Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

> On 7 Sep 2022, at 13:08, Radek Kaczynski (Radek from Bouncer) via mailop > wrote: > > > > I think that destroying all email verifiers is not going to be the solution > to the problem. > I think that: > - when spam filters block based on bounce rates > - decent senders should have to have

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Hello Slavko, > > Do you really think, that email operators have nothing better to work as > contact every one, who decide to use their service for own business? And > for any new domain do that again and again? Adding to local BL is much > more simple, provides the same results and -- can be

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Hello John, I'm afraid that the suggested price is too high for us; thus we'll be happy stay away from your servers. Please send me the list of the domains which you manage, and we will stop processing email verification for them - and we we will be returning the "unknown" status to our

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

It appears that Radek Kaczynski via mailop said: >I don't think that. >Honestly, I hate that we are using YOUR resources without compensating you. > >As I wrote before, I'd love to pay. I initially thought about paying a quota >for using VRFY. > >But if it would be hard to implement - I'd love

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Dňa 7. 9. o 9:44 Radek Kaczynski (Radek from Bouncer) via mailop napísal(a): Here I meant - if you as Mail Operator, do not want Bouncer to verify email addresses hosted by you - please let me know and we will put a rule in our configuration. Do you really think, that email operators have

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Hi Hal, > > Many marketing people just don't get it when it comes to spam. They can > always come up with some way to rationalize that their spam isn't spam. I > wonder if it is genetic. > That's why we try to educate marketing folks (we will be running a series of articles, and webinars this

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

ra...@usebouncer.com said: > - marketing teams coming to us from Marketing SaaSs, who, during customer > onboarding, notice that the quality of email lists is low and send their > customers to us to clean it first. My alarm bells went off on one of your first messages when you said little guys

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Hello Slavko, > > > > I do not understand one thing. Why do you think, that you can use my (or > any other's) hardware for own business without approve? > > > I don't think that. Honestly, I hate that we are using YOUR resources without compensating you. As I wrote before, I'd love to

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Dňa 6. septembra 2022 20:39:04 UTC používateľ Radek Kaczynski via mailop napísal: >And as always, I really appreciate and respect your perspective and >constructive exchange of thoughts. >This conversation has stimulated me to reflect on our current and potentially >future business model. I

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Hi Hal, Members Interestingly, because we initially were API only, back-end as a service, the most significant portion of our revenue comes from: - Marketing SaaSs - that want to protect their infrastructure from organic but low-quality databases; and here low quality usually comes from old

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Hello Atro, > > Having said all of the above, I truly welcome the fact that you have shown > up here to own up and explain what it is that you are doing and where you > are coming from with this. It may not make matters any better from the > perspective of whether anybody's inclined to accept

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 5 Sep 2022, at 18:07, Atro Tossavainen via mailop wrote: >> This is a bit less clear, but I'd say that is fine because you have >> every reason to believe that you are acting on behalf of the address >> owner, not some 3rd party who may not have acquired the address >> legitimately. > > This,

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 15:58:51 Jay Hennigan via mailop pisze: > > Of course, if you want that other person receive all information about > > the progress and results of your application, and you have no access to > > that information (unless you personally come to the office to ask about it), >

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Radek Kaczynski said: > That's interesting indeed - we haven't implemented SMTP VRFY as it is very > uncommon. > However, I truly think that it would be great to use VRFY instead of "broken > SMTP trick". > I would be more than happy to pay to use it - or give back to the community > or charity.

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 2022-09-05 at 18:16:06 UTC-0400 (Tue, 6 Sep 2022 00:16:06 +0200) Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop is rumored to have said: Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 17:56:13 Bill Cole via mailop pisze: Yes, of course, but he said he is using "reject_unverified_recipient" which is RECIPIENT address verification,

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 2022-09-05 at 18:07:37 UTC-0400 (Tue, 6 Sep 2022 01:07:37 +0300) Atro Tossavainen via mailop is rumored to have said: Fine. You're responsible for delivering mail submitted to you, and it is entirely reasonable to confirm that the entity you are accepting it from has provided a usable

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 9/5/22 15:13, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 14:45:40 Michael Peddemors via mailop pisze: This is the only argument that holds any kind of merit, but if you want to REALLY see if the person intended to register, send them a real email, as in confirmed double opt-in,

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 17:56:13 Bill Cole via mailop pisze: > > Yes, of course, but he said he is using "reject_unverified_recipient" which > is RECIPIENT address verification, a tool which is used to prevent > backscatter on machines that do legitimate relaying of mail. Sorry, I used the wrong

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 14:45:40 Michael Peddemors via mailop pisze: > > This is the only argument that holds any kind of merit, but if you want to > REALLY see if the person intended to register, send them a real email, as in > confirmed double opt-in, that they have to click on. Otherwise, I

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

> Fine. You're responsible for delivering mail submitted to you, and > it is entirely reasonable to confirm that the entity you are > accepting it from has provided a usable address. What Postfix then > does to verify it is exactly what would be done if a message was > simply accepted without

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 9/5/22 13:51, Atro Tossavainen via mailop wrote: Yes, Sender Address Verification is abusive as well because it causes the systems doing it to woodpecker on anybody whose addresses are forged as senders in spam. And so is Challenge/Response based spam filtering. Agreed, but so is

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 2022-09-05 at 16:51:34 UTC-0400 (Mon, 5 Sep 2022 23:51:34 +0300) Atro Tossavainen via mailop is rumored to have said: Regarding the above, I have the following question: What do you (and maybe other people on the list) think about such email verification method ("abusing RCPT TO") used

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

send the applicant a copy of their completed form And that right there is where a lot of my customers get in trouble. It's a shame but these days, you can't even send a "Hello {name}" to anyone from a form or you just end up sending "Hey get_cheap_viagra_at_this_website.tld" though it is

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 2022-09-05 at 16:27:13 UTC-0400 (Mon, 5 Sep 2022 22:27:13 +0200) Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop is rumored to have said: Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 22:39:01 Atro Tossavainen via mailop pisze: So do all the ESPs. But their customers send mail, and the recipients are able to act upon it, informing

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

> Atro appears to object to this use. I disagree. It's abusable. Your users might not be who you think they will be. > Arguably this is less expensive than "double opt in", which is doing > a similar thing. Yes. It also returns a different category of result. > One way around that might be for

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 2022-09-05 13:27, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: What do you (and maybe other people on the list) think about such email verification method ("abusing RCPT TO") used as part of: a) mail receiving process - I'm thinking here for example about the Postfix feature "reject_unverified_recipient"

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On Mon, 5 Sep 2022, Atro Tossavainen via mailop wrote: Regarding the above, I have the following question: What do you (and maybe other people on the list) think about such email verification method ("abusing RCPT TO") used as part of: a) mail receiving process - I'm thinking here for example

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

> Regarding the above, I have the following question: > > What do you (and maybe other people on the list) think about such email > verification method ("abusing RCPT TO") used as part of: > > a) mail receiving process - I'm thinking here for example about the Postfix > feature

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 22:39:01 Atro Tossavainen via mailop pisze: > > So do all the ESPs. But their customers send mail, and the recipients > are able to act upon it, informing the ESP of problem clients and > sometimes even getting traction. > > In the case of email verifiers, there is no

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:27:05 -0700, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote: >I assume that: >- When I walk up to a bank teller wearing a mask One of the irritating aspects of the unnecessary pandemic was that my very favorite Jack Vance quote became awkwardly inoperative. mdr -- "Honest folk do not

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Czesc, Radek, > We assume that: > - our customer (data controller) who requested us to verify the email address > got it in a legal way > - our customer is obeying anti-spam policies. So do all the ESPs. But their customers send mail, and the recipients are able to act upon it, informing the

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 9/5/22 12:12, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: On 2022-09-05 at 14:42:38 UTC-0400 (Mon, 5 Sep 2022 11:42:38 -0700) Jay Hennigan via mailop is rumored to have said: On 9/5/22 07:48, Radek Kaczynski via mailop wrote: We assume that: - our customer (data controller) who requested us to verify

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 2022-09-05 at 14:42:38 UTC-0400 (Mon, 5 Sep 2022 11:42:38 -0700) Jay Hennigan via mailop is rumored to have said: On 9/5/22 07:48, Radek Kaczynski via mailop wrote: We assume that: - our customer (data controller) who requested us to verify the email address got it in a legal way - our

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 9/5/22 07:48, Radek Kaczynski via mailop wrote: We assume that: - our customer (data controller) who requested us to verify the email address got it in a legal way - our customer is obeying anti-spam policies. What logical basis or evidence do you have to support this assumption? -- Jay

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Hi Andrew, Ladies & Gentlemen, > > Coincidentally, I have just been helping someone enable SMTP VRFY in exim. > I suppose that you do use VRFY > when it is availble ? That's interesting indeed - we haven't implemented SMTP VRFY as it is very uncommon. However, I truly think that it would be

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On Sun, 4 Sep 2022, Radek Kaczynski via mailop wrote: Thanks to members of this group I learned that we still have a homework to be done if it comes to transparency, and making it easier to folks like you to easily identify us. I hate the fact that this topic has stolen so much time and

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Carl, Yes, I’m aware that you do see the addresses, and thus the naming convention currently used is designed to be transparent- so there is no hiding. Thanks to members of this group I learned that we still have a homework to be done if it comes to transparency, and making it easier to folks

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Am 04.09.22 um 21:49 schrieb Radek Kaczynski via mailop: > Those few domains with small traffic are: > - bringmesomejuice.com > - iusedtolikeit.com > - sometimeinthepast.com > - mybigfluffyfriend.com

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sun, 2022-09-04 at 19:49 +, Radek Kaczynski via mailop wrote: > Regarding the list of IPs - I'd prefer to send it to the interested > people directly. > I'd like to have a track of record to whom I have exposed it and You realize of course

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Hi Jarland, As I mentioned before, I'm not a fan of cold email in general and specifically mass cold email. I'm also not a representative of any company supporting cold email. But to be fair, I have to say that as far as I'm concerned, users of Woodpecker are not able to do the old "spray and

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Hello, > > > > Probably easier just to post it here. > > > Our main domain for email verifications is *bouncer.cloud* ( http://bouncer.cloud/ ). We do have some small traffic going through a few other domains that we have set in the initial days. We did not mean to hide, but looking at

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 9/3/22 15:43, Radek Kaczynski via mailop wrote: Good evening, [snip] I personally am not a fan of cold email, and sometimes do get irritated by the spammy one. But I also see it sometimes as an equalizer - giving the same chances when competing with global enterprises. [snip] But

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

so that you can block Bouncer’s requests - please feel free to email me at ra...@usebouncer.com. Radoslaw Kaczynski | CEO of Bouncer ul. Cypriana Kamila Norwida 24/1 50-374 Wrocław, Poland Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2022 16:13:24 -0400 From: Bill Cole To: "Larry M. Smith

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sun, 2022-09-04 at 00:43 +0200, Radek Kaczynski via mailop wrote: > If any of you would like to get a full list of our IP addresses and > domains so that you can block Bouncer's requests - please feel free to > email me at ra...@usebouncer.com.

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Norwida 24/1 50-374 Wrocław, Poland > Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2022 16:13:24 -0400 > From: Bill Cole <mailto:mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.com>> > To: "Larry M. Smith via mailop" mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> > Subject: Re: [mailop] SMTP no

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

I've seen precisely one thing on this list, on this topic, that I would classify as "bitching" and I'm replying to it. On 2022-09-02 17:13, Christopher Hawker via mailop wrote: Seems like a whole lot of bitching and whinging is going on here regarding bouncer.cloud. Pretty sure this is a mail

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Seems like a whole lot of bitching and whinging is going on here regarding bouncer.cloud. Pretty sure this is a mail operations list, not a “let’s whinge and complain about mail services” list. It’s very simple - if you don’t like or want traffic from their systems entering your network or

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 2022-09-02 at 14:16:25 UTC-0400 (Fri, 2 Sep 2022 18:16:25 +) Larry M. Smith via mailop is rumored to have said: On 8/31/2022, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: (snip) Who/what/where their clients are, and for what purpose of course, is not likely something we will find out unless they like

[mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Hello Gentlemen, First of all, Andreas - I'm sorry that traffic from our solution has confused you. We are indeed providing email verification services ( https://www.usebouncer.com ( https://www.usebouncer.com/ ) ). I do understand and fully respect your opinion about that kind of service.

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 8/31/2022, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: (snip) Who/what/where their clients are, and for what purpose of course, is not likely something we will find out unless they like to share more, but we can continue discussing this in terms of all the operators out there, and what constitutes the good

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

It appears that Michael Peddemors via mailop said: >But I do of course understand the temptation to simply block them, if >you dont' know what they are doing. I do know what they are doing, and I have no interest in helping them do it. ___ mailop

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

For those of us out of the loopwhat is this? On 8/31/22 3:22 PM, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: For the record, I should note in this thread, that in this case it is an actual company behind this (was reached out offlist by a principle) and many on the list are aware of this person.

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

On 2022-08-31 at 15:22:33 UTC-0400 (Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:22:33 -0700) Michael Peddemors via mailop is rumored to have said: For the record, I should note in this thread, that in this case it is an actual company behind this (was reached out offlist by a principle) and many on the list are

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

For the record, I should note in this thread, that in this case it is an actual company behind this (was reached out offlist by a principle) and many on the list are aware of this person. https://www.linkedin.com/company/usebouncer/ Who/what/where their clients are, and for what purpose of

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Nice find. Here's the IP list I pulled for them as well: https://clbin.com/Fr1IH Probably not worth blocking by IP but some blacklistings might alert hosts to abusive behavior more than "yet another ignored abuse complaint." On 2022-08-31 08:56, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: Not just

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

It appears that Michael Peddemors via mailop said: >Not just OVH, on LeaseWeb as well.. They're obviously doing listwashing. Nice of them to give us a reliable signal to block them. 2022-06-10 12:51:20.947844500 tcpserver: ok 4064 mail1.iecc.com:64.57.183.56:25

Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Not just OVH, on LeaseWeb as well.. Script at least is sane, even though it simply does a RCPT TO, then QUIT. Suggest it is another email validator, or list washer.. without transparency. Aug 31 04:38:13 be msd[603032]: Linux Magic SMTPD started: connection from 212.7.193.14

[mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud

Noticing lot's of noise from OVH adress ranges with "bouncer.cloud" PTR and HELO. Often they are trying only one recipient and seem to move on then. Can anyone shed some light on what these people are trying to accomplish? Could there be any kind of legitimacy, or are just plain bad guys? Seems