Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Yahoo & AOL E-Mail installed new filters - Yamaha Forum : Your Yamaha Motor Products Community & Resource
For anyone using yahoo or AOL e-mail accounts, they have started using new filters as of a couple months ago, they are very strict on what they let through now.
I have sorted out the issues with the forum servers so most of the e-mail is going though now, although there are still a couple that get rejected for whatever reasons.
I mainly wanted to post up as everyone I know with AOL or Yahoo is having some sort of trouble weather they know it or not receiving e-mail.
The users will never know there is an issue as these new filters are not user adjustable.
Anyway, if you use yahoo or AOL, and you are not getting e-mail when you think you should be, you may want to look into this.
There are a bunch of people complaining about it all over the net..
You can read one site here.
http://www.ahfx.net/weblog.php?article=107
My suggestion is to get a real e-mail account and not a FREE one.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Yeah nice thread!
Could of helped about a Week ago!
LOL...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People just need to have the habit to look into the " Bulk " folder when they sign up for something and expect a confirmation email to come in.
By default, Yahoo!
Doesn't delete the spam emails, the default setting is the spam emails are moved to the Bulk folder for 30 days.
And once you marked an email as not spam by clicking the "Not Spam" button, that sender should be cleared from the filter in future emails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : People just need to have the habit to look into the " Bulk " folder when they sign up for something and expect a confirmation email to come in.
By default, Yahoo!
Doesn't delete the spam emails, the default setting is the spam emails are moved to the Bulk folder for 30 days.
And once you marked an email as not spam by clicking the "Not Spam" button, that sender should be cleared from the filter in future emails.
With the new filters they are using the mail never even gets to the user, it's being rejected by the server completely.
This is the big issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : With the new filters they are using the mail never even gets to the user, it's being rejected by the server completely.
This is the big issue.
This is true, but its nothing new.
All ISP's do it. Most just go off the blacklists by IP address.
However , it sounds like aol & yahoo are now rejecting everything whether the ip is blacklisted or not.
Pretty lame IMO.
Why should I have to send someone an email twice just to make sure it gets thru.
And who says spammers havent already started doing that.
Who ever thought this idea up was a complete retard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a sysadmin at an ISP, I'll say this...
It's really not a big deal for servers/ISPs sending to most of these places as long as you don't do anything blatantly stupid.
Follow RFC's, make sure you properly configure/secure your outbound mailservers, make sure DNS is pointing in the right spots (not a bad idea to throw up an SPF record either nowadays), and you will have minimal, if any, problems sending to these recipients.
We really don't have any problems with our users sending to those destinations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : As a sysadmin at an ISP, I'll say this...
It's really not a big deal for servers/ISPs sending to most of these places as long as you don't do anything blatantly stupid.
Follow RFC's, make sure you properly configure/secure your outbound mailservers, make sure DNS is pointing in the right spots (not a bad idea to throw up an SPF record either nowadays), and you will have minimal, if any, problems sending to these recipients.
We really don't have any problems with our users sending to those destinations.
SPF is a good idea, but a lot of registrars don't support them yet...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : SPF is a good idea, but a lot of registrars don't support them yet...
Registrars don't have anything to do with DNS record types -- it's the actual DNS provider.
And *every* modern nameserver software I've seen supports the TXT record type (what SPF records are, in reality), because it's in the RFC.
If your DNS provider doesn't allow you to set TXT records, it's time to find someone else who is willing to cooperate with accepted standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Registrars don't have anything to do with DNS record types -- it's the actual DNS provider.
And *every* modern nameserver software I've seen supports the TXT record type (what SPF records are, in reality), because it's in the RFC.
If your DNS provider doesn't allow you to set TXT records, it's time to find someone else who is willing to cooperate with accepted standards.
But isn't the registrar is where you setup your DNS settings?
At least for my domains, I setup my DNS settings with the registrar...
:confused
Unless you setup your own DNS servers, I think most people don't have direct access to the DNS servers, they go through the registrar or host company...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : But isn't the registrar is where you setup your DNS settings?
At least for my domains, I setup my DNS settings with the registrar...
:confused The registrar's role is solely to handle the whois data to tell the world who hosts your DNS.
Sometimes it's the same company, sometimes it's not.
They *are* two distinctly different roles/entities, however.
Quote: : Unless you setup your own DNS servers, I think most people don't have direct access to the DNS servers, they go through the registrar or host company...
Every DNS provider allows you to determine what records you want them to host for your domain, regardless of whether they do so through some type of interface they provide to you or you email your changes or you get some kind of direct access to the server whatever.
The level of access into the server doesn't matter one bit.
If they don't allow you to set a *standardized* record type, like a TXT record (which is what an SPF record really is), you're paying them to do a piss-poor job of hosting your DNS and should take your business elsewhere...because they're living in the dark ages.
Many providers will expect you to know what the hell you're doing, and as such will never have someplace for you to set an SPF record while specifically calling it "SPF"....because SPF records are *not* a type of record in DNS.
SPF records are created by data entered within a TXT record, so you actually add a TXT record in order to set up an SPF record for your domain.
Here's microsoft.com's SPF record, for an example:
Code: microsoft.com.
3600 IN TXT "v=spf1 mx include:_spf-a.microsoft.com include:_spf-b.microsoft.com include:_spf-c.microsoft.com include:_spf-ssg-a.microsoft.com ~all"
The record type is TXT, and the data within the record notes that this record determines the SPF for the domain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shagz, I understand what you're saying, I guess I will have to email them to add one...
For WL Domains, this is the TXT Record they "recommend" people to add:
Code: Host: yourdomain.com Value: v=spf1 include:hotmail.com ~all TTL: 3600 or 1 hour (if requested)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|