. They don't believe >that Microsoft/Hotmail/Outlook can be a bad guy because they're too big. As an American public corporation, there is exactly ONE way in which MSFT can

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Block list (S3150)

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:46:05 +0200, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: >Am 29.06.2020 13:16, schrieb Laura Atkins via mailop: >> On the advice of their lawyers Microsoft doesn’t share that >> information with senders. >> >> laura >> > >Sounds a bit like Kafka's "Der Prozess". Don't tell the

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Block list (S3150)

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 10:46:57 -0500, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: >But the real sucky part is - we're the ones that get blamed by our >customers when Microsoft imposes such a strict block. From our customers >point of view - Microsoft is too large of a company to do any wrong, it >can't be

Re: [mailop] Microsoft Block list (S3150)

On 24 Jun 2020 21:50:13 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >To point out the obvious, you're not their customer. Why should they >care unless an actual customer complains? And the actual customers are the advertisers, not the persons using "free" email services, and certainly not any entity

Re: [mailop] Fake documents from Microsoft and fake voice mail from Exacttarget

On 23 Jun 2020 19:24:14 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >Pardot sends from 13.111.68.0/24 and since it is 100% spam, that's easy to >block. Looking at the >logs, I don't think I see any real mailfrom Sharepoint either in 52.100/16. Beginning Sat 2020-06-20 14:47 US EDT, the following

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid and phishing

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:00:35 +0100, Tim Bray via mailop wrote: >Anybody else seeing increase phishing through sendgrid?  They look >fairly convincing. General spam (several per week) and phishing, especially some very nicely done "Reconfirm you Netflix payment method" at several per day.

Re: [mailop] t-online.de outage?

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:29:18 -0500, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: >Likely because I included your IP in a list of examples I sent them. >They replied overnight saying they'd unblock. Even though that's not >really what I was asking for. Ah. Thanks for your efforts. I had briefly entertained

Re: [mailop] t-online.de outage?

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:43:21 +0100, Graeme Fowler via mailop wrote: >I thought I'd do a check on this assertion and it does appear to be accurate. I did not contact them (nobody here sends mail in that direction, in any event) but just now I get 220 rather than 554. mdr -- My study of life

Re: [mailop] t-online.de outage?

On Tue, 09 Jun 2020 04:35:40 +0200, Ralph Seichter via mailop wrote: >>> 554 IP=47.190.44.19 - A problem occurred. (Ask your postmaster for >>> help or to contact t...@rx.t-online.de to clarify.) (BL) Connection >>> closed by foreign host. > >I remember seeing this particular error code when

Re: [mailop] t-online.de outage?

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 21:53:06 + (UTC), Jon Morby via mailop wrote: >We just get a 554 after connect and before any handshake. I’ve tried this from >various IPs, not just our mail server IPs in AS8282 It's not just you. After a telnet to an MX there, I see >554 IP=47.190.44.19 - A problem

Re: [mailop] Force double opt in for marketing list companies per email address

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:30:23 -0700, David Carriger via mailop wrote: >I'm not saying this as an attempt to call anyone out, or start a fight, but >my point is that those of us who are active in these industry mailing lists >and conferences are the ones who care. We want to do better. We're up

Re: [mailop] SPF notification question

On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 10:05:02 -0400 (GMT-04:00), Liam Fisher via mailop wrote: >What do you usually do for domains that have broken SPF records? SpamAssassin adds 7.5 points, enough for classification as spam, absent any mitigating factors. This is generally a desired outcome. >Do you notify

Re: [mailop] Unable to receive email from WeTransfer and Facebook (only for a specific domain)

On Sat, 16 May 2020 21:02:31 +0200, Alessio Cecchi via mailop wrote: >we are an Email Hosting Provider based in Italy. [snip] >What can I investigate? Based on all the data you have provided us, the answer would be equivalent to the answer to "What sort of stuff should I saw when building a

Re: [mailop] New IP's being Blocked

On Fri, 15 May 2020 15:42:47 -0400 (EDT), Brad Peruski via mailop wrote: >Is there anyone from Microsoft available that could check into a ticket to >ensure it made it to you?  I put a ticket in on Monday and have not heard >anything back as of yet and just want to ensure it made it into the

Re: [mailop] DMARC policy application

On 7 May 2020 15:14:10 -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote: >Maybe I'm lucky but I haven't had much trouble. My users do know that should >there be problems, it won't be pretty. Aye. Anybody can send any mail from any address to any address through this system. They just have to have opened

Re: [mailop] [OFF TOPIC] Any WindStream abuse team members on here?

On Wed, 6 May 2020 16:43:31 -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: >80.82.65.253 >87.251.74.44,47 >92.63.74.44/24 >134.255.217.129 >176.113.115.0/24 >183.136.225.45 >185.176.27.38,58,86,118,126 >194.26.29.13 >194.31.244.2,6,10,14,18,34 > >Makes you wonder how those networks are related..

Re: [mailop] Hotmail blacklist

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 10:35:38 -0500, Michael via mailop wrote: >We have completed reviewing the IP(s) you submitted. The following table >contains the results of our investigation. > >Not qualified for mitigation >52.10.9.48 >Our investigation has determined that the above IP(s) do not qualify

Re: [mailop] Secureserver & wanadoo.fr throttling

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 10:18:22 -0700, Mark Fletcher via mailop wrote: >Is anyone on here with Secureserver/GoDaddy or Wanadoo/Orange? We are >regularly bumping up against their message/connection limits, and I was >hoping we could get those raised. Our normal advice is to put simultaneous

Re: [mailop] Who runs the mailspike BL and why are they blocking Yahoo?

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 21:04:01 +, Steven Champeon via mailop wrote: >It's been a while since I talked with Joao but back then it was purely >trap-driven, it was my understanding that it was intended to be used in >a scoring context rather than binary black/white blocking. They've since >been

Re: [mailop] Remarkable longevity of AWS-hosted spamming operation

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:17:55 -0800, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: >While kind of off the record, for those tracking this.. > >We did get some back channel feedback indicating that they now know what >the sources of these are, but as of this morning it is still occurring. The note below

Re: [mailop] Remarkable longevity of AWS-hosted spamming operation

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:17:55 -0800, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: >I know of some operators that already are being more aggressive, eg >denying SMTP traffic.. I have almost dropped all the AWS CIDRs I can find into the persistent IP REFUSE, except for the fact that I sometimes need to

[mailop] Remarkable longevity of AWS-hosted spamming operation

[NOTE: this is relevant to mail operations as a number of legitimate senders are customers of Amazon AWS. Several of them are my clients.] An operation that is easily distinguished by > EHLO phylobago.mysecuritycamera.org and a payload that begins with "This message is from a trusted

Re: [mailop] Messages from small personal SMTP server being marked as junk by Google

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 14:01:40 +, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >No one who reads or posts to this list can effect the change you’re looking >for. This goes well beyond the technical interoperational issues that this >list is intended to discuss. In support of these remarks, I will add:

Re: [mailop] A Facebook curiosity: lots of people suddenly have accounts at honet.com?

New aliases yield messages in Mandarin (Feedback-ID: 3681:pages_you_may_like:Facebook) and Viet-Namese (stale_notification). Remarkable. mdr -- There's a funny thing that happens when you know the correct answer. It throws you when you get a different answer that is not wrong.-- Dr Bowman

Re: [mailop] A Facebook curiosity: lots of people suddenly have accounts at honet.com?

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:17:27 -0800, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: >Nadine, is that you? Heh. A vaguely possible connection, depending upon how baroque you like your conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, "Nadine" has the full attention both of the "This message is from a trusted sender" spammers on

Re: [mailop] A Facebook curiosity: lots of people suddenly have accounts at honet.com?

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:29:10 -0600, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote: >I looked up the name "Marius Chantry" on FB, and behold, there is such a >person, a resident of Belgium. Marius' email is in French, Feedback-ID: 1986:stale_notifications:Facebook, notifying of a new no

[mailop] A Facebook curiosity: lots of people suddenly have accounts at honet.com?

Whilst doing one of my periodic desultory log-pokings, I noticed that marius.chantry @ honet.com had received (or would have received, had he existed) three messages from Facebook. They really were delivery attempts from FB's usual servers in their IP space. Odd. I looked up the name

Re: [mailop] [FEEDBACK] Approach to dealing with List Washing services, industry feedback..

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:14:02 -0800, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: >What is the position of the industry on these issues.. I am sometimes asked for our opinion on which "address verification" service we might recommend when providing our deliverability consulting service, usually as part of

Re: [mailop] *LIKELY SPAM 22.6* Re: BIMI

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:11:05 +, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >Or this spam header that just landed in my inbox coming from a domain >registered yesterday. Does have SPF, bounce and 5322.from are aligned. >Everything is there to use BIMI, once the publish a couple DNS records. >

Re: [mailop] [FOR THE RECORD] Large Scale Windows Bot traffic..

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:45:15 -0800, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: >Just in case you are wondering about a large increase in DUL sourced >spam overnight, (and of course, most systems probably stop the bulk of >it), it appears to be a Windows based bot, that is sending.. > >MAIL FROM:

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Reasons ISPs (Microsoft) ignore DMARC policy?

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 19:53:07 -0500, Matt Vernhout via mailop wrote: >If a sender asked you to reject that mail with their policy do them a favour >and send a bounce that says something like ‘your DMARC said to bounce failed >messages, if this is wrong fix your authentication and try again’

Re: [mailop] Junk filtering as a tool for unfair competition

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 23:48:30 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote: >I understand it was a 0-day and AV software didn't know it? Of course I >don't know what that particular kind of malware was, but maybe heuristic >tools like DeepInstinct, that try to analyze what a file *actually does* >before allowing

Re: [mailop] Junk filtering as a tool for unfair competition

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 23:22:59 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >Dnia 24.10.2019 o godz. 15:11:23 Kelly Molloy via mailop pisze: >> >> Yes, it certainly can be. If an email causes a user to install >> ransomware on a corporate network, then it is an enormous and >> expensive problem; it's

Re: [mailop] Junk filtering as a tool for unfair competition

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:14:59 +, Steven Champeon via mailop wrote: >We recently refused mail from a potential licensee because their own >Forefront server labeled it as spam. Authenticated, outbound, and so on, >and they still thought it was worthy of rejecting, so we rejected it (I >still

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 12:15:14 +0200, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: >Perhaps, a possibility could be to reject if the message is SPF and/or DKIM >authenticated, still drop otherwise. Would that make sense? I find >non-authenticated messages where I happen to know that the sending mailbox

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 21:11:24 +0200, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote: >If you don't look at them anyway, why don't you reject them at the gate >at first sight? "Except for research purposes..." You can't look at data you discarded before it even came to your posession. OTOH, machines that HELO

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:56:17 +0200, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote: >No, dropping an email without anyone knowing is still probably the worst >thing that can be done, whatever the case is. Refusing at SMTP time with >a 5XX message is still the best practice. >Because your antivirus tells you

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:21:47 +0200, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: >For blatantly viral attachments, silently dropping the message still seems to >be the most appropriate action. Is that a best practice? Absolutely not. And the message disappearance I mention above can happen for a

Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 13:11:31 +1100, Michelle Sullivan via mailop wrote: >Worse when they (the receiver) silently discards them... user checks the >spamfolder and their inbox and the sender thinks it all went through and >the email is never seen despite people looking for it and wanting it.

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:39:21 +0100, Mark | Uniform Benefits via mailop wrote: >A comment on Microsoft escalation would be that it seems (to me at least) to >be separate for outlook/Hotmail/live etc whereas if we have an issue it >tends to be across all Microsoft domains in one go. We send from

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:48:35 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >What defines spam is the *contents* of the message... Actually, no. Content is largely irrelevant. We almost never terminate a hosted customer due to content. The major consideration is always consent of the recipient.

Re: [mailop] Gmail marking email from me as spam

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 10:16:48 -0400, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: >"Bulk" isn't about the delivery path, it is about how mail is composed >and targeted. And, properly understood, the 'B' in "UBE" is not "bulk", it is "broadcast". So, if more than one person received a substantially identical

Re: [mailop] https://sender.office.com/ not working (or only with outlook.com addresses)

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:21:42 +0200, Alexander Zeh via mailop wrote: >I recently wanted to delist an IP using https://sender.office.com/ > >Unfortunately I never received the confirmation email from step 2. I heard >from others that they received the email when using

Re: [mailop] Best Re-engagement Email

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:22:32 -0700, Damon via mailop wrote: >I have asked around and got a few opposing answers. Plain text vs. HTML, >images ok/images not-ok, Opt-out Link at top or bottom, send from >transactional IP vs. customer's 'regular' IP, CTA incentive for re-engaging >included or not.

Re: [mailop] Help - Tucows/OpenSRS

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 stood for The Ultimate Collection Of Windows Software. mdr -- Sometimes half-ass is exactly the right

Re: [mailop] Resolving issues for several yahoo domains?

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:38:12 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: >Now people have made me curious what they set those values to for Gmail. >We don't have simple limits like those (a quick check shows the max number >of messages sent on a single connection in the past week is 414k, and I >know

Re: [mailop] Resolving issues for several yahoo domains?

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:31:04 +, "Brotman, Alexander via mailop" wrote: >One of the interesting things I’ve learned while interacting with ESPs is that >some of them will artificially restrict the number of messages per session, in >lieu of opening more sessions. Some of them have told me

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 08:14:16 -0700, Luke via mailop 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

Re: [mailop] mailop Digest, Vol 142, Issue 35

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 16:08:50 -0400, Damon via mailop wrote: >Back in the day of the IETF ASRG, I think we said it’s spam if the user >calls it spam. In other words - it’s in the eye of the beholder. For legal >purposes UBE, and later UCE, were defined with the legal speak. "SPAM" was first

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:06:40 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop" wrote: >> Spam being unsolicited broadcast email, I would say that if you agree to >> receive it, it cannot be spam. This definition has held up well over the >> twenty-five years I've been involved in the industry. >

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:40:55 +0100 (BST), Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: >You can't use engagement like that. Everyday experience with a large number of volume mailer clients says that, in the general case, you not only can, you must. There have been public statements by staff at major

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:39:31 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >Not sure I understand this point of view. I think everyone should be rejecting >after DATA, if only to stop the abuse of the email address validation >services. For defined spam traps here, we accept the message (although we

Re: [mailop] Could Googlemail do something about the massive volume of NDRs?

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:45:50 -0700, Brandon Long wrote: >We're aware of the issue and working on it, but safely rolling out >this change will take some time... and of course break some real NDRs, >so hopefully >people who actually want NDRs will be sending from authenticated domains. Thanks for

[mailop] Could Googlemail do something about the massive volume of NDRs?

For a while, back in June, my antique Yahoo! account (my initials) got a large pile of messages warning me that my email to myself could not be delivered. These were all verifiably >From: Mail Delivery Subsystem and stated that >Your message to [my own Y! address] has been blocked. See

Re: [mailop] ActiveCampaign Deliverability Specialist (Sydney, AU or Dublin, IRE)

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:19:36 -0600, Lori Vaughn via mailop wrote: >Hello All, > >ActiveCampaign is hiring a Deliverability Specialist in Dublin (would >consider EU remote for the right person) or Sydney. Let me know if you are >interested or know someone who might be! >

Re: [mailop] Lawsuit to watch: Tulsi v. Google

On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 15:14:25 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop" wrote: > >> Also, doesn't CAN-SPAM only apply to senders? > >No, there is a little-known (apparently) clause in CAN-SPAM that specifically >states that ISPs can make any delivery decision that they want to, for any >reason

Re: [mailop] Lawsuit to watch: Tulsi v. Google

On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:42:07 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: >No comments from this side, obviously... except that everything old is new >again: > >https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+campaign+email+gmail+spam We've had a fair bit of success reverse-engineering Google's placement

Re: [mailop] spam from onmicrosoft.com?

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:40:45 -0500, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: >Is there any point in reporting that B2B spam? And if so, where? If you are an onmicrosoft customer with, say, 100 seats, you simply contact your account rep. It works better if you have at least 500 seats, tho. THe net.effect,

Re: [mailop] How to identify source of email sent via Google?

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 08:31:11 +1000, Angelo Giuffrida via mailop wrote: >Sorry it's been a rough day (death of a friend and member of our team) and >I might have been a bit snipey. I have a load of frustrations with >Microsoft's handling of spam, and assumed that somebody with seniority at

Re: [mailop] Can't sign up for MSFT SNDS?

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:54:08 -0500, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: >? ?++; mdr -- There's a funny thing that happens when you know the correct answer. It throws you when you get a different answer that is not wrong.-- Dr Bowman (Freefall) ___

Re: [mailop] Barracuda IP listings

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:57:02 +0100, Kieran Cooper via mailop wrote: >A couple of our customers at SparkPost have started seeing widespread listings >of multiple IP addresses on Barracuda’s blacklist and someone suggested that >something might have gone wrong there overnight. > >Does anyone

Re: [mailop] Microsoft blacklisting a /16

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 19:49:15 +, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > >All true progress depends on SOMEbody sticking their neck out. >… I think. Thou knowest, my brother. mdr -- The world is a real mixed bag but if you can’t find the beauty in it occasionally you might be the broken part.

Re: [mailop] Microsoft blacklisting a /16

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 10:40:59 +0200, Hetzner Blacklist via mailop wrote: >That's really interesting, thanks for sharing Michael. I was under the >impression that the Microsoft blacklist, at least the one for Outlook, >and not O365, was an automated system. Do you know if it is still >possible to

Re: [mailop] Microsoft blacklisting a /16

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 13:25:40 +0200, Hetzner Blacklist via mailop wrote: >For the past two years things have been going really well for us in >regards to the Microsoft blacklist. We've had very few issues, probably >because we aggressively check the SNDS and block/terminate IPs/clients >that send

Re: [mailop] What is the story with QQ.COM?

On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 03:17:32 -0700, Brian Kantor via mailop wrote: >Has anyone else seen this or had it happen to their mailboxes? We get about three successful deliveries per week that fit this description. They all come from CBL-listed boxes, almost entirely in .cn. We would probably see

Re: [mailop] About to blacklist Marketo - has anyone received non-spam from them?

On Tue, 28 May 2019 11:57:01 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop" wrote: >I'm pretty much giving up on Marketo - and about to BL them and also recommend >to others that they do so - as I have *never* received anything other than >spam from them, and while they may still have a few good

Re: [mailop] DigitalOcean calling for social media s* storm? (Re: Why is it so hard to have takedown's performed..)

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:26:23 -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: >PS, pgHammer went quiet yesterday.. either someone caught/killed his C >server, or the actor realized that there was too much attention on the >activity. That doesn't mean those servers listed should not still be >taken

<    1   2