On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:47 AM, John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
This is more of a mailop question than an ietf-smtp question.
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Agreed, see reply to.
Read this: https://support.google.com/a/answer/175365?hl=en
And weep, because it contradicts itself and is woefully out of date.
The mark as spam in the subject and don't rewrite the message is a nice
touch.
They were supposed to change that to add a header on the message... but
they'll come back and say we were supposed to make a consumer level
"incoming relay" IP setting to match the one that GfW has.
I have a clever solution to this problem which is too long to fit in the
margin of this message, but I think there's room on mailop.
There was a long discussion about this on mailop not that long ago, you can
see it here when you join the list:
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/mailop/2014-June/005184.html
Right now, there is no great solution. One I recommended before was to
block relayed spam, and then have the user's set up pop fetching. So, the
cleanest mail should arrive quickly, and everything else will be fetched
more slowly.
Brandon
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp