Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Laura Atkins via mailop wrote on 2022-04-25 02:19: ... https://www.spamhaus.com/custom-content/uploads/2022/04/Botnet-Report-Q1-2022.pdf ... Spamhaus ultimately concludes that section: "It’s evident that where there’s a freebie, there’s abuse!” laura spam in hand or it didn't happen.

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 15 Apr 2022, at 18:29, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote: > > > Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 16:53:11 Laura Atkins via mailop pisze: > > "EU.org, free domain names since 1996” > > You quoted that. Eu.org is a *domain registrar*. Only. They don't offer any > email service and never did. So how

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

The systems may not *strictly* require a Gmail account, only a Google account, Your adding "strictly" does not change the fact that a Gmail account is not required. but that doesn't mean it is not perceived as such. Sure, the Google account sign-up page offers to create a Gmail address

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-18 at 19:32 +1000, Simon Wilson wrote: > *Completely* and objectively not true. > > I've run Android phones for many years with a Google account based on > my own personal non-Gmail email. I have never activated or used Gmail, > and at no stage has an Android phone ever tried to

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG. Domain age?

On 2022-04-16 at 14:26 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 20:18:54 John Levine via mailop pisze: > > > You quoted that. Eu.org is a *domain registrar*. Only. They don't > > > offer any > > > email service and never did. So how can they "police users for > > > email"?

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-24 at 00:44 +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > Dnia 23.04.2022 o godz. 14:48:05 Dan Mahoney via mailop pisze: > > I would LOVE there to be legal structure to say “Gee, Equifax, you failed > > to demonstrate the basic opsec of paying some junior admin to type `yum > > upgrade

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Dnia 23.04.2022 o godz. 14:48:05 Dan Mahoney via mailop pisze: > > I would LOVE there to be legal structure to say “Gee, Equifax, you failed > to demonstrate the basic opsec of paying some junior admin to type `yum > upgrade apache-struts`, so you don’t get to keep my PII anymore.” I would > love

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> >> I am not >> familiar with the lawsuits, but the general solution to all reputation >> services, whether IP-reputation, consumer credit, or any other business >> that collects information about other subjects (the building block of >> surveillance capitalism!) is consent: if the subject does

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 4/22/22 11:00 AM, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote: Woodpecker, at least, is somewhat up front about the fact that what they are doing is enabling their senders to violate Google's policies: A lot of these outfits aren't even trying to hide it any more, which is unfortunate because it risks

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On Apr 22, 2022, at 11:05 AM, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop > wrote: > > On 21 Apr 2022, at 11:45, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote: > >> Until Google manages to shut down outfits like MailShake and Woodpecker and >> Gmass, instead of turning a blind eye to it, Google will never get a handle >>

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 21 Apr 2022, at 11:45, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote: Until Google manages to shut down outfits like MailShake and Woodpecker and Gmass, instead of turning a blind eye to it, Google will never get a handle on the abuse that goes through the Gmail API, in fact it feels as if they are

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

>> .. I'd suggest anything that shows gmailapi.google.com in the header be >> rejected -- at least until Google can get a handle on the abuse. Until Google manages to shut down outfits like MailShake and Woodpecker and Gmass, instead of turning a blind eye to it, Google will never get a handle

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-21 at 08:33:28 UTC-0400 (Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:33:28 -0400) Bill Cole via mailop is rumored to have said: On 2022-04-20 at 23:41:13 UTC-0400 (Wed, 20 Apr 2022 22:41:13 -0500) Larry M. Smith via mailop is rumored to have said: .. I'd suggest anything that shows gmailapi.google.com in

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-20 at 23:41:13 UTC-0400 (Wed, 20 Apr 2022 22:41:13 -0500) Larry M. Smith via mailop is rumored to have said: .. I'd suggest anything that shows gmailapi.google.com in the header be rejected -- at least until Google can get a handle on the abuse. E.g.; Received: from .* named

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 4/20/2022 11:41 PM, Larry M. Smith via mailop wrote: I'd suggest anything that shows gmailapi.google.com in the header be rejected -- at least until Google can get a handle on the abuse Excellent information - somehow, this slipped under my radar. So I've just done some cursory analysis

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

yuv via mailop wrote on 2022-04-18 19:54: On Mon, 2022-04-18 at 06:16 +0200, Paul Vixie via mailop wrote: ... ... Earlier in this interesting thread you qualified Gmail as "late stage surveillance capitalism." Has it occured to you that reputation services, whether distributed or other,

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 4/19/2022, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote: (snip)> When I detect those in the logs I add the MAIL FROM address to the known-spammer list, which causes the mail to be rejected earlier in the SMTP dialogue and seems to stop the retries. Most times I don't care whether they're retrying

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 4/18/2022, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: (snip) Did you mean "GMail?" Yes, you are correct -- Gmail. Sorry about that. Finger memory, or something. -- SgtChains ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-19 at 02:10:06 UTC-0400 (Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:10:06 +0200) Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop is rumored to have said: Am 18.04.22 um 21:02 schrieb Bill Cole via mailop: On 2022-04-18 at 13:32:07 UTC-0400 (Mon, 18 Apr 2022 12:32:07 -0500) Larry M. Smith via mailop is rumored to have

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 8:54 PM yuv via mailop wrote: > (1) the dissociation of cost and benefits. economic externalities. > (2) the dissociation of liability and control. > (3) competing ownership/property claims. All excellent points! I would add that reputation management is a hidden tax

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Am 18.04.22 um 21:02 schrieb Bill Cole via mailop: On 2022-04-18 at 13:32:07 UTC-0400 (Mon, 18 Apr 2022 12:32:07 -0500) Larry M. Smith via mailop is rumored to have said: ... I'm going to disagree. To the best of my knowledge Yahoo, Vz, AOL, or Microsoft do NOT re-queue messages after

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On Mon, 2022-04-18 at 06:16 +0200, Paul Vixie via mailop wrote: > the original RBL (at MAPS, this was) was an > attempt (by me, and then by others) to "keep the noise down so that > e-mail is usable". you should be able to verify from where you sit > that (a) we did not achieve that goal, (b) we

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

back. Also check the log on your server. Sincerely, Jose Morales Rackspace Email -Original Message- From: "Bill Cole via mailop" Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 3:02pm To: "Larry M. Smith via mailop" Subject: Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG On 2022-04-18 at 13:32:07 UTC-0400 (Mo

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

i remember when folks were complaining to MAPS that AOL was bouncing inbound e-mail with an SMTP error code showing a MAPS.VIX.COM URL. i remember replying that AOL was free to bounce whatever they wanted for whatever reason they chose, and coined "their network, their rules." i don't

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 12:17:25 -0400, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: >Should Google be better about noticing when problems go away? Maybe. Should IP >addresses be made permanently useless for email because one well-intentioned >sysadmin didn't recognize a problem for long enough that Google

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-18 at 13:32:07 UTC-0400 (Mon, 18 Apr 2022 12:32:07 -0500) Larry M. Smith via mailop is rumored to have said: > Sorry, late to the game... > > On 4/17/2022, John Levine via mailop wrote: >> It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop said: If your friends somehow believe that Gmail

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Sorry, late to the game... On 4/17/2022, John Levine via mailop wrote: It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop said: If your friends somehow believe that Gmail is the only mail provider in the world I suppose I am sorry for them but I don't understand why that is anyone else's problem.

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-17 at 23:20:26 UTC-0400 (Mon, 18 Apr 2022 05:20:26 +0200) Paul Vixie via mailop is rumored to have said: > Bill Cole via mailop wrote on 2022-04-17 22:56: >> ... >> >> Reasonableness is case-specific Or "subjective" if you prefer... > > it is not. I guess we'll have to set that

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

People are forced to get a Gmail account and strongly encouraged to use it (for example, by defaults and preinstalled apps) when they get an Android phone -- - End message from Vittorio Bertola via mailop - *Completely* and objectively not true. I've run Android phones for

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 18 Apr 2022, at 08:35, Vittorio Bertola via mailop > wrote: > > >> Il 15/04/2022 16:43 Laura Atkins via mailop ha scritto: >> >> All of the complaints I’ve seen about google track back to: the person was >> either actively sending spam (possibly unknowingly, but that doesn’t exactly

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> Il 15/04/2022 17:55 Graeme Fowler via mailop ha scritto: > > Obviously we’ve had a great deal of discussion of OVH over the years, most of > which wasn’t favourable. YMMV, obviously. OVH is the second biggest hoster in Europe. Unless we want to assume that Europe is a continent of

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> Il 15/04/2022 16:43 Laura Atkins via mailop ha scritto: > > > > All of the complaints I’ve seen about google track back to: the person was > either actively sending spam (possibly unknowingly, but that doesn’t exactly > reflect well on the sender) or they’re using a free service that is

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Bob Proulx via mailop wrote on 2022-04-18 05:59: Paul Vixie via mailop wrote: all of these actors might be "trying to make things work" but be taking a naive or ignorant or provincial or subjective view of both "things" and "work". By trying to make things work I was thinking of SPF, DKIM,

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Paul Vixie via mailop wrote: > all of these actors might be "trying to make things work" but be taking a > naive or ignorant or provincial or subjective view of both "things" and > "work". By trying to make things work I was thinking of SPF, DKIM, DMARC, DANE, and DNSBLs, and other, and the list

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Bob Proulx via mailop wrote on 2022-04-18 02:23: ... The main problem is that at the same time that people are trying to fix things and make things work there are other people who are trying to break things and make things fail. that's not a dichotomy. Scammers and spammers and other

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Bill Cole via mailop wrote on 2022-04-17 22:56: ... Reasonableness is case-specific Or "subjective" if you prefer... it is not. no member of my circle of mailman subscribers who live inside the googplex would consider google's opaque requirement that i renumber my mailserver "reasonable".

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

1,$/oppress/p Rob Nagler via mailop wrote on 2022-04-17 19:06: Having run smallish mail servers for about four decades, the oppressors ... ... This after years spending time SEOing (more oppression) ... Another dimension to this "oppression". ... I am being oppressed by my one-data-center colo

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote: > Running systems is not easy; Especially for basic infrastructure > (which email is), it should just _work_. ... > However, it also circles back to the age old question (among people > sceptical of centralization) of how we can have more distributed >

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-17 at 18:11:16 UTC-0400 (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:11:16 +0100 (BST)) Andrew C Aitchison via mailop is rumored to have said: On Sun, 17 Apr 2022, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: On 2022-04-16 at 23:12:19 UTC-0400 (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 05:12:19 +0200) Paul Vixie via mailop is rumored to have

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: On 2022-04-16 at 23:12:19 UTC-0400 (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 05:12:19 +0200) Paul Vixie via mailop is rumored to have said: > Bill Cole via mailop wrote on 2022-04-15 17:47: > > Don't try to send mail to shabby mail operators with a domain that > >

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Heho, > We spent months working out the details, including why it uses HTTPS rather > than DANE, on public mailing lists in the IETF. (I would have preferred DANE, > but the choice of HTTPS was not made casually.) To clarify, my comment did not want to pull the found consensus into question,

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-16 at 23:12:19 UTC-0400 (Sun, 17 Apr 2022 05:12:19 +0200) Paul Vixie via mailop is rumored to have said: Bill Cole via mailop wrote on 2022-04-15 17:47: On 2022-04-15 at 08:37:54 UTC-0400 (Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:37:54 +0200) Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop is rumored to have said: Dnia

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop said: >> Uh, what? Google follows public mail standards at least as well as their >> large competitors like YahAOL and Microsoft. You do not have to like >> MTA-STS, but it's an open IETF >standard and there's a lot more providers than Google that use

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

ociety to run on? With best regards, Tobias -Original Message- From: mailop On Behalf Of John Levine via mailop Sent: Sunday, 17 April 2022 19:42 To: mailop@mailop.org Cc: tob...@fiebig.nl Subject: Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop said: >> If your

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop said: >> If your friends somehow believe that Gmail is the only mail provider in the >> world I suppose I am sorry for them but I don't understand why that is >> anyone else's problem. > >The idea is that you give away something for free, gain

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On Sun, 2022-04-17 at 11:06 -0600, Rob Nagler via mailop wrote: > Laura, did you notice the To line in the email to which I am replying > is "Bill Cole via mailop ".  The reason you see that is because your MUA is auto-saving email addresses of the people that email you. The "Bill Cole via

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Having run smallish mail servers for about four decades, the oppressors have won "mostly" for me. This week/end I am migrating my partner's single-person firm's domain to Google Workspace. This thread is topical, interesting, and hilarious to skim. Indeed, as I sat down to write this I received

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

-Original Message- From: mailop On Behalf Of John Levine via mailop Sent: Sunday, 17 April 2022 05:52 To: mailop@mailop.org Cc: p...@redbarn.org Subject: Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG It appears that Paul Vixie via mailop said: >srsly? do you really think changing one's domain name or ISP is a >

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 17 Apr 2022, at 04:51, John Levine via mailop wrote: > > It appears that Paul Vixie via mailop said: >> srsly? do you really think changing one's domain name or ISP is a >> reasonable way forward when google isn't accepting one's e-mail? > > When your domain is a cruddy free one which

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

It appears that Paul Vixie via mailop said: >srsly? do you really think changing one's domain name or ISP is a >reasonable way forward when google isn't accepting one's e-mail? When your domain is a cruddy free one which has earned a poor reputation, yes. As I have said a few times, sometimes

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG - IPv6 aside

Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote on 2022-04-15 18:49: ... Someone once said that IPv6 was an opportunity to introduce a good set of requirements into the email ecosystem (forgot who/where, and I'm paraphrasing). ... that's what i was trying to get at here:

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

wait, wait. Bill Cole via mailop wrote on 2022-04-15 17:47: On 2022-04-15 at 08:37:54 UTC-0400 (Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:37:54 +0200) Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop is rumored to have said: Dnia 14.04.2022 o godz. 12:40:52 Al Iverson via mailop pisze: Yes, it is unfixable. Once Google's AI decides

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 20:18:54 John Levine via mailop pisze: > > > >You quoted that. Eu.org is a *domain registrar*. Only. They don't offer any > >email service and never did. So how can they "police users for email"? > > They can turn off people when they get credible spam reports. Maybe they

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

It appears that Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop said: >Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 16:53:11 Laura Atkins via mailop pisze: >> >> "EU.org, free domain names since 1996” > >You quoted that. Eu.org is a *domain registrar*. Only. They don't offer any >email service and never did. So how can they "police users

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

According to Peter Nicolai Mathias Hansteen via mailop : >> 15. apr. 2022 kl. 16:24 skrev Al Iverson via mailop : >> >> PPS- Don't send to Gmail over IPv6. > >I would rather say «don’t try to send to gmail over IPv6 unless you have a >correct reverse DNS for your IPv6 address». Google

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-15 at 14:20:28 UTC-0400 (Fri, 15 Apr 2022 19:20:28 +0100) Laura Atkins via mailop is rumored to have said: > .eu.org is, essentially, a tld. And .tlds have their own > reputation, too. Just this week a few of us were talking about ‘weird’ tlds. > One of the

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 19:20:28 Laura Atkins via mailop pisze: > > Would you really hold it against that company, given the data they have, > if they blocked all mail with that tld in it? Given that it’s 90+% > guaranteed that tld is spam? What if 90+% of the mail in the .eu.org >

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 15 Apr 2022, at 18:29, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote: > > On 15 Apr 2022, at 12:50, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > > Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 16:53:11 Laura Atkins via mailop pisze: > > "EU.org, free domain names since 1996” > > You quoted that. Eu.org is a *domain registrar*. Only.

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 13:29:45 Luis E. Muñoz via mailop pisze: > > There are many who claim that there's a correlation between easily, > cheap (or free) domain names and spam. Their rationale is that > spammers can secure disposable domain names for very low price. Domains at eu.org are free,

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG - IPv6 aside

lem wrote: > > You're not wrong. Depends on email volume level and server config. > > They're just so sensitive to reputation for IPv6 sends, though. Don't > > even try without SPF and DKIM, and even then, get ready for some > > possible pain. > > For well managed mail servers, supporting well

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 15 Apr 2022, at 12:50, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 16:53:11 Laura Atkins via mailop pisze: "EU.org, free domain names since 1996” You quoted that. Eu.org is a *domain registrar*. Only. They don't offer any email service and never did. So how can they "police

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 4/15/22 10:48 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: What do you disagree with? The fact that *I* never sent email via IPv6 from my server? I disagree with the lack of caffeine and distraction that I had when i originally read your message. :-/ I mistook your statement as: Never use

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 11:47:37 Bill Cole via mailop pisze: > > OK, so you know why Google rejects your mail and how you could fix it, if > you wanted to have your mail accepted instead of having a solid point to > argue here. As I said initially, using a different domain is only a poor

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-15 at 12:42:53 UTC-0400 (Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:42:53 +0100) Laura Atkins via mailop is rumored to have said: > In these cases, though, it’s often the companies that are doing “cold > outreach” Thanks for the new euphemism. It's cute... I have zero visibility into businesses that

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 16:55:36 Graeme Fowler via mailop pisze: > > $ host 217.182.79.147 > 147.79.182.217.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer rafa.eu.org. > > $ whois -h whois.cymru.com 217.182.79.147 > AS | IP | AS Name > 16276 | 217.182.79.147 | OVH, FR > > Obviously

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 16:53:11 Laura Atkins via mailop pisze: > > "EU.org, free domain names since 1996” You quoted that. Eu.org is a *domain registrar*. Only. They don't offer any email service and never did. So how can they "police users for email"? Do you know any paid domain registrar -

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG - IPv6 aside

On 15 Apr 2022, at 12:02, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 10:36 AM Grant Taylor via mailop > wrote: >> >> On 4/15/22 8:24 AM, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: >>> Don't send to Gmail over IPv6. >> >> Drive by comment. >> >> It is possible to send to Google via IPv6. My

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 09:36:16 Grant Taylor via mailop pisze: > On 4/15/22 8:32 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > >Never used IPv6 to send mail at all. > > I strongly disagree with that statement. Both in the current > veracity and the long term implications thereof. What do you disagree

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 15 Apr 2022, at 17:24, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: > > On 2022-04-15 at 10:43:13 UTC-0400 (Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:43:13 +0100) > Laura Atkins via mailop > is rumored to have said: > >> Recipients have agency here and can move elsewhere for mail. The fact that >> they don’t tells me that

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-15 at 10:43:13 UTC-0400 (Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:43:13 +0100) Laura Atkins via mailop is rumored to have said: > Recipients have agency here and can move elsewhere for mail. The fact that > they don’t tells me that google understands their userbase really well and > does what they need

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-15 at 10:24:41 UTC-0400 (Fri, 15 Apr 2022 09:24:41 -0500) Al Iverson via mailop is rumored to have said: > > PPS- Don't send to Gmail over IPv6. > Excellent advice. Although, I should say that I admire the people who try to run mail systems primarily on IPv6. They are paving the way

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG - IPv6 aside

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 10:36 AM Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > > On 4/15/22 8:24 AM, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: > > Don't send to Gmail over IPv6. > > Drive by comment. > > It is possible to send to Google via IPv6. My personal / small / > bespoke server sends to my Google hosted work

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 15 Apr 2022, at 16:39, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > Your VPS doesn't sound like "a free service". But there is a chance that > your VPS is with a VPS provider that has a ... questionable reputation. -- > I speaking in the hypothetical as I've not looked. -- Thus you may be >

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 15 Apr 2022, at 16:39, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > > On 4/15/22 9:09 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: >> How is my own VPS, that I pay for, that only I control and only I use to >> send mail "a free service that doesn't police users for email" ??? > > Your VPS doesn't sound like

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 2022-04-15 at 08:37:54 UTC-0400 (Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:37:54 +0200) Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop is rumored to have said: > Dnia 14.04.2022 o godz. 12:40:52 Al Iverson via mailop pisze: >>> Yes, it is unfixable. Once Google's AI decides (for no apparent reason) that >>> it will reject e-mails from

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 4/15/22 9:09 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: How is my own VPS, that I pay for, that only I control and only I use to send mail "a free service that doesn't police users for email" ??? Your VPS doesn't sound like "a free service". But there is a chance that your VPS is with a VPS

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On 4/15/22 8:32 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: Never used IPv6 to send mail at all. I strongly disagree with that statement. Both in the current veracity and the long term implications thereof. - I send a fair bit of email via IPv6 without any problems at all. - I do have a select

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG - IPv6 aside

On 4/15/22 8:24 AM, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: Don't send to Gmail over IPv6. Drive by comment. It is possible to send to Google via IPv6. My personal / small / bespoke server sends to my Google hosted work address all the time over IPv6. -- Grant. . . . unix || die smime.p7s

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> 15. apr. 2022 kl. 16:24 skrev Al Iverson via mailop : > > PPS- Don't send to Gmail over IPv6. I would rather say «don’t try to send to gmail over IPv6 unless you have a correct reverse DNS for your IPv6 address». Google apparently decided to raise the bar a little when it comes to

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 15:43:13 Laura Atkins via mailop pisze: > > He’s also been told, repeatedly, to stop using a free service that doesn’t > police its users for email. Google doesn’t like services that let folks > abuse them and don’t do anything about it. They’re also blocking mail > with

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

> On 15 Apr 2022, at 15:24, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 7:41 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop > wrote: >> >> Dnia 14.04.2022 o godz. 12:40:52 Al Iverson via mailop pisze: Yes, it is unfixable. Once Google's AI decides (for no apparent reason) that it

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Al Iverson via mailop writes: > (... thanks ...) > PPS- Don't send to Gmail over IPv6. Very useful tip, to me! Thanks ^^^ Sincerely, Linux fan Byung-Hee -- ^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))// ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Dnia 15.04.2022 o godz. 09:24:41 Al Iverson via mailop pisze: > PPS- Don't send to Gmail over IPv6. Never used IPv6 to send mail at all. -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 7:41 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > > Dnia 14.04.2022 o godz. 12:40:52 Al Iverson via mailop pisze: > > > Yes, it is unfixable. Once Google's AI decides (for no apparent reason) > > > that > > > it will reject e-mails from you, or put them to recipients' spam

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

I can understand the frustration and tension in these emails as Gmail clearly doesn't provide any helpful way to resolve issues. We too are in the same scenario. We got our domain lowered to bad about two months ago, without any apparent reasons (no clear changes on our end), and we are now

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Dnia 14.04.2022 o godz. 12:40:52 Al Iverson via mailop pisze: > > Yes, it is unfixable. Once Google's AI decides (for no apparent reason) that > > it will reject e-mails from you, or put them to recipients' spam folder, > > there's pretty much nothing you can do about it. > > That is false. I

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

i see that grant and rob are having a lovely time down-thread but i have nothing to add so i'll make this my final reply, this time to mr. iverson. Al Iverson via mailop wrote on 2022-04-14 19:40: On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:00 PM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: ... Once Google's AI decides

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

this has been an interesting thread. i'll touch on only a few points. Marcel Becker wrote on 2022-04-14 02:14: On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 2:58 PM Paul Vixie via mailop > wrote: that google is provably wrong and provably non-transarent in how they decide what

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:00 PM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > > Dnia 13.04.2022 o godz. 19:44:52 Al Iverson via mailop pisze: > > > > Seconded. Google does not do things the way I would, and I find them > > frustrating, yes, but no, it is not true about there being some > > conspiracy to

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

Dnia 13.04.2022 o godz. 19:44:52 Al Iverson via mailop pisze: > > Seconded. Google does not do things the way I would, and I find them > frustrating, yes, but no, it is not true about there being some > conspiracy to keep you out, and no, it's not unfixable, unless you > stick your head in the

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

>> that google is provably wrong and provably non-transarent in how they >> decide what inbound e-mail to reject. > > Unless you have a solution which ensures that only good senders are able to > send email, then yes, you will find that receivers will be mostly > non-transparent on how they

Re: [mailop] [E] $GOOG

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 2:58 PM Paul Vixie via mailop wrote: > that google is provably wrong and provably non-transarent in how they > decide what inbound e-mail to reject. > Unless you have a solution which ensures that only good senders are able to send email, then yes, you will find that