On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 09:33:14PM +0200, Marco Davids (SIDN) via mailop wrote:
> Why not try something completely different, like https://www.xmox.nl/ ?
>
> It installs in minutes (literally) and gives you, out-of-the-box, everything
> you want with regard to DMARC, DKIM, SPF, MTA-STS, STARTTLS
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 04:51:05PM -0400, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> I agree that overall, the new TLD program has been a failure and makes
> a mockery of ICANN's claim to operate as a public charity in the
> interests of the public.
Strong words indeed... The bubble does appear to have
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 06:34:50PM +0200, Ralph Seichter via mailop wrote:
> It takes some technical knowledge and putting in work to keep
> a mail server running smoothly,
But even that has been made significantly easier through projects like:
https://mailinabox.email
which deliver a
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 07:40:04AM +0100, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
> > +1 for Mythic Beasts. You also have some choice over the region that you
> > host in. Let's support the small hosting providers :)
>
> I too am very happy with Mythic Beasts,
> although I use their email service,
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 11:20:53AM +0800, Philip Paeps wrote:
> > That's not my experience. My server for less than 10 users, sends
> > single-digit messages per day to the too big to fail email providers
> > with no apparent issues. And my server even moved to a new network
> > provider
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:17:15AM +0800, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote:
> With such low volume, you will really struggle to get email delivered to the
> larger mailbox providers, whose filtering is largely based on reputation.
> It's almost impossible to build up (and maintain) a reputation
On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 07:45:10PM +0800, Jeff Pang via mailop wrote:
> When an user requests to join mailing list, which address should we
> take? The envelope address, or the header From address?
The envelope sender address is the address to use for bounces, SPF and
little else. It can
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 07:50:09PM -0400, Jim P. via mailop wrote:
> I just received back a bounce that was delivered to my @live.com
> address, the one that sent the test message a few days ago. Here is
> what it contains:
Reading your first post brought to mind the recent report of potential
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 08:40:20AM +0200, Benny Pedersen via mailop wrote:
> > Does anyone here have a UTF-8 email address you'd let me send some
> > test messages to?
>
> so you know any dns servers that support utf-8 ?
[ Benny, here and on postfix-users, I'd like to encourage you to refrain
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 07:01:00AM +0800, Jeff Pang via mailop wrote:
> do you know if there is a reverse proxy for submission?
None should be necessary.
> For instance, my server is in the US, while some customers are in EU,
> so I consider to deploy a reverse proxy in EU for speeding up their
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 07:20:17AM +0800, Jeff Pang via mailop wrote:
> It seems the black ips are coming endlessly. Most of the bad actions
> are like this one:
>
> postfix/smtps/smtpd[451948]: warning: unknown[211.184.190.87]: SASL LOGIN
> authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6
>
> I am afraid
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:06:26PM +1000, Viktor Dukhovni via mailop wrote:
> > Although there are better alternatives to 2 1 1 with Let's Encrypt, some
> > still use 2 1 1, and it seems Exchange Online is not happy when there are 14
> > TLSA records (why 14? because https
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 12:06:26PM +0200, Kirill Miazine via mailop wrote:
> Although there are better alternatives to 2 1 1 with Let's Encrypt, some
> still use 2 1 1, and it seems Exchange Online is not happy when there are 14
> TLSA records (why 14? because
On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 10:23:28AM +0200, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote:
> > To a degree, but not to the point of accepting total garbage
> > (RFC2047-encoded DKIM-Signature headers), or especially, generating
> > total garbage (producing RFC2047-encoded DKIM-Signature headers).
>
> Just to
On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 08:38:48AM +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop wrote:
> > Such willful disregard of essential interoperability requirements in
> > "rspamd" means I will not use it unless you back off from your current
> > position, and will strongly discourage others (e.g. postfix-users
On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 09:41:45PM +0930, Joseph B via mailop wrote:
> > I am also unable to ping the sending machine from "mx1.imrryr.org",
> > while it is pingable from Munich and LA:
>
> Ripe ATLAS probes on Aussie Broadband are also unable to ping the host you
> mentioned, while other AU
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 05:29:16PM +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop wrote:
> In fact, the original distinction between structured and unstructured
> headers defined in the RFC2047 just makes parsing extremely complicated and
> I personally consider it as an example of a standard being accepted
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:30:27AM +0200, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> Do you want to tell, that if d= and/or s= tags contains internationalized
> domain name/label, it must be in A-label (ASCII encoded) form? Or how it is
> supposed to be handled please?
For maximal simplicity and robustness use
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:08:31AM +0200, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote:
> Yeah, I misread 8616 there, then; My brain somewhat autoclicked to
> "well, if there can be UTF8 you must be able to mime encode."
No, RFC2047 encoding of headers applies only to header parts that are an
ABNF *phrase* in
Anyone else on Aussie Broadband static IP space having trouble receiving email
from (some) Proofpoint outbound servers?
I am currently unable to receive some important email because SMTP (TCP)
connections are apparently timing out between the outbound ProofPoint SMTP
relays and my MX host
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 06:22:03PM -0700, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> There's also nothing to prevent you from DKIM signing your bounce messages.
This can be a bit more complicated with, e.g., Postfix, because Postfix
tries to avoid potentially fragile content processing of bounces, so
in
21 matches
Mail list logo
