On 19/06/2022 11:36, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
On 6/18/2022 3:40 PM, Noel Butler via mailop wrote:
As for forwarding, SPF is only a problem if you dont follow standards
and re-write
Hi.
You don't indicate what kind of rewriting you mean. It probably
doesn't matter, since you seem
On 19/06/2022 00:03, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
this thread (forwarding or mailing lists). That was the main goal of
SPF -
ensuring that the message isn't fake - and it cannot even fulfill that
one
goal properly. Why even use it at all?
I was a very early (even in testing) user of SPF,
not it seems.
Even if the law of the land does not require it, it is the right thing
to do in being a good netizen.
On 17/06/2022 15:24, Mark Foster wrote:
On 17/06/2022 3:46 pm, Noel Butler via mailop wrote:
On 17/06/2022 05:55, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
You should get a welcome message when
On 17/06/2022 05:55, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
You should get a welcome message when a user direct subscribes you to a
group that should have an unsubscribe link in it. The welcome message
part of the flow that the group manager can set should be added to that
message.
What the F, no
On 07/06/2022 01:18, Nitin Kumar via mailop wrote:
Hi,
Any one from Yahoo mail please look into this issue. Mails from
Rackspace are getting rejected by Yahoo.
Some of our IPs which are affected:
184.106.54.111
184.106.54.108
184.106.54.75
184.106.54.74
184.106.54.116
184.106.54.102
On 14/04/2022 01:02, Paulo Pinto via mailop wrote:
Hi all.
Why on earth is gmail checking the IP address of the message sender
(ISP assigned home address, for instance) against the sender's domain
SPF without the ability of checking if that original delivery was done
using SMTP
On 31/03/2022 13:45, Carl Byington via mailop wrote:
On Wed, 2022-03-30 at 10:55 -0700, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
Imagine the day where you can't use email unless you use Gmail or
o356.
If that happens, there will be two mail systems (gmail/o365) and
(everyone else). If the
On 29/03/2022 13:49, Graeme Slogrove via mailop wrote:
the world is moving to cloud.
Conversely, it may not be best move, plenty of orgs in Australia went
cloud and plenty reverted back.
As for website/Email, cloud providers think they are the only ones who
know how to do things, plenty
On 29/03/2022 08:30, Graeme Slogrove via mailop wrote:
We are actively using the new IP ranges as published a few weeks ago,
everything seemed fine until this morning
Server refused mail at MAIL FROM - 553 5.3.0 flpd577 DNSBL:RBL 521<
52.165.84.32 >_is_blocked.For assistance forward this
On 12/03/2022 11:20, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
On 11 Mar 2022, at 19:09, Noel Butler via mailop wrote:
Firslty yes, seen too many issues with SORBS, we removed them about 3
weeks ago, the problems have been ongoing for months.
Just wrapping up a trial with them for a traffic sample
Firslty yes, seen too many issues with SORBS, we removed them about 3
weeks ago, the problems have been ongoing for months.
Secondly, like most DNSBL's they probably use rbldnsd, this does not
support TCP, only UDP
On 12/03/2022 06:17, Slavko via mailop wrote:
Ahoj,
Dňa Fri, 11 Mar 2022
On 23/02/2022 23:10, Sinclair, John via mailop wrote:
Staring at the end of the Google Suite (aka Workspace) free lunch days.
Trying to find a free solution that will still let me use a custom
domain, not coming up with much, so thinking about going back to
rolling and hosting my own email
Yes, but why would I block you specifically, are you spamming in your
spare time tst tst :)
On 17/01/2022 13:08, Mary via mailop wrote:
You are still getting my mail via mailop, so all is fine :)
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 12:52:12 +1000 Noel Butler via mailop
wrote:
You dont send to us
You dont send to us then :)
There are a few ranges of linode's blocked here
On 17/01/2022 12:43, Mary via mailop wrote:
I'm hosted at linode and I manage 100+ mail servers there. To be
honest, I would highly suggest linode for mail server hosting, since
over the past 6 years, this is the
On 15/01/2022 15:54, Sam Mulvey via mailop wrote:
I just wanted to let everyone know that I've got this all sorted, and I
thank everyone on the list for their advice.
I indeed had removed a few SPF records from the domains I control. I
had plan forgot about them. But the most important
On 09/01/2022 13:44, Brie via mailop wrote:
Hi Sendgrid and Zoom,
We've been over this before, multiple times... But alas, it looks like
that you neither of you seem to care a single bit about your services
being used to send spams that can't be unsubscribed from.
Yep, I know you,
Happy New Year!
now for bad news, i'm back :)
On 30/12/2021 13:05, Mark Foster via mailop wrote:
On 29/12/2021 11:48 pm, Noel Butler via mailop wrote:
Mark, you do realise, that information *is already there* in the
header, well, for network operators it is, as its encrypted but
roundcube
On 29/12/2021 14:15, Mark Foster via mailop wrote:
I use Roundcube myself and as a _user_ of the software, it hadn't
occurred to me that, much like Gmail, people who send emails using this
webmail tool have _full anonymity_ (except, of course, from the service
operator).
Should have
On 29/12/2021 14:15, Mark Foster via mailop wrote:
So your attitude is fine if you're a _good_ platform operator _and the
victim _
Most operators will be better operators, as most of us dont have tools
scanning its users emails to target advertising and christ knows what
else they do with
On 29/12/2021 03:50, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
It is Roundcube that is actually connecting to Dovecot/Postfix and
receiving/sending mail, not the user's browser, so the connecting IP
that
Dovecot/Postfix gets is technically correct. No need to change it. On
the
other hand, user's
You are enforcing what Microsoft asks you to, that is their problem, not
yours.
On 21/12/2021 02:37, Mary via mailop wrote:
It appears that SPF is a pass, but OpenDMARC rejected the email.
Does this look like a microsoft problem or is it me?
Thank you.
Fair enough too, the amount of crap coming from linode in recent weeks
exceeds the levels from gmail and outlook combined, both ipv4 and 6
usually they send about the same as the others, not more than both of
them together.
On 25/11/2021 21:15, Mary via mailop wrote:
I first noticed that
On 23/11/2021 05:09, Joel M Snyder via mailop wrote:
Speak for yourself, friend. You want me to build 400+ small DNS
resolvers and manage them world-wide? Forget the cost of the hardware;
now I have to deal with the software, updates, security, long-term
management? And this in an
On 23/11/2021 04:16, Chris Adams via mailop wrote:
Once upon a time, Joel M Snyder said:
Since this is happening in a number of countries, it's hard to
discern exactly why 8.8.8.8 is given the exception
Possibly because some consumer equipment and software appears to have
8.8.8.8
On 23/11/2021 02:39, Joel M Snyder via mailop wrote:
as the conspiracy theorists propose, they are intercepting 8.8.8.8 and
re-directing to their own in-house servers.
They are not conspiracy theorists, ISP's are intercepting 8.8.8.8 and
8.8.4.4 and ipv6 variants, but they also do same to
strange, lots of people from multiple networks reported google dns went
MIA in Australia for an hour or two on 19th
poor souls, had to shake off the google fanboisms and revert to using
ISPs DNS
On 21/11/2021 02:11, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
I never thought to monitor for it but Twitter
On 14/11/2021 20:02, Simon Arlott via mailop wrote:
On 12/11/2021 18:56, Slavko via mailop wrote:
I am using bl.0spam.org and nbl.0spam.org RBLs in my custom RBL check
script, but in more days their DNS server returns SERVFAIL.
Please, are these RBL gone or it is only mistake in its
On 14/11/2021 18:31, Slavko via mailop wrote:
dig 1.0.0.127.bl.0spam.org
; <<>> DiG 9.17.19-1-Debian <<>> 1.0.0.127.bl.0spam.org
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 48097
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0,
On 13/11/2021 21:58, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
It fails here too
# time dig 2.0.0.127.bl.0spam.org
; <<>> dig 9.10.8-P1 <<>> 2.0.0.127.bl.0spam.org
;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
0m15.04s real 0m00.01s user 0m00.01s system
~# dig
On 16/10/2021 12:41, John Levine via mailop wrote:
According to Michael Peddemors via mailop :
Put everything under mail.yourdomain.com
Unless you have some strange firewall rule requirements, there is no
real technical advantage, and some real technical disadvantages..
(including paying for
On 16/10/2021 11:44, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
On 10/15/21 7:11 PM, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
Let's try I again. I said "for these two functions".
The original query, as noted in the Subject line, is for IMAP and
SMTP.
How does reputation for SMTP activity interact with IMAP
On 16/10/2021 02:37, Mary via mailop wrote:
For Let's Encrypt certificates, I use these awesome scripts, they are
written as bash shell scripts and they are infinitely better than the
official certbot tool, they can be used without a web server, by using
DNS API integration. They are highly
opendmarc was very recently updated due to a security issue IIRC, I
think was end of May start of June, v 1.4.1. Might have been on
spamassassin list.
I had a discussion with that person who's told me opendkim (which wont
build on current supported openssl's without a patch), is being worked
On 06/08/2021 01:38, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
problem from
Google from time to time; especially when I post a lot to mailing lists
like
this one, my mails start suddenly going to spam at Gmail).
I'm starting to like google again buwahahaha
--
Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email,
On 06/08/2021 00:08, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
5. August 2021 14:52, "Noel Butler via mailop"
schrieb:
pt NEWSFLASH the blocking is to the advantage of end users
(sorry for inital empty response, mail program malfunction)
If you block only spammers you'
On 05/08/2021 19:07, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 5.08.2021 o godz. 11:18:55 Noel Butler via mailop pisze:
This only happens because as demonstrated here many are too scared
to block the bigger mail senders/providers - and since these gutless
so and so's publicly admit it, the big
On 05/08/2021 10:59, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
You do realize that kind of response probably won't make any friends..
Should SendGrid not simply block obvious malware, no matter who the
client? And 4 weeks is far to long to allow malware to
We helped them out last week to reduce
On 13/07/2021 10:23, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
In any case, in today's world where it's mostly hosted solutions
talking to other solutions, a mailing list admin has limited ability to
change how their hosted mailing list solution works... and even less
ability to influence someone
On 12/07/2021 22:09, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
have to conform to the whims of others.
Never. They are our servers, so why let anyone dictate how we should run
them.
But I expect this attitude from some here, the same attitude some here
use when claiming gmail is too big to block,
On 11/06/2021 16:51, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
Am 11.06.21 um 06:14 schrieb Noel Butler via mailop:
MS sending out mail with no rdns?
Jun 10 09:20:20 cust-mta01 postfix/smtpd[8137]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from unknown[40.92.62.80]: 554 5.7.1 Client host
rejected: cannot find your
MS sending out mail with no rdns?
Jun 10 09:20:20 cust-mta01 postfix/smtpd[8137]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from unknown[40.92.62.80]: 554 5.7.1 Client host rejected: cannot find
your reverse hostname, [40.92.62.80]; from= to=
proto=ESMTP helo=
$ host 40.92.62.80
Host 80.62.92.40.in-addr.arpa.
On 07/06/2021 05:14, Gene Hightower via mailop wrote:
On 06/06/2021 07:34, Larry M. Smith via mailop wrote:
Seems that gmail.com's MTA can't properly speak SMTP. [...]
$ telnet imp.fahq2.com smtp
Trying 47.12.77.216...
Connected to imp.fahq2.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220
On 29/04/2021 20:05, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 29.04.2021 o godz. 13:04:55 Noel Butler via mailop pisze:
nobody, but nobody, is too big to block to protect my users.
And what if your users because of being unable to communicate with
Google
users (which is roughly equal
On 28/04/2021 17:05, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 28.04.2021 o godz. 10:19:17 Noel Butler via mailop pisze:
What's so hard about 1 ?
What do we do with any S.P. that emits tonnes of crap, we block
them, often outright, nothing hard about that.
It shouldn't matter how big a company
On 28/04/2021 01:31, Rob McEwen via mailop wrote:
(1) sent from legit Google mail servers
(2) the spammer's "payload URL" in the body of the message - is content
is hosted at storage[.]googleapis[.]com servers
(3) Those links are staying "live" for many days (possibly
weeks/months?)
This
On 16/02/2021 04:13, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote:
-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
On 12/02/2021 04:26, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 18:49, Rob McEwen via mailop
He's not even trying to let people guess Sendgrid is good at preventing
abuses.
Why would he? because they are not good at it, sendgrid are blocked
here, have been for w months
--
On 12/02/2021 03:40, Rob McEwen via mailop wrote:
These questions! WOW! IS THIS FOR REAL? Don't get me wrong, I like Len
Shneyder and I think he's a good person TRYING to do the right thing -
but - considering what is coming FROM SendGrid in recent years, is this
the right time to be giving
postfix reported nothing, so must check for appropriate response codes,
and I certainly hope it checks 127.* not just .2, as we are not to know
every DNSBL's response codes.
Our only alert was an internal monitor on our own IP's - just basic
check script in perl, that's what alerted us to the
Hi Tom,
What did you want to know?
load balancer multi imap, pop3, smtp with dovecot using NFS to EMC
storage backend works exceptionally well.
but we dont use director, thats an unnecessary extra cog in the wheel
thats not needed for a functional system despite what dovecot will try
tell
On 17/10/2020 04:12, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
>
> Apparently enough people like https://dmarcian.com to keep them in business.
I'll second dmarcian, used them for a while
--
Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including attachments, may contain legally
On 08/07/2020 18:57, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
> I expect that most of the telcos are unlikely to have any instrumentation for
> tracking users beyond what is needed to ensure the service works. The
> companies that are offering DoH as a service and have gone so far as to talk
> about
On 07/07/2020 22:18, Stuart Henderson via mailop wrote:
> Looking at netflow data, it's at least aggregated with other devices
> behind the same NAT IP, and a lot of it is just "tcp 443 to cloudflare"
> or whatever which tells a lot less than DNS query data.
But if you are the ISP, NAT doesnt
On 07/07/2020 15:11, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020, Noel Butler via mailop wrote:
>
> On 07/07/2020 01:01, Johann Klasek via mailop wrote:
>
> I have been told that DoH is set into place to solve the privacy
> problem. On a small DNS workg
On 07/07/2020 01:49, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> In article <20200706150152.ga9...@tron.kom.tuwien.ac.at>,
>
>> I have been told that DoH is set into place to solve the privacy
>> problem. On a small DNS workgroup meeting I saw a presentation on how
>> they statistically identify users by
Wouldn't worry too much about it, they've had problems with their mail
system for months.
And good luck getting anyone to talk to who can understand your problem,
you're palmed out to their non Australian call centre monkeys who are
less then useless in philipines, with COVID-19 its even worse
see offlist mail
On 27/01/2020 08:49, Mark Dale via mailop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there anyone from Telstra Bigpond here?
>
> We're seeing list emails from our UK server get blocked, and we've had
> no response from postmas...@bigpond.com (who the NDR advises to contact).
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
On 24/10/2019 05:16, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
> Also, trivial messages look like probes, and are probably going to be junked.
Therein lies the problem, what if we all decided to junk everybodys
email because it looks trivial, we might as well junk everybodys email
and be done with it.
--
On 24/10/2019 07:20, Brielle via mailop wrote:
> On 10/23/2019 3:05 PM, Noel Butler via mailop wrote: Reality is, your mere
> suggestion of regulation / courts to make providers accept your e-mail makes
> you a liability to my services. That will never happen, precedent already
> s
On 24/10/2019 03:36, Brielle via mailop wrote:
> We have gatekeepers that control access to things already.
>
> We've got mail filtering providers that act as gatekeepers for e-mail -
> proofpoint, etc. People _pay_ them to control inbound and outbound.
more fool them
Trust is earned,
On 23/10/2019 18:11, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
> Often the "reason" is "Smartscreen" but sounds like no one really knows why
> Smartscreen do things, or at least--
Smartscreen has never been smart, it did this exact same thing back in
the late 90's or early 00's.
MS couldnt figure it
On 27/08/2019 20:37, Rob McEwen via mailop wrote:
> On 8/27/2019 3:22 AM, Noel Butler via mailop wrote:
>
>> oh btw rob, your message was found in Junk because
>> 3.7 FORGED_RELAY_MUA_TO_MX
>> kinda funny how spamassassin already knows where to put your mail haha
>
to put your mail haha
On 27/08/2019 08:01, Noel Butler via mailop wrote:
> On 26/08/2019 13:45, Rob McEwen via mailop wrote:
> On 8/25/2019 11:33 PM, Noel Butler via mailop wrote:
>
> borders on spam
--
Kind Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including any atta
On 26/08/2019 11:23, Rob McEwen via mailop wrote:
> announcement about invaluement (or more like a tease?)
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6571558988201148416/
>
> --
> Rob McEwen
> https://www.invaluement.com
>
> ___
>
On 19/05/2019 03:47, Steve Dodd wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 01:00, Noel Butler via mailop
> wrote:
>
>> I am using HE tunnels and can access them
>
>> the demos I provided yesterday were all from HE tunnels
>>
>> nothing to see here, time to move
I'd dont see levines posts, probably same as why the remote site is
denying him :) so replying to it here
BS
I am using HE tunnels and can access them
the demos I provided yesterday were all from HE tunnels
nothing to see here, time to move along.
On 18/05/2019 02:23, Jost Krieger via
Connected to 2001:4060:1:1001::12:5.
Escape character is '^]'.
220-obelix.imp.ch ESMTP Postfix
Connected to 2001:4060:1:1001::12:4.
Escape character is '^]'.
220-asterix.imp.ch ESMTP Postfix
Connected to 2001:4060:1:1001::12:6.
Escape character is '^]'.
220-idefix.imp.ch ESMTP Postfix
On
that as well.
>
> And, of course, no one has to accept mail from anyone else.
>
> Brandon
>
> FROM: Noel Butler via mailop
> DATE: Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:34 PM
> TO:
>
> nobody is too big to be blocked, despite the thinkings of such beasts
>
> On 16/05/2019 02:3
nobody is too big to be blocked, despite the thinkings of such beasts
On 16/05/2019 02:30, Yiorgos [George] Adamopoulos via mailop wrote:
> I just tried to reply to a Hetzner support request from our GSuite account
> and got back this:
>
> 550 Unfortunately we cannot currently accept your
nt has been
> generated. No different to sending those emails via Mailgun, SendGrid,
> Postmark, etc.
>
> Cheers, Angelo
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 5:21 PM Noel Butler via mailop
> wrote:
>
> On 07/05/2019 15:22, Scot Berggren via mailop wrote:
> Che
On 07/05/2019 15:22, Scot Berggren via mailop wrote:
> Checking to see if anyone has a contact at tpg.com.au that I can reach out to
> regarding a deliverability issue we're having for bank statement emails.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scot Berggren | Deliverability and Compliance Manager | Alterian US |
On 30/04/2019 17:08, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
> On 30.04.19 04:45, Noel Butler via mailop wrote: On 30/04/2019 05:35, Andreas
> Klein via mailop wrote: so the SPF
> check will fail if the FROM of the original message is retained and an
> SPF record exists for that domain.
>
On 30/04/2019 05:35, Andreas Klein via mailop wrote:
> so the SPF
> check will fail if the FROM of the original message is retained and an
> SPF record exists for that domain.
ancient FUD
I was a very, *very* early adopter of SPF, I always hear these claims,
but my mails always get through
On 28/04/2019 21:20, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Simon Lyall via mailop wrote:
>
>> Well since that email just triggered another round of bounces I've just
>> updated mailop's mailman config to mung all email addresses (hopefully, this
>> email is a test).
>
> Well
74 matches
Mail list logo
