Hi,
Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote on 21.10.22 at 18:28:
To stay ontopic here, the question is: _why_ were you getting "blocks
left and right"? And what were they?
Was it a "fresh & clean" IPv4 address or one that had been abused in the
past? What did the RBL checking tools tell you ab
On 2022-10-21, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
[ in reply to a poster who had pain setting up new mxes ]
> To stay ontopic here, the question is: _why_ were you getting "blocks left
> and right"? And what were they?
>
> Was it a "fresh & clean" IPv4 address or one that had been abused in
Am 21.10.22 um 00:33 schrieb Graeme Fowler via mailop:
No. There will be no changes to the Exim default configuration, nor should
there be.If the suggestion was made of a commercial product with thousands of
people behind it, it would likely result in costly litigation.
Am 21.10.22 um 10:08 s
Am 21.10.22 um 09:39 schrieb Florian Effenberger via mailop:
I am neither a package maintainer nor a mail server developer, so my voice
likely is just a very small one - but last year I've been gone through a lot of
the pain with setting up a new mail server on a new IP address and getting
bl
On 21/10/2022 15:36, Bjoern Franke via mailop wrote:
And then tld.t-online.de sends e.g contact form spam from
"anonym...@hostmaster.telekom.de" and produces backscatter. They don't
even apply their own rules to their customers. Why should we accept
mail from tld.t-online.de when we don't know
Am 21.10.22 um 13:27 schrieb Gellner, Oliver via mailop:
On 20.10.22 20:30, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Since t-online.de is the only "walled garden mail domain" known – at least
AFAIK? –, any email to and especially from @t-online.de should be rejected in any default
configuration o
On 20.10.22 20:30, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
> Since t-online.de is the only "walled garden mail domain" known – at least
> AFAIK? –, any email to and especially from @t-online.de should be rejected in
> any default configuration of any MTA.
t-online.de is not the only domain. You ca
Dnia 20.10.2022 o godz. 23:09:07 Grant Taylor via mailop pisze:
>
> I suspect that there are *MANY* Business-to-Business email servers that use
> similar filtering and only allow /specific/ previously white listed
> addresses to communicate. That's the exact same thing that T-Online is
> doing.
On 10/21/22 04:13, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Am 21.10.22 um 00:33 schrieb Graeme Fowler via mailop:
No. There will be no changes to the Exim default configuration
So sad. It's up to the packagers then to fix the shit that hits the fan.
Being a packager for exim, I can tell you
Hi,
Grant Taylor via mailop wrote on 21.10.22 at 07:09:
I believe there have been multiple others beside myself that think that
T-Online should NOT be shunned in MTA /default/ configurations.
I am neither a package maintainer nor a mail server developer, so my
voice likely is just a very sma
> From: Kai 'wusel' Siering
> > Then a different check:
>
> I don't speak smail3^Hexim anymore, but I assume it's somewhat similar to
>
> telnet $mx 25
> if 2xx send quit
> if 5xx set fuckem=1 && send quit || ignore errors
> if $fuckem<1 die in_peace else wreck havoc
>
> ?
I don't know why, b
On 10/20/22 9:14 PM, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
But their "policy" does not adhere
Yes, T-Online /does/ adhere to T-Online's policy of only accepting email
from senders that T-Online considers to be blessed.
No. They 554 anyone, including me from any of my 1k+ v4 IPs except for 2
Am 21.10.22 um 02:23 schrieb Grant Taylor via mailop:
On 10/20/22 4:49 PM, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Another rule from an earlier era outlines one of the fundamental principles of
the Internet Agreement: I will accept your traffic, *subject* *to* /my/
*policies* and agreements, if
Am 21.10.22 um 00:33 schrieb Graeme Fowler via mailop:
No. There will be no changes to the Exim default configuration
So sad. It's up to the packagers then to fix the shit that hits the fan.
-kai
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.
Am 20.10.22 um 23:07 schrieb Lena--- via mailop:
T-Online clearly states in their terms and conditions that they will
block servers who perform sender verfication towards them.
Well, that's why you separate your MXes from your Sending servers; the
MX can do anything from it's IP, any fingering
On 10/20/22 4:49 PM, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Another rule from an earlier era outlines one of the fundamental
principles of the Internet Agreement: I will accept your traffic,
*subject* *to* /my/ *policies* and agreements, if you will accept mine,
*subject* *to* /your/ *policies*
Am 20.10.22 um 21:29 schrieb Michael Rathbun via mailop:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:47:40 +0200 (CEST), Bernardo Reino via mailop
wrote:
However, I still find that Postel's law should apply, in any context, and
specifically in this one. You want to run an e-mail server and don't want to be
blocke
Just for completeness here, and wearing both my Exim and Mailop hats:
No. There will be no changes to the Exim default configuration, nor should
there be. If the suggestion was made of a commercial product with thousands
of people behind it, it would likely result in costly litigation.
To sug
> T-Online clearly states in their terms and conditions that they will
> block servers who perform sender verfication towards them.
Then a different check:
deny condition = ${if or{\
{eqi{$sender_address_domain}{t-online.de}}\
.ifdef _HAVE_LOOKUP_DNSDB
{forany{${lookup dnsdb{>: defer_nev
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:47:40 +0200 (CEST), Bernardo Reino via mailop
wrote:
>However, I still find that Postel's law should apply, in any context, and
>specifically in this one. You want to run an e-mail server and don't want to
>be
>blocked, so you should (liberally) accept, instead of "being
W dniu czw, 20.10.2022 o godzinie 22∶01 +0300, użytkownik Lena--- via
mailop napisał:
> set acl_m_ton = checkdefer
> !verify = sender/callout=10s
> set acl_m_ton = $acl_verify_message
T-Online clearly states in their terms and conditions that they will
block servers who perform sender verfic
Kai Siering wrote on [mailop]:
> how about starting internal discussions within that community
> to include a default rejection of any mail from @t-online.de
> in Exim's default configuration?
> As nearly no-one who is deploying Exim
> (or Postfix, Sendmail for that matter)
> will be able to *sen
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
[...]
Basically "Max" states that he needed to put an "simple imprint" at
http://his.do.main/index.html, which made t...@rx.t-online.de whitelist his
mailserver's IP. Thus, even in December 2020 they were keen on this imprint
thingy;
On 20.10.22 17:31, Bernardo Reino via mailop wrote:
And maybe to add to what Kai Siering wrote "Deutsche Telekom's policy for accessing
the MXes for t-online.de hasn't changed for 10+ years". Maybe the /written/ policy
has not changed, but the enforcement of the legal notice (Impressum) certain
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 19.10.2022 o godz. 18:55:29 Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop pisze:
It would be less of an issue if t-online.de would take care _not_ to send
to domains they don't take the replies from; but they happily sent emails
to any MX in the world
On 2022-10-20 14:51, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 19.10.2022 o godz. 20:08:30 Bernardo Reino via mailop pisze:
> That seems really "interesting". How does that impressum look like, which
> has the magical power of transforming a private server into a "commercial"
> one? What should it co
Dnia 20.10.2022 o godz. 15:51:13 Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop pisze:
> > such data online is perfectly valid for companies, for individuals it's
> > nothing more than an endorsement for criminal activity.
>
> Well, just use your ISP's submission service, problem solved.
By ISP you mean hosting
Hello,
Grant Taylor via mailop wrote on 20.10.22 at 16:06:
Please forgive ~> humor my ignorance, but what does the imprint /
impressum (?) /need/ to have in it?
not sure what Telekom actually asks for - but (as you can imagine, it's
Germany :) things are quite regulated in the law. Depending
Hello,
Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote on 20.10.22 at 15:51:
As a German, you have to have an imprint on anything that is considered a
"service", yes, even on your personal, non-monetized blog. It the law ;)
And
also off-topic here.
I agree, this part of the discussion will likely lead
On 10/20/22 7:51 AM, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Well, just use your ISP's submission service, problem solved. Or pay
someone to MX you domain, problem solved.
I don't agree that the problem is /solved/. Rather I think using such
an external problem /changes/ or /moves/ the problem
Dňa 20. októbra 2022 12:51:42 UTC používateľ Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
napísal:
>So basically they require anybody who runs a mail server to put their street
>address and telephone number online to be publicly available???
Perhaps not really. How they can verify, that published phone number is
On 20.10.22 14:51, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
So basically they require anybody who runs a mail server to put their street
address and telephone number online to be publicly available???
Crazy idea. And this is the same country that banned Google Street View
(probably as a single country in
• Kirill Miazine via mailop [2022-10-19 19:21]:
[...]
> I've sent t...@rx.t-online.de an email and asked to clarify why my fullu
> compliant mail server on TransIP network is being blocked and what kind
> of problem has occured.
And there I've received a response:
Thank you very much for your me
On 10/20/22 14:51, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 19.10.2022 o godz. 20:08:30 Bernardo Reino via mailop pisze:
That seems really "interesting". How does that impressum look like, which
has the magical power of transforming a private server into a "commercial"
one? What should it contain?
Dnia 19.10.2022 o godz. 20:08:30 Bernardo Reino via mailop pisze:
> > That seems really "interesting". How does that impressum look like, which
> > has the magical power of transforming a private server into a "commercial"
> > one? What should it contain? Could you provide a link to yours?
>
> Wel
Hello,
Bernardo Reino via mailop wrote on 20.10.22 at 09:01:
I wasn't aware of the timing aspect, so thank you for this!
that's at least what I understood back in the days. :-) Whether there's
a more fine-grained approach, differentiation by ISP reputation and
other factors, I don't know. I
On 2022-10-20 09:10, Dominique Rousseau via mailop wrote:
Le Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 01:33:04PM +0200, Heiko Schlittermann via
mailop [mailop@mailop.org] a écrit:
(...)
(translation by me):
Sorry, we only accept messages from proven
commercial or similiar servers. Please use the SMTP relay of y
Le Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 01:33:04PM +0200, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop
[mailop@mailop.org] a écrit:
(...)
> (translation by me):
> Sorry, we only accept messages from proven
> commercial or similiar servers. Please use the SMTP relay of your hoster
> or your ISP.
How is "proven" defined
On 2022-10-20 01:40, Ángel via mailop wrote:
On 2022-10-19 at 21:28 +0200, Bernardo Reino via mailop wrote:
Yup. I have another server for which I have to request whitelisting..
but it's a bit more difficult because the front page of the domain is
the webmail (roundcube), so I have to figure out
On 2022-10-20 08:48, Florian Effenberger via mailop wrote:
Hello,
I actually ran into a similar problem last year after a mail server
migration. Here's what I documented back then in my blog:
"Deutsche Telekom, respectively T-Online, by default blocks IP
addresses that haven’t been used for sen
Hello,
I actually ran into a similar problem last year after a mail server
migration. Here's what I documented back then in my blog:
"Deutsche Telekom, respectively T-Online, by default blocks IP addresses
that haven’t been used for sending e-mails to their servers for a
certain amount of ti
• Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop [2022-10-20 00:44]:
[...]
> > In the German Net Neutrality report 2020/2021, published by
> > Bundesnetzagentur, section 24, they say:
> >
> > In several cases end-users could not receive incoming emails. They
> > believed that internet access providers w
On 10/19/22 23:19, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Am 19.10.22 um 21:28 schrieb Bernardo Reino via mailop:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
If you try deleting the impressum, please share your experience on
what happens with t-online.
Yup. I have another server fo
Moin,
am 20.10.22 um 01:40 schrieb Ángel via mailop:
On 2022-10-19 at 11:37 -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
I am not going to go into whether operating a service on the internet
is a 'right' or a 'privelege', but coming into my home sure is..
Well, precisely. Providing an address should be no
Am 19.10.22 um 22:58 schrieb Martin Neitzel via mailop:
My private Mailserver never ran into problems delivering to
@t-online.de recipents. And there's no impressum for it -- not
even a matching web server.
Then I supppose you're using IP space tagged with your name, which
trumps the imprint r
On 2022-10-19 at 11:37 -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> > I hear your message, but I can't believe the only way out is to dox
> > myself.
>
> I don't think it is 'doxing' unless you are trying to hide ;)
>
> I am not going to go into whether operating a service on the internet
> is a 'right' or
On 2022-10-19 at 21:28 +0200, Bernardo Reino via mailop wrote:
> Yup. I have another server for which I have to request whitelisting..
> but it's a bit more difficult because the front page of the domain is
> the webmail (roundcube), so I have to figure out how to inject the
> Impressum there.
Ass
Moin,
am 19.10.22 um 22:42 schrieb Wolfgang Rosenauer via mailop:
A given mailhost (ran privately for smaller entities) can't send
messages to T-Online anymore.
554 IP=168.119.159.241 - A problem occurred. …
The sending IP belongs to a rented host (rented from a major German
hoster). The an
Am 20.10.22 um 00:04 schrieb Kirill Miazine via mailop:
In the German Net Neutrality report 2020/2021, published by
Bundesnetzagentur, section 24, they say:
In several cases end-users could not receive incoming emails. They
believed that internet access providers were blocking emails o
• Bernardo Reino via mailop [2022-10-19 20:24]:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Kirill Miazine via mailop wrote:
>
> > • Bernardo Reino via mailop [2022-10-19 14:51]:
> > > On 2022-10-19 14:25, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 13:32, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop
> > > > w
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Am 19.10.22 um 21:28 schrieb Bernardo Reino via mailop:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
If you try deleting the impressum, please share your experience on what
happens with t-online.
Yup. I have another serv
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
Which OTOH means that Deutsche Telekom is still whitelisting mailservers that
comply with their request to be able to identify the other side. And which
means that the subject is false, nothing has basically changed besides the
respons
Am 19.10.22 um 21:28 schrieb Bernardo Reino via mailop:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
If you try deleting the impressum, please share your experience on what happens
with t-online.
Yup. I have another server for which I have to request whitelisting.. but it's
a bit mo
Moin,
am 19.10.22 um 20:08 schrieb Bernardo Reino via mailop:
Well, now that it's public anyway 😄 -> www.bbmk.org
BTW they replied an hour ago with:
[…]
which means they'll whitelist the IP address (can take up to 24h).
Which OTOH means that Deutsche Telekom is still whitelisting mailserve
> They blocked at least my non commercial mail server until I added an
> impressum. So, I guess they now block everyone without an impressum.
My private Mailserver never ran into problems delivering to
@t-online.de recipents. And there's no impressum for it -- not
even a matching web server.
Sp
Am 19.10.22 um 18:25 schrieb Michael Peddemors via mailop:
On 2022-10-19 08:38, Carsten Schiefner via mailop wrote:
Grant & all -
if it‘s a .de domain name one does not need a privacy service any
longer since 2018(?) as the GDPR (or its interpretation) mandates that
holder data must not be av
Hi,
Am 19.10.22 um 14:42 schrieb Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop:
Moin,
on 19.10.22 13:33, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop wrote:
I'm not sure how to complain and where. But I hope that here we can
start a discussion again. I'm quite upset.
Personally I doubt any discussion on whatever mailing
Hi,
Am 19.10.22 um 14:28 schrieb Bernardo Reino via mailop:
On 2022-10-19 13:33, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop wrote:
Hello,
I'm not sure how to complain and where. But I hope that here we can
start a discussion again. I'm quite upset.
Is this the new world?
A given mailhost (ran privately
> Am 19.10.2022 um 19:09 schrieb Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop
> :
>
> On 19.10.22 18:21, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
>> It looks more like t-online.de blocks incoming connections from the whole
>> world, except from a list of IP addresses they maintain internally. To get
>> added to th
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
On 10/19/22 20:08, Bernardo Reino via mailop wrote:
I wonder what happens if I delete the "Impressum" in a few days, but who
knows, maybe they do add some monitoring for *that* ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you try deleting the impressum, please share y
On 2022/10/19 20:37, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
...snip...
If you want to be accepted as a 'good netizen', then show you are responsible for what goes out onto the internet from
your networks and servers. You roll the dice otherwise.
Thank you for taking the time to type out a detail
On 10/19/22 20:08, Bernardo Reino via mailop wrote:
I wonder what happens if I delete the "Impressum" in a few days, but who
knows, maybe they do add some monitoring for *that* ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you try deleting the impressum, please share your experience on what
happens with t-online.
smim
On 2022-10-19 10:30, Johann Haarhoff via mailop wrote:
On 2022/10/19 18:05, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
On 2022-10-19 07:52, Slavko via mailop wrote:
For the record, while they might be going about it the wrong way,
transparency is key to reputation.
If you obfuscate, or don't have
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Kirill Miazine via mailop wrote:
• Bernardo Reino via mailop [2022-10-19 14:51]:
On 2022-10-19 14:25, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 13:32, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop
wrote:
A given mailhost (ran privately for smaller entities) can't send
me
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Dnia 19.10.2022 o godz. 18:56:17 Bernardo Reino via mailop pisze:
After I contacted them they told me that they only accept e-mail from
commercial servers, so in my case (private/family server) I would have to
add an "Impressum" (to the asso
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 05:49:40PM +0200, Carsten Schiefner via mailop wrote:
> Having read up the entire thread now, I wonder if this issue might be worth
> raising with Germany‘s federal regulator for (inter alia) postal and telco
> services, BNetzA.
Maybe better trying to get one of the bigge
• Bernardo Reino via mailop [2022-10-19 14:51]:
> On 2022-10-19 14:25, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 13:32, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop
> > wrote:
> > > A given mailhost (ran privately for smaller entities) can't send
> > > messages to T-Online anymore.
> > >
> >
On 2022/10/19 18:05, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
On 2022-10-19 07:52, Slavko via mailop wrote:
For the record, while they might be going about it the wrong way, transparency
is key to reputation.
If you obfuscate, or don't have an associated URL with the domain in the PTR records, it
On 2022/10/19 17:12, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
..snip..
Do you use privacy options in WhoIs for your domain name? Since you (understandably) obfuscated your domain name I
can't check.
I wonder if having real, non-privacy options, in a domain name helps with this.
I didn't explicitly cho
Dnia 19.10.2022 o godz. 18:56:17 Bernardo Reino via mailop pisze:
>
> After I contacted them they told me that they only accept e-mail from
> commercial servers, so in my case (private/family server) I would have to
> add an "Impressum" (to the associated www site) in order to make it
> "commercia
Dnia 19.10.2022 o godz. 18:55:29 Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop pisze:
>
> It would be less of an issue if t-online.de would take care _not_ to send
> to domains they don't take the replies from; but they happily sent emails
> to any MX in the world (anything else would upset _their_ users), but t
On 19.10.22 18:43, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
Do you get this error at the connection or after you transmitted the message?
$ telnet mx00.t-online.de 25
Trying 194.25.134.8...
Connected to mx00.t-online.de.
Escape character is '^]'.
554 IP=378.294.445.288 - A problem occurred. (Ask you
Dňa 19. októbra 2022 16:07:36 UTC používateľ "Adam Gołębiowski via mailop"
napísal:
>How should BNetZa evaluate who is good and who is bad here?
Of course, someone must. As in current state his server's IP is
"bad", only because is not "comercional or similar" (BTW my too,
but i can ignore it).
On 19.10.22 18:25, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
On 2022-10-19 08:38, Carsten Schiefner via mailop wrote:
Grant & all -
if it‘s a .de domain name one does not need a privacy service any longer since
2018(?) as the GDPR (or its interpretation) mandates that holder data must not
be availa
On 19/10/2022 17:16, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
On 10/19/22 16:10, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
On 19.10.22 15:55, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
They blocked at least my non commercial mail server until I added an
impressum. So, I guess they now block everyone without an impres
On 19.10.22 17:49, Carsten Schiefner via mailop wrote:
Having read up the entire thread now, I wonder if this issue might be worth
raising with Germany‘s federal regulator for (inter alia) postal and telco
services, BNetzA.
I wonder what would happen if the owner of a 20-storey apartment build
On 19.10.22 18:21, Gellner, Oliver via mailop wrote:
It looks more like t-online.de blocks incoming connections from the whole
world, except from a list of IP addresses they maintain internally. To get
added to this list you have to a) contact them manually and b) fulfill
arbitrary rules that
On Wed 19/Oct/2022 14:46:39 +0200 Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
On 19.10.22 14:25, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 13:32, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop
wrote:
A given mailhost (ran privately for smaller entities) can't send
messages to T-Online anymore.
55
Us as well.
We are in the US. That is OUR IP space announced by our ASN.
So I assume we would qualify as a commercial ISP.
That IP (and for the most part our IP space) is clean. That IP has been
active for years.
I doubt they have seen our IPs before as our customers here in Southern
Califo
On 2022-10-19 08:38, Carsten Schiefner via mailop wrote:
Grant & all -
if it‘s a .de domain name one does not need a privacy service any longer since
2018(?) as the GDPR (or its interpretation) mandates that holder data must not
be available via WHOIS to the general public.
Please provide re
But that's what is actually happening worldwide, except that these rules
that apatment building are enforcing are spam filtering and dnsbl.
Not that I like DT's approach, but using BNetzA seems wrong here - once
we open this path, what should they do when some well-known spammer who
is in ever
On 10/19/22 17:16, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
> Actually, I had to contact them and show them the impressum page to be
> whitelisted, so this seems at least partially manual. So, you might need to
> contact them for any new IP. But I hope they are smart enough to store the
> domain names in
Grant & all -
if it‘s a .de domain name one does not need a privacy service any longer since
2018(?) as the GDPR (or its interpretation) mandates that holder data must not
be available via WHOIS to the general public.
I would not be surprised if that‘d hold true for all ccTLDs where the GDPR is
On 2022-10-19 07:52, Slavko via mailop wrote:
For the record, while they might be going about it the wrong way,
transparency is key to reputation.
If you obfuscate, or don't have an associated URL with the domain in the
PTR records, it makes it hard for someone to contact the operator of the
Having read up the entire thread now, I wonder if this issue might be worth
raising with Germany‘s federal regulator for (inter alia) postal and telco
services, BNetzA.
I wonder what would happen if the owner of a 20-storey apartment building would
only allow properly accredited - according to
On 10/19/22 16:10, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
On 19.10.22 15:55, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
They blocked at least my non commercial mail server until I added an
impressum. So, I guess they now block everyone without an impressum.
But that's the status quo for several years.
On 10/19/22 7:25 AM, Johann Haarhoff via mailop wrote:
T-Online:
the IP address is delegated to your provider and there
is no owner data in the public whois record for your domain.
Thus, the person or company who is responsible for this host is
essentially anonymous to third parties.
Theref
Dňa 19. októbra 2022 13:49:08 UTC používateľ Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop
napísal:
>It's not the first time this has been discussed, and I doubt that any amount
>of complaints from 3-mails-a-month-to-t-online operators would change their
>mind. Unfortunately, they are quite big in terms of m
On 19.10.22 15:55, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote:
They blocked at least my non commercial mail server until I added an impressum. So, I guess they now block everyone without an impressum.
But that's the status quo for several years. Question is: do they still adhere
to that, or would they rej
On 10/19/22 15:49, Kai 'wusel' Siering via mailop wrote:
But see my initial reply: it's unclear as of now if section 4.1 of their
postmaster site still applies, or if they now reject any application
from "non-commercial" mailservers (as their current statement implies).
They blocked at l
On 19.10.22 14:28, Bernardo Reino via mailop wrote:
The 554 occurs while connecting, so they really reject only based on the
IP/range, which is indeed quite brutal.
Hopefully this is just a misconfiguration (or a badly interpreted/implemented policy).
No, it isn't. It's the way Deutsche Tele
Hi
> Is this the new world?
>
> A given mailhost (ran privately for smaller entities) can't send
> messages to T-Online anymore.
I had a similar problem earlier this year which I couldn't resolve, so I've ended up just accepting I cannot deliver to
t-online.de
After some back and forth with (
I have my doubts about t-online.de caring about SPF+DKIM+DMARC, not
having deployed it themselves. It has been quite tedious to filter spam
abusing that domain.
On 19/10/2022 15:25, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 13:32, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop
wrote:
A given
On 10/19/22 13:33, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop wrote:
Hello,
I'm not sure how to complain and where. But I hope that here we can
start a discussion again. I'm quite upset.
Is this the new world?
A given mailhost (ran privately for smaller entities) can't send
messages to T-Online anymore.
On 2022-10-19 14:25, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 13:32, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop
wrote:
A given mailhost (ran privately for smaller entities) can't send
messages to T-Online anymore.
554 IP=168.119.159.241 - A problem occurred. …
Do you get this error at
Moin,
on 19.10.22 13:33, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop wrote:
I'm not sure how to complain and where. But I hope that here we can
start a discussion again. I'm quite upset.
Personally I doubt any discussion on whatever mailing list would make Deutsche
Telekom change their mind about this. Th
On 19.10.22 14:25, Stefano Bagnara via mailop wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 13:32, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop
wrote:
A given mailhost (ran privately for smaller entities) can't send
messages to T-Online anymore.
554 IP=168.119.159.241 - A problem occurred. …
Do you get this error at th
Dňa 19. októbra 2022 12:00:55 UTC používateľ Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop
napísal:
>But there's another side to the story:
>
>That hoster is Hetzner. With their equally unacceptable policies regarding
>abuse reports, they are at least partially creating this problem for their
>customers thems
On 2022-10-19 13:33, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop wrote:
Hello,
I'm not sure how to complain and where. But I hope that here we can
start a discussion again. I'm quite upset.
Is this the new world?
A given mailhost (ran privately for smaller entities) can't send
messages to T-Online anymore.
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 13:32, Heiko Schlittermann via mailop
wrote:
> A given mailhost (ran privately for smaller entities) can't send
> messages to T-Online anymore.
>
> 554 IP=168.119.159.241 - A problem occurred. …
Do you get this error at the connection or after you transmitted the message?
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
