Re: [mailop] Delivery issues with libero.it / virgilio.it (IOL)

DKIM and DMARC > configured!). > > I don't understand how to resolve these problems with the libero.it mailboxes > (and more generally, with all Italiaonline mailboxes). Do you have a contact > in Italiaonline who can help me? > Any info would help me, thanks in advance. > >

Re: [mailop] Google unsolicited mail rejected with 421

iving a lot of spam with a given URL domain in the body it may start rate limiting that content from every source, including you. Stefano -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Love how people use SPF records.. Just for a chuckle..

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 00:01, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: > save.ca descriptive text "v=spf1 ip4:70.33.236.0/25 mx a > include:sendgrid.net include:thestar.ca include:thestar.com > include:spf.google.com include:spf.protection.outlook.com > include:spf.yahoo.com include:spf.aol.com

Re: [mailop] freenet.de routing issues anyone? (Cloudflare-OVH issue?)

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 18:10, Alexandre Dangreau via mailop wrote: > I see the issue is solved, but I’m interested of the solution you found. The solution was writing to peer...@mcbone.net (the address I found in the RIPE DB for their AS). The email had also n...@ovh.net as a recipient. When

Re: [mailop] freenet.de routing issues anyone? (Cloudflare-OVH issue?)

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 17:47, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > > Poking a few people, this looks like a return path issue on Freenet's > > side; So they likely fnorded something on their side. > > Guess the only way to get this fixed is for them to realize the issue. > > ;-) >

Re: [mailop] freenet.de routing issues anyone? (Cloudflare-OVH issue?)

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 17:18, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote: > Moin, > to get a bit back to the networking part of things... :-) > Poking a few people, this looks like a return path issue on Freenet's > side; So they likely fnorded something on their side. > Guess the only way to get this fixed

Re: [mailop] freenet.de routing issues anyone? (Cloudflare-OVH issue?)

OVH is spammy. We hardly see a similar block when there is a war between 2 countries. Stefano On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 14:49, Yuval Levy via mailop wrote: > > On 2024-03-08 07:48, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 13:04, Mark Alley wrote: > >> Have yo

Re: [mailop] freenet.de routing issues anyone? (Cloudflare-OVH issue?)

to confirm >> the whole OVH network can't reach the freenet.de NS. >> >> I opened a ticket to OVH but they closed it telling me the traceroute >> show the problem in outside their network (last working hop is a >> cloudflare IP). >> >> Peering/routi

Re: [mailop] freenet.de routing issues anyone? (Cloudflare-OVH issue?)

he OVH network. The fact that they NS can't see each other let me think this is not something done by purpose, but I don't know how to investigate it to understand how is responsible for the issue and who can fix it. Stefano -- Stefano Bagnara Apa

[mailop] freenet.de routing issues anyone? (Cloudflare-OVH issue?)

t my field, so I'm looking for other people with problems sending emails to freenet.de and for suggestions on how/who to contact to fix the issue (maybe I should look for an NOC-op mailing list?) . Stefano -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.i

Re: [mailop] tiscali.it/tiscalinet.it reject RFC821 FROM domain as a CNAME because "domain does not have neither a valid MX or A record"

y receive bounces to those addresses, TLS is good enough. The real replies are sent to domains not using CNAMEs. Stefano -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] tiscali.it/tiscalinet.it reject RFC821 FROM domain as a CNAME because "domain does not have neither a valid MX or A record"

know if they simply found the new rule was too aggressive or if it was a test and they will enable the rule in future. Stefano On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 10:00, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > Hi, > > we are an ESP (a very small italian alternative to Mailchimp). > > Today an italian m

[mailop] tiscali.it/tiscalinet.it reject RFC821 FROM domain as a CNAME because "domain does not have neither a valid MX or A record"

MARC via DKIM. Do you know other receivers refusing emails because the sender (smtp mail from) domain is a CNAME? -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Google rate limiting (UnsolicitedRateLimitError) for DKIM domain

they are not able to handle the reputation transition from the shared DKIM to the additional sender dkim is somehow related to this. Another technical problem. Stefano > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:30 AM Stefano Bagnara via mailop < > mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, 1

Re: [mailop] Google rate limiting (UnsolicitedRateLimitError) for DKIM domain

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 at 18:09, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 05.02.24 14:56, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote: > >we are a small ESP and every email sent from our system has SPF+DKIM > >authentication from our system and most email also have a second DKIM > >signature (o

[mailop] Google rate limiting (UnsolicitedRateLimitError) for DKIM domain

, but sometimes is 80%, because of the tempfails above My questions: 1) is it expected that the error does not report the DKIM domain but only [ 36]? 2) how much is the "rate limit"? Does the rejected attempt count in this rate? 3) when, how often, how long does Google expects we retry the de

Re: [mailop] Reaching out to GMAIL

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 12:54, Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop wrote: > We're running the postfix-users ML on list.sys4.de, and all over a > sudden we're being tempfailed by GMAIL: I saw something similar happening on a couple of my IPs recently. I thought Google is slowly applying more restrictive

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: PSL: SOA record per subdomain required?!

On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 04:10, John Levine wrote: > It appears that Stefano Bagnara via mailop said: > >Sounds like our standard senders using @e.example.com domain in their > >RFC5321 are able to deliver to Yahoo while italian municipalities > >using, e.g., @e.comune.bardo

Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Yahoo: SOA record per subdomain required?!

the CNAME to an host without a SOA while the SOA to the remaining domain works. -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] T-Online is now really blocking messages from non-commercial and simliar senders

the message? If you get the error after the "DATA" and "." then maybe you just need DKIM+DMARC compliance for your emails. In this case look for an old thread here: "DKIM+DMARC at t-online.de (Deutsche Telekom's ISP branche)" by florian.kun...@telekom.de (Apr 6 202

[mailop] Timeouts to Microsoft?

Hi, Since 4 hours we are experiencing slowness (e.g. connections timing out, very slow responses), to Microsoft both sending to their SMTP and reading via IMAP, from europe (checked from 4 different datacenters in europe). Do you see the same? -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail

Re: [mailop] DKIM+DMARC at t-online.de (Deutsche Telekom's ISP branche)

eason we didn't start with DMARC policy enforcement so far. > it's to gamy to adhere the domain policy without regard of the source IP you > see the message from. Hi Florian, do you have any update about this DMARC enforcement "experiment" @t-online.de ? -- Stefano Bagnara

Re: [mailop] USGOabuse.net?

I didn't ack it, as I found it was a waste of time. Stefano -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Technical Contact to paddle.com mail platform operator?

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 11:02, Benoît Panizzon via mailop wrote: > We have a customer who orders software licenses via paddle.com > > He should get keys via Email. But they never arrive. I also don't see > any trace of those emails in our logs. Hi had an issue with missing email from them to me.

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

Microsoft Office 365 invoices in the Junk folder of my untrained/verbatim Office 365 inbox, because of SmartScreen. No one likes invoices, i guess... -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs ___ mailop mailing list mailop@m

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

t; being sent. I opened several cases with Microsoft about this, but never > got any solution offered (as a sidenote rant) > > But no, there were no complaints about: 157.161.12.84 received. > > Does anyone know, how to get hold of the emails that caused this > blocking? > &

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

", but the next time it will happen I'll try that request to the support. -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

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

e ticket but I have no clue what was the issue so I can't fix anything. If you have abuses that you don't want to shared (and I understand the listwashing issue) I would expect you to put the counters in SNDS anyway: am I wrong? -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/

Re: [mailop] Anyone from Outlook domain here.

ing. -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Sendgrid is giving others anti-abuse/security advice? Wow!

der-twilio-sendgrid/ I didn't read anti-abuse and security advices in the article. He's just talking about how DMARC evolved and the role of social engineering in phishing. He's not even trying to let people guess Sendgrid is good at preventing abuses. no "Wow" here :-) Stefano -

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

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 18:16, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > > Maybe you'll grasp the issue only when they will list Ramnode :-) > > Or maybe you'll be happy to pay or to move to another ASN until they catch > > up... > > You seem to be under the assumption that uceprotect is just looking for

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

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 17:37, Mary via mailop wrote: > Linode blocks port 25 on all new accounts/servers. You need to talk to them > and explain who and what you are, before they open it manually for you. But this was not enough to prevent them being listed in level-3:

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

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 > > your knees|set your house on fire|break your windows...]" isn't > > insurance, and can get you arrested. > > Neither of those situations describe the

Re: [mailop] subscription bombing prevention best practices

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 20:05, Simon Arlott via mailop wrote: > On 20/01/2021 10:50, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote: > > I'm looking for brainstorming and updated industry "standards" from > people > > handling outgoing SMTP services or ESP exporting APIs t

[mailop] subscription bombing prevention best practices

nothing suspicious in the request to decide to block it. I don't care of that specific blacklisting, but I'd like to be responsible and understand what most of us (postmasters) expect from each other in the real world (where a system with 0 false-negatives does not exists). How do you deal with this

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

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 11:54, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > For me, it's "appreciate never seeing those emails". I outright block > level 2 and level 3, and high score level 1. I've been doing that for > years now and have never seen a reject log message that wasn't already > listed in

[mailop] Automatic abuse reports from Simply.com

your abuse desks are flooded by this or there's something so bad about those 2 emails (again, under investigation, I can't tell by looking at the content and I'm waiting for answers from the sender). Sounds like this kind of automation belongs to FB

[mailop] SNDS "No data for specified IPs on this date" for the last 3 days

for the past 3 days SNDS show "No data for specified IPs on this date": does it work for you? (I can see data for the previous days) Stefano -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs ___ mailop mailing l

Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Attention Michael Wise - need your assistance

83169342sdata=Iu%2Fpy3uZzW%2F2xTBOsvbCjQtM7QI41Hk7cqLXbYJQ%2Bog%3Dreserved=0 > > And DNS Tools too! > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxnnd.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C6e1b6be42d0e4b6d3cd708d80996a9b4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637269889983169342sdata=QamPS5ZXRqFrfzXbw

Re: [mailop] Which ESP forces double opt in?

t I'm not sure that expecting ESP to force reconfirmation so to only send COI emails would really fix any issue. I know you asked for a list and not a COI discussion, but I think/hope the above explains why you probably won't find such a list. Stefano -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF

Re: [mailop] ItaliaOnLine (@libero.it, +) now interpreting DMARC p=none as p=quarantine

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:30, Benjamin BILLON via mailop wrote: > ItaliaOnline is rolling out new rules, including the necessity of having a > DMARC record (and also a valid DKIM signature), among other things. > I believe those kind of delivery placement (on p=none) is a side effect of > what

Re: [mailop] ItaliaOnLine (@libero.it, +) now interpreting DMARC p=none as p=quarantine

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:13, Paul Smith via mailop wrote: > On 26/11/2019 12:41, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote: > > I don't know if ItaliaOnLine postmaster follow this list and if they > > consider this new behaviour a feature or a bug, but I wanted to share > > this

[mailop] ItaliaOnLine (@libero.it, +) now interpreting DMARC p=none as p=quarantine

ut I wanted to share this finding/news with you. What do you think about this? Do you know other providers making this "deliberate guess"? -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs ___ mailop mailin

Re: [mailop] Hotmail delivery issues

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 19:22, Jan-Philipp Benecke via mailop wrote: > currently we've delivery problems to hotmail/outlook/... O365 looks good. > SNDS shows us just red for all our IPs since end of September. > We haven't changed anything neither some crappy mailings nor new spamming >

Re: [mailop] Gmail Postmaster IP reputation shift on July 2nd

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 10:17, Mathieu Bourdin via mailop wrote: > We just saw that Gmail Postmaster’s Tools shows a very unusual amount of our > IP’s as « bad » in the graphs. > Domain reputation seems unaffected, but basically we see around 50% of our > IPs for July 2nd and 75% for July 3 going

Re: [mailop] Is Yahoo retiring inactive addresses?

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 12:13, Syed Alam wrote: > Since 8th of March we determined an enormous global increase of below bounce > message from Yahoo MX: > 554 delivery error: dd Sorry, your message to x...@yahoo.com cannot be > delivered. This mailbox is disabled (554.30). -

Re: [mailop] Sophos Time of Click protection

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 11:58, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote: > On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 10:09 +0100, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > > So, before I propose to use local whitelisting I'd like to understand > > the global blacklisting causes :-) > > (If there is some malicious activi

Re: [mailop] Sophos Time of Click protection

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 12:55, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote: > From recollection, Sophos used to use McAfee's engine in some of their > products so maybe try https://trustedsource.org/ but my info might be out > of date. Interesting! I checked the URL there and it says: - Status: Categorized

Re: [mailop] Trendmicro "BLOCK-SEND-ER"

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 16:20, Laura Atkins wrote: > Are you able to deliver mail to any other trendmicro.eu hosted domain? > If so, this isn’t a trendmicro issue, it’s an individual company deciding to > block specific senders. > Asking each company to unbock / whitelist you is about your only

[mailop] Trendmicro "BLOCK-SEND-ER"

r, but this happened with another domain and a different IP some weeks ago and they manually whitelisted us, so this new error make me think there's something else I should take care. Stefano -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs __

Re: [mailop] Libero.it delivery issues

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 06:27, Benjamin BILLON wrote: > Hello, > > > > This isn't supposed to be temporary, it's been like this for months > (although they're enforcing this gradually, I've heard of senders throttled > 6 months ago, in my case it only started this summer). They're just not in >

Re: [mailop] Is SenderID deprecated? YES IT IS

l alive in microsoft server (and we're not talking about some foobar company). At the very least, they keep it alive just to fill in some headers so to keep us bother about it. I prefer to care about it and be wrong, than to simply ignore it and be wrong. Better safe than sorry. Stefano -- Stefano Bagnara Apache James/jDKIM/jSPF VOXmail/Mosaico.io/VoidLabs ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Is SenderID deprecated? (Udeme Ukutt)

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 18:55, John Levine wrote: > Mail systems can do whatever they want internally. But I am pretty > sure that even Hotmail/Outlook/Live/whatever will not ask your DNS for > Sender-ID records any more. How do you know that? Aren't they simple "TXT" records? How do you know

Re: [mailop] SmartScreen weirdness

osoft Corporation| Spam Analysis > "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." > Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ? > > > -Original Message- > > From: mailop On Behalf Of Stefano Bagnara > > Sent: Thursday, 30 August, 2018 17:40 > > To: mailop > &g

[mailop] SmartScreen weirdness

are not depending from SmartScreen? Or is it because they are actively seeing bad inbound flow from the IP and the reputation is "so bad" that they can't mitigate it? Michael, do you have an answer for this "scenario" or this specifi

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 at 21:14, Jan Schapmans wrote: > > list is acquired by a webform where users request a valuation of their car > customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only implement it > for gmail & googlemail addresses. > (do you think gmail is also monitoring other

Re: [mailop] Is the 3rd-party reporting DMARC record required?

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 17:59, Andrew C Aitchison wrote: > [...] > The difference is that by ignoring "external destination verifications" > the personal data is going to someone who had no reason to expect it > and has not indicated that they have procedures for handling it safely. > > If you do

Re: [mailop] Is the 3rd-party reporting DMARC record required?

ta is not considered "personal" and is not regulated by the GDPR, so I don't see how GDPR impact the use of the "verification record" in case of external reporting addresses. "ePrivacy" law, that currently is only a draft, may change something about this, but we'll bet

Re: [mailop] Gmail change DMARC Policy?

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 14:54, Bill Cole wrote: > What I actually do not understand is why anyone (like BOTH of these > senders) is bothering to DKIM-sign mail in ways that CANNOT align for > DMARC and don't even match any domain in any header other than a > signature. e.g.: Providers are actively

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

K publishes a DMARC record, 60K use a third-party domain in their rua, 1060 use the "!sizelimit" directive. Half of them are from a single (French) ESP that suggests its users to add that sizelimit when configuring their domain authentication. Stefano > Brandon > > On Wed, Jul 25, 20

Re: [mailop] Gmail change DMARC Policy?

at, so it offers the warning. >> >> All in all, quite a sensible implementation from Gmail. >> >> What’s the problem you’re trying to solve? >> >> laura >> >> >> On Aug 1, 2018, at 8:52 AM, Emanuel Gonzalez >> wrote: >> >> Hello

[mailop] Lost DMARC reports reason (Was: DKIM headers - which do you sign and why?)

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 at 11:36, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 22:28, John R Levine wrote: > > [... about "v=DMARC1" vs "v=DMARC1\;" ] > > When you put in the missing semicolon, what happened? Update: DNS propagated and I started receiving repor

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

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 at 09:19, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote: > 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 > > mu

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

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 23:50, John Levine wrote: > In article > you > write: > >On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 20:16, Steve Atkins wrote: > >> > On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > >> > [...] > >> > Otherwise we keep weakening DMAR

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

On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 20:16, Steve Atkins wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > > [...] > > Otherwise we keep weakening DMARC to a point where it is not useful anymore. > > For many senders it's not useful; it's actively harmful. They're

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

sight much appreciated! > > > Thanks, > > Autumn Tyr-Salvia > tyrsalvia@gmail > atyrsalvia@agari > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop -- Stefano Bagna

Re: [mailop] Recent "banned sending IP" errors when sending to Microsoft

nly > appears to affect one of my IP ranges. (Also, if anyone from Microsoft cares > to get in touch, I'd love to hear from you.) > > Josh Campbell, Deliverability Engineer > MailChimp > > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.o

Re: [mailop] News about the travails with my famous Y! trap account

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 at 09:20, Philip Paeps wrote: > A disturbing number of "ordinary people" (who don't live in SMTP land) > also believe that + is an "invalid character" in email addresses. I have found a LOT of inboxes unable to redirect email to an address that uses a "+" while being happy to

Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 20:50, Michael Rathbun wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:13:35 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith > wrote: > > >if Microsoft's filters were aggressively moving heaps of *wanted* email out > >of > >the inbox, I'd expect Outlook's read rates to be lower, but my metrics show > >that

Re: [mailop] Misleading clicks - thoughts

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 10:25, Andy Onofrei via mailop wrote: > [...] > I wanted to ask you if someone is experiencing misleading clicks ( caused by > spam filters or something similar and not by bot farms ). Hi, Here are some of the IPs doing more "non-humans" clics in my list: 199.19.249.196,

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

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 18:14, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 17:53, Michael Peddemors wrote: > > [...] > > And while using that as feedback might seem the logical conclusion, in > > the real world we still see more feedback reports from legitimate email &g

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

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 19:31, Michael Peddemors wrote: > On 18-06-08 09:14 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > > [...] > > In fact I still have to understand how spam reports and false positive > > reports are collected in the whole plesk world (I guess you know what

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

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 17:53, Michael Peddemors wrote: > [...] > And while using that as feedback might seem the logical conclusion, in > the real world we still see more feedback reports from legitimate email > the customer should have wanted, vs emails tagged as spam that are spam. Well, this

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

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 16:47, Jim Popovitch via mailop wrote: > 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

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

cked email to spam and you get the "not-spam" reports. IMHO this is GDPR compliant, not so different from IP RBL: they deal with clear-text IP addresses and IP addresses are not even pseudo-anonymized. That said GPDR in the end doesn't make much differences between personal data and pseudo-a

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

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 11:53, David Hofstee wrote: > [...] > I also think that there is space for a reputation provider which can: > - Identify more than just IP addresses and domains from an email. This is what CloudMark Authority does about this, but you enable a new set of issues that have

Re: [mailop] sectoor TOR blacklist

ne wih the same problem? Can we consider it a False Positive? It is listing everything... sounds like the domain expired. So it is an issue for the receiver: they probably want to remove that DNSBL from their configuration or they won't receive anything anymore, from anyone. Stefano -- Stefano Bagna

Re: [mailop] spamauditor, ivmuri: how do they collect false positives?

On 9 May 2018 at 18:38, Rob McEwen wrote: > Sorry - i just noticed that the hand-typed message we had sent you was from > 2017 - I had quickly copied and pasted the date and mistakenly assumed it > was from 2018 - so ignore that part. (but that doesn't change what I stated >

Re: [mailop] spamauditor, ivmuri: how do they collect false positives?

On 9 May 2018 at 18:21, Rob McEwen wrote: > Stefano, > > (can't speak for spamauditor... but regarding invaluement...) > > (1) To answer the question about "no false positive reports" - The general > [] > - and while that is just one factor - and other things are

Re: [mailop] GDPR and WHOIS PRIVACY

On 4 May 2018 at 11:27, Andrew C Aitchison wrote: > [...] > If I understand correctly, the GDPR doesn't provide the same protection for > companies as it does for individuals, so I don't see how it > can affect role email addresses and registered corporate adddresses; >

Re: [mailop] Received header address information

On 21 April 2018 at 18:24, John Levine wrote: > In article you write: >>Am I missing a case where there is a negative outcome to a legitimate, >>by-the-book sender? > > Spammer forges header with address of unrelated network, that

Re: [mailop] Hat color of list washers / validators

According to Talos it could be safe to block the whole /19 as I can't see other senders that could be involved: https://www.talosintelligence.com/reputation_center/lookup?search=63.250.0.0%2F19 Thousands of IPs in the block follow the same naming patterns... According to Arin:

Re: [mailop] Hat color of list washers / validators

On 8 March 2018 at 16:14, Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com> wrote: > On Mar 8, 2018, at 1:18 AM, Stefano Bagnara <mai...@bago.org> wrote: >> PS: that trendmicro article is a bit the opposit of Laura answer I got >> yesterday about "dealing with it

Re: [mailop] Hat color of list washers / validators

On 8 March 2018 at 02:43, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: >> On Mar 7, 2018, at 4:38 PM, Stefano Bagnara <mai...@bago.org> wrote: >> Let's take into consideration that spamtrap network have to do their >> homework to avoid being identified easily, so if

Re: [mailop] Hat color of list washers / validators

On 8 March 2018 at 01:02, Laura Atkins wrote: > [...] > Sure, we agree. But there are folks who don’t agree with us. Some of those > folks run spamtrap networks that feel blocklist data. I think it’s important > to acknowledge that. At one point you could do COI and still

Re: [mailop] Hat color of list washers / validators

On 8 March 2018 at 00:08, Laura Atkins wrote: > [...] > I don’t either, but I am not fighting language with folks. I'm sorry Laura. My mother language is not english and your "tone" is unexpected to me, so I probably used wrong translations for my questions. No need to

Re: [mailop] Hat color of list washers / validators

On 7 March 2018 at 22:52, Laura Atkins wrote: > There are companies that have commercialized spamtraps and at least 2 of the > delivery monitoring companies will tell you when you’ve hit a trap. Sure I know.. that's why I'm asking what is the network. If someone sells

Re: [mailop] SCL Rating Level of consideration at Hotmail

On 7 March 2018 at 20:48, Tony Rose wrote: > Does anyone on the list know how much creedence the Outlook Deliverability > Support Team puts into the Spam Confidence Level? > > I have seen quite a few messages still get filtered into the junk folder > with a SCL of 1.

Re: [mailop] Hat color of list washers / validators

On 7 March 2018 at 20:25, David Carriger wrote: > In the worst examples I've seen, the domain went from a legitimate mail > server to a trap network in the same day, with no time for bounces in > between. Are you 100% sure? Which trap network? How did you find it

Re: [mailop] Hat color of list washers / validators

On 7 March 2018 at 13:20, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop wrote: > There are some industries where offline data acquisition is the norm and > validation is seen as part of the data quality process. "norm" is not so good as a "valid" reason: - what's the point of *validation* for

Re: [mailop] Hat color of list washers / validators

On 2 March 2018 at 21:45, John Johnstone wrote: > [...] > It seems somebody gave some fairly purposeful thought into coming up with > the algorithms to generate these. I'm curious to know what peoples thinking > is as to the hat color of these attempts.

Re: [mailop] TLS support

On 22 February 2018 at 17:00, Stefano Bagnara <mai...@bago.org> wrote: > We ignore certificate issues and lowered the cypher requirements as > much as possible. > We settled to 0.01% failures converting the socket to TLS: most common > domains involved in the failure are uni-kl.d

Re: [mailop] The "goo.gl" shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response)

On 21 February 2018 at 09:44, Philip Paeps wrote: > [...] > Following JavaScript redirects is probably all but impossible except for the > simplest case because of the halting problem. Unless you want to execute > the JavaScript ... and down that road lies madness. > > Seems a

Re: [mailop] VERP in 2018 (Was: RoadRunner Help?)

ill setup SPF/DKIM automatically if they are. Signing > is done in Java (and not on the mta). No hands needed anymore. Then maybe you use my opensource Apache jDKIM library? ;-) Stefano > > Yours, > > > David > > > On 18 February 2018 at 00:53, Dave Warren <d...@

Re: [mailop] the joys of VERP, was RoadRunner Help?

On 17 February 2018 at 18:46, John Levine wrote: > In article > you > write: >>The use of IDs instead of the real original email in the return-path >>may also be because of length limits. >>Max length of an

Re: [mailop] RoadRunner Help?

On 17 February 2018 at 17:21, Al Iverson wrote: > [] > I am saying that I think it's unwise to put what amounts to > subscriber-level PII or basically clear identifiers in the Return > Path/MFROM, if mail back to that address is interpreted as an > indication that an

Re: [mailop] VERP in 2018 (Was: RoadRunner Help?)

e ISP per-inbox whitelists works on the MAIL FROM, so if you use VERP you can't get the whitelisting benefits, but beside that I'm not aware of deliverability issues due to the use of VERP. Stefano > -- > Benjamin Billon > > -Original Message- > From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@

[mailop] VERP in 2018 (Was: RoadRunner Help?)

On 17 February 2018 at 02:19, Michael Peddemors wrote: > [...] > And since the direction most MTA's go is to reduce any form of 'bounce' or > backscatter, the idea of using the VERP to detect 'bounces' is probably not > as important as it once was, unless the emails are

Re: [mailop] Hotmail/Outlook feedback loop processing delay?

On 10 January 2018 at 08:16, Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote: > [...] They did > not report it as spam yesterday, they only viewed it. They don't use an > email client, they only use the web interface provided by hotmail. I often heard story like this... the fact is that this "i never

Re: [mailop] Issue with Gmail Postmaster

In my GPT I see the same identical reports whichever domain I select. So maybe the "domain filter" is not working and they are showing aggregates for the whole account. Stefano On 28 December 2017 at 14:04, Benjamin BILLON wrote: > Yes, same here. > > > > IPs shown are mostly

  1   2   >