you know, I think that's one of the highly undesirable unintended
consequences of DMARC ATM - the habit it's forming to dig out messages from
spam. I keep thinking to myself how I need not make a mistake about
something patently spammy or risky when digging out these from spam. so I
spend a lot mor
> Am 04.02.2016 um 22:41 schrieb Brandon Long :
> That's what I think is the case, indeed. Hetzner is the provider.
>
> It is a netblock quota you're hitting, yes. As we see more and larger hit
> and run spam jobs from previously unknown or low volume IPs and netblocks,
> the low volume sender
quot; | Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ?
-Original Message-
From: SM [mailto:s...@resistor.net]
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 3:09 PM
To: Michael Wise ; mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail throttles anyway
Hi Michael,
At 17:27 04-02-2016, Michael Wise wrote:
>If you'r
Hi Michael,
At 17:27 04-02-2016, Michael Wise wrote:
If you're going to do something that will break the DKIM signature
as a matter of course,
You should remove the DKIM signature, and maybe re-sign it with your own.
You shouldn't break the signature and then forward what was once
goodmail wit
@taugh.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 5:59 PM
To: Michael Wise
Cc: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: RE: [mailop] Gmail throttles anyway
> If it's a mailing list, the traffic is not simply passing thru. Since the
> message is being modified, the signature should at the very least be
&g
If it's a mailing list, the traffic is not simply passing thru. Since the
message is being modified, the signature should at the very least be
deactivated.
For the third time, why? The RFC says it doesn't matter.
I believe it goes into the junk, but I don't believe it has anything to do
wit
om: John R Levine<mailto:jo...@taugh.com>
Sent: 2/4/2016 5:51 PM
To: Michael Wise<mailto:michael.w...@microsoft.com>
Cc: mailop@mailop.org<mailto:mailop@mailop.org>
Subject: RE: [mailop] Gmail throttles anyway
> If you're going to do something that will break the DKI
If you're going to do something that will break the DKIM signature as a matter
of course,
You should remove the DKIM signature, and maybe re-sign it with your own.
You shouldn't break the signature and then forward what was once goodmail with
a now busted signature.
Au contraire. You should
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Andreas Schamanek <
> scham...@fam.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Brandon,
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, at 13:41, Brandon Long wrote:
>>
>> > It is a netblock quota you're hitting, yes. As we see more and
>>
-
Michael J Wise | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Has Been
Processed." | Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ?
-Original Message-
From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@taugh.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 5:11 PM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Cc: Michael Wise
Subject
In article
you write:
>If you're going to run a mailing-list and you don't believe in DKIM ... fine!
>But remove the DKIM headers before resending the traffic, please.
Why? The DKIM spec is super duper 100% clear that an invalid
signature is the same as no signature. Any system that scores
ag
Mail Reporting Tool ?
-Original Message-
From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Schamanek
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 2:28 PM
To: mailop
Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail throttles anyway
Hi Brandon,
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, at 13:41, Brandon Long wrote:
> It is
Hi Brandon,
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, at 13:41, Brandon Long wrote:
> It is a netblock quota you're hitting, yes. As we see more and
> larger hit and run spam jobs from previously unknown or low volume
> IPs and netblocks, the low volume senders are caught in the cross
> fire.
>
> I'll ping the s
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Andreas Schamanek wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, at 08:19, Franck Martin wrote:
>
> > Have you considered that may be it is not postfix sending these
> > emails from your IP?
>
> Yes, of course. This particular server is not even generating enough
> traffic accordi
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Michael Wise
wrote:
> It looks like the DKIM bits were added by Gmail.
>
> As to point 4 … Do Not Get Me Started.
>
>
>
This list is not hosted by Google? So the bits that break DKIM are added by
mailman, and it is a statement not a judgement.
As for 4, why deny s
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Franck Martin
> wrote:
>
>> Neil,
>>
>> it is even surprising it gets delivered at all...
>>
>
> *whistling*
>
> Yeah, I added a personal filter for my account, if list:mailop never spam.
>
> I'm sure ARC
aspx?id=18275> ?
From: Franck Martin [mailto:fmar...@linkedin.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 1:01 PM
To: Michael Wise
Cc: Neil Schwartzman ; mailop ; Andreas
Schamanek
Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail throttles anyway
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Michael Wise
mailto:michael.w...@micro
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Michael Wise
wrote:
>
>
> Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is 213.138.100.131)
>
> smtp.mailfrom=mailop.org; microsoft.com; dkim=fail (signature did not
> verify)
>
> header.d=linkedin.com;microsoft.com; dmarc=fail action=oreject
>
> header.from=linkedi
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> Neil,
>
> it is even surprising it gets delivered at all...
>
*whistling*
Yeah, I added a personal filter for my account, if list:mailop never spam.
I'm sure ARC will solve all our troubles.
Brandon
It is rather funny that this mailing
zman
Cc: mailop ; Andreas Schamanek
Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail throttles anyway
Neil,
it is even surprising it gets delivered at all...
It is rather funny that this mailing list, does not have SPF nor DKIM.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Neil Schwartzman
mailto:n...@cauce.org>> wrote:
it may
Neil,
it is even surprising it gets delivered at all...
It is rather funny that this mailing list, does not have SPF nor DKIM.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
it may also be content. both franck’s and Andreas’ emails ended up in my
> gmail junk folder.
>
>
>
> On Feb 4
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, at 08:19, Franck Martin wrote:
> Have you considered that may be it is not postfix sending these
> emails from your IP?
Yes, of course. This particular server is not even generating enough
traffic according to the firewall to qualify as bulk sender. Besides,
if there was a
Have you considered that may be it is not postfix sending these emails from
your IP?
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Andreas Schamanek wrote:
>
> We are not forwarding, we are not sending spam, in fact we are not
> even sending bulk mail at all, still we get rate limited by Google.
>
> Strangel
We are not forwarding, we are not sending spam, in fact we are not
even sending bulk mail at all, still we get rate limited by Google.
Strangely enough, right since I verified my domain schamanek.net for
postmaster.google.com we get rate limited every few days. E.g.
Feb 2 16:52:04 iac postf
24 matches
Mail list logo
