ehalf (that is, provided you want us to), instead of
keeping it for ourselves...
And, it works for abuse types other than spam.
Kind regards,
Steve.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 19:06, Aban Dokht via mailop
wrote:
> John Levine wrote:
> > By the way, how do you think you're submittin
more
easy (and therefore likely) for mailbox providers to implement this
themselves if they wish to, or for other entities to offer a similar
service should they choose.
That's surely better than the current status quo and sitting back and doing
nothing, right?
Kind regards,
Steve.
On Thu
the reports and approving the
CFBL-Addresses that can receive them and producing some high-level
statistics that might be interesting at the same time.
Kind regards,
Steve.
On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 12:29, Support 3Hound via mailop
wrote:
> Dear list,
> I would like to understand what the comm
, then at least include a "This is not me"
link in the footer to allow people to stop the messages and highlight something
is wrong! Otherwise, you're asking for lost emails at best, and being an
accessory to harassment at worst.
Steve
--
Steve Shipway | Senior Email Secur
of DNS lookups.
It's so strict and badly run that it gives the rest of us a bad name (and
charges for delists...). Of all the DNSBLs that I wish would just
disappear, this would be at number one on my list.
Kind regards,
Steve.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 09:31, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> Hi
> On 14 May 2023, at 18:03, Paul Gregg via mailop wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 05:54:28PM +, Slavko via mailop wrote:
>> Dňa 12. mája 2023 13:40:14 UTC používateľ Paul Gregg via mailop
>> napísal:
>>
>>> 4.5.3.1. Size Limits and Minimums
>>
>> When you read RFC, you MUST read all
ion no longer
> fit for purpose? Has that horse already bolted? Do you impose any limit
> and if so, what?
Unless it’ll cause security or stability issues it’s reasonable to be liberal in
what you accept from others, especially if not doing so would mean rejecting
email that your customers
blocklists/compromised-account-detection-with-abusix-mail-intelligence-and-postfix/
I'd love to hear any feedback on this. It worked extremely well in my
(rather artificial) testing.
Kind regards,
Steve.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 02:33, Carsten Schiefner via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrot
or “I had to add DKIM to get mail accepted" then your sending infrastructure,
history and mailstream reputation is worse than this test setup.
Cheers,
Steve
>
>
>
> On 2022-04-19 07:57, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
>> Short version: google is not hard enforcing SPF
d " -
abuseable web form
2a01:7e01::f03c:92ff:fee3:7758 - infected/compromised host
2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fece:24e8 - ""Sparkasse" " -
compromised account
Hope that helps.
Kind regards,
Steve.
--
Steve Freegard
Senior Product Owner
Abusix Intelligence
On 25/11/2021 1
tware or
service somewhere that treated messages sent with VERP differently to
regular messages? Maybe this spammer discovered this (and I'm sure
it's probably true somewhere) and uses it to improve their
deliverability to some places.
Kind regards,
Steve.
--
Steve Freegard
Senior Pr
o be novel to us and is updated every
minute.
There's a free trial available on our website if you're interested and
you're welcome to contact me off-list.
Kind regards,
Steve.
--
Steve Freegard
Senior Product Owner
Abusix Intelligence
On 21/09/2021 16:08, Alessio Cecchi vi
I wouldn't offer anything other than one of those two *especially* as they are
tech challenged.
Unless you want a job for life that is...
September 7, 2021 10:47 AM, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop"
wrote:
> All,
>
> I know someone who is setting up a business domain, and needs an inbox h
bound mail streams or historical statistics about them, and
their alignment, in your customer's inbound mail streams? It'd be
interesting data to share, and might make people more comfortable with
your planning.
Cheers,
Steve
if you are sending via any sort of pool or relay and w
only ones
that are filtered and are not returning the new codes.
Did common sense prevail and did you decide not to proceed with these
changes?
Kind regards,
Steve.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
last I heard the ip blocklists worked at /64 granularity
Had one provider dole them out singly...
February 26, 2021 12:48 PM, "Andrew C Aitchison via mailop"
wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2021, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
>
>> https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=614866&clcid
>
> Hmm. No
user - switching to XFS would make minimal, if any difference. Plus the fact
that the only file system I've ever had spontaneously explode on me is... you
guessed it, XFS!
Steve
February 22, 2021 9:08 AM, "Grant Taylor via mailop" wrote:
> On 2/21/21 1:58 AM, Mary via mailop wrote:
may be more useful even if the
filtering isn't as thorough on the secondary.
It may not be as common, but I don't see a reason to remove the option.
--Steve.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Migration for a start
December 18, 2020 10:28 AM, "John Levine via mailop" wrote:
> As we all know, MX records have a priority number, and mail senders
> are supposed to try the highest priority/lowest number servers first,
> then fall back to the lower priority.
>
> I understand why secondary
with other DKIM
implementations) DKIM signatures from Microsoft fail with OpenDKIM with
bad signature data, pretty much like that.
I've been assuming MS are using an algorithm OpenDKIM doesn't support,
but I've not gotten around to diagnosing it mor
On 09/10/2020 13:20, Michael Orlitzky via mailop wrote:
On 2020-10-09 03:19, Steve Atkins via mailop wrote:
I like Hurricane Electric's tools.
https://bgp.he.net/AS14061
After a copy/paste, grep, and consolidation of those ranges I wind up
with...
A lurker pointed out that the first
On 09/10/2020 04:41, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
I tried doing a WHOIS lookup, but it just referred me here, which
doesn’t have it:
I like Hurricane Electric's tools.
https://bgp.he.net/AS14061
Cheers,
Steve
https://www.as14061.net
So far, I’ve got:
157.230/16
159.
uld not verify this to be abusive"...
Not being on top of the Abuse reports and having strong automation
around them is inexcusable.
Kind regards,
Steve.
--
Steve Freegard
Senior Product Owner
Abusix Intelligence
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
uot; is, literally never heard of the guy.
I shouldn't comment really but this Nebraska default judgment is a wad of utter
garbage if you ask me, oops I didn't type that did I, ohh good, disregard.
Regards,
Steve Linford
Chief Executive
The Spamhaus
oductive.
>
> They really do have their office in Andorra and could be served or
> sued there, but I doubt the kinds of organizations that are likely to
> sue them would make much headway in Andorran courts.
>
> It is my impression that for this particular suit, Spamhaus wasn't
ng on them. They all have Dr. Web
signatures in the headers stating that they're spam though
Kind regards,
Steve.
--
Steve Freegard
Senior Product Owner
Abusix Intelligence
On 17/06/2020 15:28, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
A significant activity alert was detected o
hope that this will help that situation.
Kind regards,
Steve.
--
Steve Freegard
Senior Product Owner
Abusix Intelligence
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
und the HaveIBeenPwned API - see
https://haveibeenpwned.com/API/v3#PwnedPasswords
Kind regards,
Steve.
--
Steve Freegard
Senior Product Owner
Abusix Intelligence
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
On 24/03/2020 15:10, Chris via mailop wrote:
On 2020-03-24 06:36, Steve Freegard via mailop wrote:
I have great respect for you, but I didn't spend a considerable
amount of development time without actually being absolutely certain
about what I was doing. Your experience is not rel
ould point
out to anyone that doesn't already know that both you and Rob should
have done the same as you both run competing services.
And that's the last thing I'm going to say on this matter...
Kind regards,
Steve.
--
Steve Freegard
Senior Product Owner
Abusix Intelligence
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Hi Andrew,
On 22/03/2020 16:05, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020, Steve Freegard via mailop wrote:
I didn't design this to annoy people, I did it because it's useful
for the internet in general because compromised accounts are a huge
issue, and one that causes
ap domains, due to the very nature of them are more likely
to be abused in this way and I will do what I can next week to address
this and exclude them from reporting.
I've already found that SORBS and Manitu don't treat Abuse and
Postmaster role accounts differently.
Kind regards,
sure you'll understand that I can't really say on a public forum how
we do this. Catch me at a M3AAWG or other event and I'll give you more
details.
Kind regards,
Steve.
--
Steve Freegard
Senior Product Owner
Abusix Intelligence
_
h any compatible tooling and automation.
My reading is that bad actors will find valid email addresses as part
of successful exploits and then feed those into their automated attacks.
They'll get these via database dumps, compromised hosts and phishing.
Kind regards,
Steve.
--
Steve Freeg
n this to annoy people, I did it because it's useful for
the internet in general because compromised accounts are a huge issue,
and one that causes issues for blacklist providers like us (e.g. if the
compromised accounts are on unblockable IPs, then we have less ability
to stop them), so this was
se filters benefit my users?
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
rwhelm any positive signal you can produce.
>
> Given most small-scale personal/small-business server operators will
> receive far more mail than they send, is sending out DMARC reports
> likely to have a positive impact on IP reputation
Anecdotal, but last time I delved deep into this, apparently the majority of
spam was sent via IPv6
December 19, 2019 12:16 PM, "Brian via mailop" wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-12-18 at 13:44 -0800, Mark Milhollan via mailop wrote:
>
>> IPv6 is normally preferred so if you have published an for t
Still on sendmail... not wasting those 10's of thousands of hours!
December 6, 2019 1:03 PM, "Brielle via mailop" wrote:
> I use Exim, and have been for a lng time. The multi-file config package
> in Debian is quite nice
> and makes it easy to configure and customize.
>
> On 12/5/2019 4:36
trying to send directly?
Better in some respects, worse in others, I'd imagine. For non-bulk
mail, probably significantly better.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Well, we did leave Amazon SES a couple of years ago, and I haven't used them
since. Just like my views on KDE, it was crap at version 1, so I've never used
since (:
Steve
December 3, 2019 2:45 PM, "Michael Peddemors via mailop"
wrote:
> On 2019-12-02 4:53 p.m., St
lem
>
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
I use linode. Moved away from Amazon SES with their draconian disconnect
policies.
gnup and similar situations. These are not the companies you go to for
list cleaning.
They're generally pretty inaccurate, and in ethics / respect for the
email ecosystem only a step or two removed from professional spammers.
If that.
Cheers,
Steve
__
one situation
where that happens).
Where do you think that 5xx message will be seen in the case of normal
email forwarding? Do you expect it to be converted by them to an
asynchronous bounce? Where do you expect that bounce to be delivered? Do
you expect it to be seen by humans? By automatio
> On Oct 14, 2019, at 4:39 PM, Nick via mailop wrote:
>
> On 2019-10-14 15:47 BST, Steve Atkins via mailop wrote:
>> On 14/10/2019 14:58, Nick via mailop wrote:
>>>
>>> My question remains unanswered. Why not treat each ip address on
>>> its own
ck an ever-changing
set of reputation-IP pairs against hostile actors is subsidizing
providers whose business model relies on allowing customers
to send malicious traffic, including unwanted email, to the
customers of those who are being asked to expend that effort.
Cheers,
tomers.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
the first few days is fairly important,
extremely so at some recipient ISPs. The rest of the things you mention,
though, are much less important than not sending spam and having reasonable
volumes of mail to send.
>
> Anybody had any positive experiences of doing this in recent years?
It
cipient ISP
will consider that poor form and penalize you for it. It's a reasonable
concern, so ESPs go to some effort to stay somewhat inside the constraints an
ISP enforces.
("Why am I getting 4xx deferrals from Yahoo?", "Because it's a day with a Y in
it.&qu
rules to match.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
We found no way, and in the end migrated high hundreds of customers to an
alternative service. It was a mind blowingly tedious chore, but 2 years on
we're glad we did it.
Steve
August 12, 2019 7:33 PM, "Benoit Panizzon via mailop" wrote:
> Hi List
>
> Amazon AWS S
r @outlook.com addresses, via any reporting
channel I've found over the past few years.
I wouldn't say there's no point, but it's probably not the most constructive
use of your time.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailo
only be the envelope that's checked.
Steve
June 27, 2019 11:08 PM, "Paul Smith via mailop" wrote:
> On 27/06/2019 11:15, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
>
>> For RFC7208, section 5.2
>> In hindsight, the name "include" was poorly chosen. On
being sent to someone who has published their email
address with an invitation to contact them about relevant matters, the other
case is someone misusing a list of email addresses without recipient consent.
/me wonders vaguely how much of the "Marketo spam" is coming from hostnames in
&qu
ntent of the email or as an attachment to
the email) to: relea...@startribune.com. Please specify the topic of your press
release in the subject line of your email."
Cheers,
Steve
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:16 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop
> wrote:
> On 5/28/19 12:37 PM,
ng their email address in a manner from which consent to receive email
> of the type transmitted may be reasonably implied."
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
ers, while
being mostly irrelevant to bad actors.
Consider what mailing lists will do in response to this, and what your user
will see happen, as one example.
> I am on the fence on this one, hence the reason to pick the communities brain.
>
> If anyone can share any thoughts
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 along.
>
AFAIK he.net filter ingoing and outgoing port 25 *by default*:
https://ipv6.he.net/cert
o think about first. It also generalizes to many other
poorly thought through "just use proof of work to solve email problems!"
ramblings.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
customer
should cough up a little money and go with an SMS gateway.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
or not, appropriately.
(And the ability to deliver, or not, that particular message correctly may rely
critically on details about other messages from the same mail stream and
recipients response to them in the previous month. Or in the next several
hours.)
Cheers,
Steve
> Non-obviou
hers will want the data in the FBL even if it's someone
clicking on a mail they received six months ago, and they'll
have proper infrastructure for that that doesn't forget things after
a week.
The sender of the FBL is the wrong place t
If you're publishing SPF
-all then you should also be publishing DMARC p=reject (and signing with
DKIM, if you care about legitimate mail being delivered).
(Of course, if the spammers send mail pretending to be from your customers
through your smarthosts none of that will help you.)
Cheers,
Ste
ers you've used in your git repo -
are in your git repos, and probably public.
(And yes, there are companies who harvest from there).
This doesn't really seem particularly related to mail operations, though.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop maili
lists. Also some spam with
random-ish values in the header.
I have a sieve rule for each mailing list that identifies it based on the
List-ID value and routes it to the right mailbox - you'll likely want to do the
same. It's a few seconds of work each time I sign up for a mailing li
Rob, Jim ...
None of this is particularly related to mail ops.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
gi?p=register
It's a slightly off-the-books service run by Barracuda, or at least by
Barracuda employees.
If you're listed by Barracuda, and if emailreg.org exists, it's likely worth
doing. But it's unlikely to affect anything othe
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 01:49, Michael Wise via mailop
wrote:
>
>
> /grr…
>
> Why are all my replies only going to the original author of late?
>
>
>
I believe it's the way the mailing list software handles submissions from
DMARC enabled domains - it moves the sender address to Reply-To: then puts
e content, so may be
suspicious of URLs in the body. Whether they see more of the same being sent to
them, and whether they're coming from the same sources or not, and so on, may
change their view of those URLs significantly by the time you retry the
delivery attempt.
Cheers,
St
tings.)
Strangely, tests to random helpful people off IRC have been fine.
I have to say, based on this experience, I would struggle to recommend O365
to clients (not that I have any these days!) False positives are at least
as bad as false negatives :(
Steve
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 19:10, Michael Wise
ued to fail.
Anyway, I'm wondering generally if and how mail software authors -
particularly of 'niche' software - can test and discuss interoperability
with the big inbox providers. Is such discussion appropriate here? If not,
is there another forum?
Steve
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 a
Can't help with this directly, but I've seen similar happen with mail to
Facebook, which uses O365..
S.
On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 at 12:25, Duncan Brannen wrote:
>
>
> Morning all,
>
> Does anyone have any issues delivering to some O365
> domains due to Microsoft internally SPF failing
H, Digital Ocean, Microsoft (Azure, in particular) and to a
slightly lesser extent Google. MailChimp - and other traditional (non-API) ESPs
- are there, but mostly lost in the noise.
I have found that complaining about spam from ESPs in preference to the much
higher volumes of s
erfect, apart from mailing list
messages with mangled DKIM or whatever, which are fair game.
Anyway, thanks for giving me a few more things to think about!
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
; to randomly drop mail from taxpaying clients. Trying to
imagine a parallel world where they randomly blocked phone calls based on
an opaque algo applied to the caller-id. Also, if "unusual" user-agents are
being scored down, I'd think that might have accessibility / DDA
implications
I do appreciate this input on this - it's driving me crazy! Not a fan of
this modern world with its algorithmic overlords..
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
It's been suggested to me off-list that if I mention the recipient domains
I am having problems with, it might help. They are:
kent.gov.uk
seap.org.uk
The sender domain is gmail.com. As I said, baffled by how something with
valid Gmail DKIM & SPF could be thrown on the floor like thi
aving real problems running my life (O365 seems to
be preferred by UK government departments and services.) I have tried
sending from a Gandi-hosted domain as well, and having similar issues, even
after enabling DKIM.
Hints and tips gratefully received...
Steve
_
http://chilli.nosignal.org won't be using any cert (:
October 26, 2018 4:58 PM, "Doug Barton" wrote:
> Y'all might want to be aware that this issue is being discussed on the NANOG
> list. In the age of
> Let's Encrypt expired TLS certs are a really bad look.
>
> On 9/12/18 6:24 AM, Matt Gilber
ey: -BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-
>MIICXAIBAAKBgQC//RGTYFDm7IkGi3fCXW87OPq1Hiy/5Llcb4+vq5D33Qn1zvzP
>XNJOUglEyLhDP/uBWVUSIkz/IngcrjEgLYfNYIfv8tYyAvknqeTbMuF1ogoRKWMH
> ..
That's not good at _all_. iContact are aware of it, and working on it.
Cheers,
Steve
__
ile.
But if you're not seeing delivery issues today and you're not changing IP
addresses, just the d= signing domain, I wouldn't expect much impact from just
changing the d=. Trying it with a single MTA would let you see any impact, and
dribble the new d= value
> On Aug 14, 2018, at 3:29 PM, Steve Jones via mailop wrote:
>
> On 8/14/18, 10:17 AM, "mailop on behalf of Bill Cole" wrote:
>
>I'm doing a DMARC setup for a client and for the first time need to
>point the 'rua' value to an address in a dom
revious legal regime in the EU, had it been known. However now that
GDPR is in force, I would think that should be considerable additional
incentive for report senders to correct this situation ASAP.
Happy to chat with report generators if something about this doesn't
make sense to them.
>> considered outrageous.../0 would be more so.
>
> Anyone that uses include:spf.protection.outlook.com will have imported
> ip4:52.100.0.0/14 and ip4:40.92.0.0/14
That's fairly normal, particularly for vanity domains or small business domains
that host their email with
I've seen reports that at least one large ISP who'd otherwise send
you reports didn't if you sprinkled things like "!10m" into your
email address. I don't recall who, but it's probably worth removing.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
ons.
Weakening it's guarantees *for those senders* mitigates that damage.
It also *strengthens* DMARC for other senders, those using it legitimately, as
it reduces the number of recipient mailbox providers who stop enforcing DMARC
because it breaks delivery of legitimate email.
Cheers,
Stev
ells even a whiff
of deception, don't turn the customer up until a more senior staffer with an
abuse focus has looked at the account.
Cheers,
Steve
>
>
> Comments very welcome,
> --
>
> ORLANDO LETRA
> SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR
>
> M +351 934 909 316
> T +
ng
> transmission channel. [xxx.eop-EUR01.prod.protection.outlook.com]"
>
> could be / is a volume related error?
>
It looks more like you got out of sync, sent out of order commands or ignored
previous errors and the far end gave up on you.
What comes before that error?
Cheers,
wasn't unusual to configure the separator to be
- instead of + because of all the web forms that didn't handle escaping
properly and would record "steve+...@blighty.com" as "steve f...@blighty.com".
Cheers,
Steve
___
e.net IN MX 0 .
Nice. It's been listed in a few best practice documents as well as RFC 7505 for
more than a few years. Good to see it getting some traction.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
between legitimate users and spammers.
And, to wander back to the topic, the majority of spam I see on IPv6 comes from
those sorts of provider.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
ase he's discussing the spam would have
been blocked if they'd had better spam filtering in place.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
> On Jun 6, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
>
> On 06/06/2018 16:55, Steve Atkins wrote:
>>
>>
>> IPv4 blacklists will always list 127.0.0.2 and never 127.0.0.1.
>> IPv6 blacklists will always list :::7F00:2 and never :::7F00:1.
>> D
yption
and sending as plaintext.
TLS 1.0 has it's flaws, but it's better than entirely unencrypted.
(If the flaws in TLS 1.0 were really an issue for your use case then
you'd drop the connection and bounce the mail if the remote host
didn't support TLS 1.1
sin/MailingLists
The SpamCop forums
http://forum.spamcop.net
As always, read the FAQs and lurk for a while after subscribing. For some
reason antispam hobbyists tend to be jumpier than most about mailing list
etiquette ...
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailo
It is never spam discussion day on MailOp, unless it's operationally relevant
to email. If it's not, like this, maybe take it to the spam or messaging abuse
focused lists, some of which I'm sure you're on or reach out to the relevant
company directly?
Cheers,
Steve
>
the invalid headers
in different ways. Invalid headers correlate fairly strongly with spam and
malware mail, though, so I'm not surprised that some of your mail is going
missing.
You should quote your display-name as you send it out - "recipie...@gmail.com"
- and everythin
ill as we aren't
> an ESB, just ordinary (small) email lists and aliases with a few monthly
> mass mailing (<10K lists).
With that little traffic it's possible that you're not big enough to have much
of a reputation most places, so it may not be much of an actual issue.
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
ar that’s compatible
with what was previously common use, maybe?)
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
ress-literal = "[" ( IPv4-address-literal /
IPv6-address-literal /
General-address-literal ) "]"
Cheers,
Steve
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
1 - 100 of 279 matches
Mail list logo
