Most likely the reasoning behind something like this is dkim replay
attacks, where a message with a single recipient is re-sent to a large
number of recipients.
Of course mailing lists should be exempted, the challenge is if you reply
to both the list and the person directly, the reply to the pers
Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop skrev den 2024-03-17 13:38:
Dnia 16.03.2024 o godz. 13:08:52 Benny Pedersen via mailop pisze:
bingo its why its tempfailed, gmail should redesign how to handle
maillists where message-id can come to inbound on gmail, should not
count on message-id abuse counts
Well...
Dnia 16.03.2024 o godz. 13:08:52 Benny Pedersen via mailop pisze:
>
> bingo its why its tempfailed, gmail should redesign how to handle
> maillists where message-id can come to inbound on gmail, should not
> count on message-id abuse counts
Well... from Google's point of view, it seems like a pre
Am 16.03.2024 um 13:08:52 Uhr schrieb Benny Pedersen via mailop:
> Marco Moock via mailop skrev den 2024-03-16 12:46:
> > Am 14.03.2024 um 10:28:13 Uhr schrieb Julian Bradfield via mailop:
> >
> >> Their latest daftness (latest in my noticing it, anyway) is
> >> rate-limiting on the basis of to
Marco Moock via mailop skrev den 2024-03-16 12:46:
Am 14.03.2024 um 10:28:13 Uhr schrieb Julian Bradfield via mailop:
Their latest daftness (latest in my noticing it, anyway) is
rate-limiting on the basis of too many recipients for a single
message-id, where "too many" varies from 6 to 30. You'
Am 14.03.2024 um 10:28:13 Uhr schrieb Julian Bradfield via mailop:
> Their latest daftness (latest in my noticing it, anyway) is
> rate-limiting on the basis of too many recipients for a single
> message-id, where "too many" varies from 6 to 30. You'd think they'd
> never heard of organization mai
On 2024/03/14 10:28, Julian Bradfield via mailop wrote:
> Their latest daftness (latest in my noticing it, anyway) is
> rate-limiting on the basis of too many recipients for a single
> message-id, where "too many" varies from 6 to 30. You'd think they'd
> never heard of organization mailing lists.
Am Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:04:42 +0100
schrieb Marco Moock via mailop :
> Although, I send only a very small amount of mail to Google. Do they
> use that to calculate the rate?
I got that error again. I participated in some mailing lists with
gmail subscribers.
One of those subscribers has a forward
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Johann Klasek via mailop wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:03:46PM +0100, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
Am 14.03.2024 schrieb Julian Bradfield via mailop :
On 2024-03-14, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
sendmail tried to deliver it 20 times during the night - this
morning
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:17:39PM +0100, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> D??a 14. 3. o 12:03 Marco Moock via mailop napísal(a):
>
> > Is there any standard that defines the retry rates or at least a best
> > practise?
>
> RFC 5321, sect. 4.5.4.1:
>
> In general, the retry interval SHOULD be at l
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:03:46PM +0100, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> Am 14.03.2024 schrieb Julian Bradfield via mailop :
>
> > On 2024-03-14, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> > > sendmail tried to deliver it 20 times during the night - this
> > > morning I deleted the mail from mqueue.
> >
Dňa 14. 3. o 12:03 Marco Moock via mailop napísal(a):
Is there any standard that defines the retry rates or at least a best
practise?
RFC 5321, sect. 4.5.4.1:
In general, the retry interval SHOULD be at least 30 minutes...
--
Slavko
https://www.slavino.sk/
__
Am 14.03.2024 schrieb Julian Bradfield via mailop :
> On 2024-03-14, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> > sendmail tried to deliver it 20 times during the night - this
> > morning I deleted the mail from mqueue.
>
> That's a fairly aggressive retry strategy.
That is the default in sendmail.
Is
On 2024-03-14, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> sendmail tried to deliver it 20 times during the night - this morning
> I deleted the mail from mqueue.
That's a fairly aggressive retry strategy. If there's something about
that message gmail doesn't like, then retrying that often might be
enough to
Am 14.03.2024 schrieb Julian Bradfield via mailop :
> They don't reject with 5xx because they're not rejecting that message,
> they are rate-limiting you or the network you're on.
> I get this often, because one user forwards their mail to
> gmail, including all the spam. Google rejects the spam,
On 2024-03-14, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Yesterday I replied somebody directly on debian-users (he uses a crappy
> mailer and sends to the author and the mailing list...).
>
> Gmail doesn't like this mail, but rejects it with a tempfail. I've now
> deleted it from mqueue.
>
> Mar
Am 14.03.2024 schrieb Stefano Bagnara via mailop :
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 10:09, Marco Moock via mailop
> wrote:
> > Mar 14 06:54:17 srv1.xyz sm-mta[498019]: 42DK6aqc496761:
> > to=, delay=09:47:40, xdelay=00:00:03, mailer=esmtp,
> > pri=5370980, relay=alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com., dsn=4.7.
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 10:09, Marco Moock via mailop wrote:
> Mar 14 06:54:17 srv1.xyz sm-mta[498019]: 42DK6aqc496761:
> to=, delay=09:47:40, xdelay=00:00:03, mailer=esmtp,
> pri=5370980, relay=alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com., dsn=4.7.28,
> reply=421 4.7.28 Gmail has detected an unusual rate of u
Hello!
Yesterday I replied somebody directly on debian-users (he uses a crappy
mailer and sends to the author and the mailing list...).
Gmail doesn't like this mail, but rejects it with a tempfail. I've now
deleted it from mqueue.
Mar 14 06:54:17 srv1.xyz sm-mta[498019]: 42DK6aqc496761:
to=, del
19 matches
Mail list logo
