> On Jan 8, 2018, at 2:22 AM, Yuval Levy wrote:
>
>> Complete absence of Received: headers is likely to increase your
>> spam score.
>
> What would you suggest instead?
You can mask the address with 127.0.0.1, and otherwise keep the header
as-is. Mind you, I would not expect Microsoft to pay
On 2018-01-08 02:20 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Complete absence of Received: headers is likely to increase your
> spam score.
What would you suggest instead?
> On Jan 8, 2018, at 1:56 AM, Yuval Levy wrote:
>
> /etc/postfix/headers_checks
>
> /^Received:/ IGNORE
Complete absence of Received: headers is likely to increase your
spam score.
--
Viktor.
On 2018-01-07 09:32 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> After reading all the responses, and reading the reference links about
> Microsoft Smartscreen, I have a really stupid question:
Not stupid at all. I'll limit my answer because of the off-topic nature
of the question. Let me know if you are inter
On 2018-01-08 12:48 AM, soumi...@iitk.ac.in wrote:
> It seems my issue is solved for now. OK MS support.
Happy to read your issue is solved, and thank you for sharing the reply
from Microsoft.
> ---
> Our investigation has determined that there are no active blocks against
> thes
On 2018-01-07 04:32 AM, Peter wrote:
> So to put it simply, they're basically saying that their black box
> thinks that your IP(s) are sending SPAM.
That's not how I read my conversation with them. My understanding based
on their explanations and their advice on how to fix the problem is that
the
Thanks to this list and its good members, I got support contact easily,along
with lots of helpful information.
It seems my issue is solved for now. OK MS support.
I have few users, who are paid customers of MS. Possibly, they also lodged the
issue with MS.
But it is still bad for a reputed organ
> On 7 Jan 2018, at 19:15, Yuval Levy wrote:
> …
> My understanding of Microsoft's reply is that there is nothing wrong
> with the server / IP / reputation. Their reply point to a content
> filter at work.
Because they say it was determined by SmartScreen™?
Is the server's IP / reputation ass
On 1/7/18 6:30 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
On 01/07/2018 03:09 PM, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
On 01/07/2018 01:15 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
would detract from the main issue which is "silently discarded emails,"
I behavior that in my view is plain wrong and threatens the usefulness
of email more than a few
On 01/07/2018 03:09 PM, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
On 01/07/2018 01:15 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
would detract from the main issue which is "silently discarded emails,"
I behavior that in my view is plain wrong and threatens the usefulness
of email more than a few false positive spam messages.
Absolutely.
> On Jan 7, 2018, at 6:09 PM, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
>
> Absolutely. There are only two things that an MTA should do with email,
> deliver it or bounce it. Silently dropping is plain wrong.
There's a reasonable exception for malware. Detection of malware has
a much lower FP rate than detection
On 01/07/2018 01:15 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
> would detract from the main issue which is "silently discarded emails,"
> I behavior that in my view is plain wrong and threatens the usefulness
> of email more than a few false positive spam messages.
Absolutely. There are only two things that an MTA s
On 2018-01-07 04:08 AM, Peter wrote:
> simply meant that your complaint is not the first one I've seen.
OK ;-)
>> * Are you sending mail from a new IP? not applicable
>
> How is this not applicable?
I've operated that IP for the past four years, it is older than my legal
career. I realize th
Thank you for the useful and practical advice.
On 2018-01-07 03:57 AM, Dominic Raferd wrote:
> On 07/01/2018 06:29, Mike Guelfi wrote:
>> Our alternative was always to just set relays for "poorly behaved"
>> domains
>
> Example (using sendgrid for relaying):
>
> /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> ...
> tran
On 1/7/18 3:03 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Jan 7, 2018, at 2:15 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
My understanding of Microsoft's reply is that there is nothing wrong
with the server / IP / reputation. Their reply point to a content
filter at work.
There are multiple factors that go into black-box de
> On Jan 7, 2018, at 2:15 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
>
> My understanding of Microsoft's reply is that there is nothing wrong
> with the server / IP / reputation. Their reply point to a content
> filter at work.
There are multiple factors that go into black-box decisions by spam
detection engines.
On 2018-01-07 01:07 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Perhaps your IP address is part of a /20 or similar block in which
> your "network neighbours" send enough spam to tarnish its reputation.
I have just sent to the list the complete thread with Microsoft until
now, hopefully it properly replied to th
Below is the last email I received from Microsoft regarding the silently
discarded emails. It neatly summarizes the whole interaction, except
the first automated reply that I received on submitting their form. I
hope I managed to attach it to the appropriate discussion thread, if
not, please acce
On 01/06/2018 09:11 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
On 2018-01-06 05:42 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
I have contacted Outlook.com Deliverability Support and will report back
to the list if the results from the interaction are of public interest.
After reading all the responses, and reading the reference links
On 07/01/18 18:11, Yuval Levy wrote:
> I am still digesting the response received. In essence, they say that
> they "have reviewed [my] IP(s) (XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX) and determined that
> messages are being filtered based on the recommendations of the
> SmartScreen® Filter.
You might be interested in t
On 07/01/18 11:42, Yuval Levy wrote:
> On 2018-01-06 02:19 AM, Peter wrote:
>> It's not the first time I've seen MS accused of dropping mail.
>
> Mine (first post in thread) were not accusations. They were
> corroborated test results.
I understand that being a lawyer the word "accused" probably
On 07/01/2018 05:11, Yuval Levy wrote:
On 2018-01-06 05:42 PM, Yuval Levy wrote:
I am still digesting the response received. In essence, they say that
they "have reviewed [my] IP(s) (XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX) and determined that
messages are being filtered based on the recommendations of the
SmartScreen®
22 matches
Mail list logo
