Because the internet is no longer fair :( Things are breaking, I cannot get a mail server set up to send mail to microsoft owned properties, no bounce message just a void, I'm 10/10 on mail-test .com, DMARC, SPF, PTR, no RBL, just m$ don't want me to send email to their users, a private RBL maybe, I cannot know because they don't reply to communications regarding it, nothing to do with this point, except it's asymptotic of a capitalist system with no custodians, nobody is being paid to keep it fair, so it won't stay fair, education of the public is a possible hope, but again, nobody pays for that so...

Could this be IPv6-related? I've run my own server for a long time, but when I spun up a new VPS and enabled IPv6, I suddenly couldn't send mail to Comcast customers. It seems that the single default IPv6 address fell into a privately-blacklisted /64. I was able to work around it by firewalling Comcast's IPv6 MX hosts, but getting my own /64 was the real fix.

On the other hand, I don't know anyone with an @some-microsoft-property email address, so I don't know whether I'll be having trouble sending things there. I can reach Gmail and Yahoo (and after getting my own /64, Comcast) without trouble, though.

EDIT: Hmmm, mail-test.com seems to be a parked domain.

A college of my has struggled days with this issue, gmail wouldn't accept any mail send from a IPv6, ended up disabling IPv6 at the end. It seems like google only uses IPv6 for internal mail's, sending a mail to another account sends them using IPv4. Even Facebook, Microsoft etc still use IPv4 for their email's.

Google do of course use IPv6 externally, but require rDNS for all inbound IPv6 SMTP sessions. Without that set for your MTA's host they'll reject immediately.

thanks for the thought, I'll check but pretty sure I', stil on IPv4, 6 not enabled, maybe I'll try enabling it, or burning some sort of effigy, http://www.mail-tester.com/ is the link I intended.

Okay, jumped some hoops for m$ to try and get my email working, but no joy, sender.office.com reports the IP is not blocked and suggests I refer to bounce error (there is no bounced message), I tried the Outlook mitigation route, and after 24 hours received a "Not qualified for mitigation ... Our investigation has determined that the above IP(s) do not qualify for mitigation." message (my stars). Today I've joined the Microsoft Smart Network Data service, and that reports the IP of the mailserver as having normal service, so where now ? PM Bill?

> I cannot get a mail server set up to send mail to microsoft owned properties

Apparently eShares is having the same problem. Shareholders with Microsoft-affiliated email addresses couldn't accept certificates.

They do maintain their own blacklist, which doesn't seem to be listed on any of the public monitors. When I had this issue it did give a helpful bounce message:

Client host blocked using FBLW15; To request removal from this list please forward this message to [email protected] (in reply to RCPT TO command)

I did as it said and forwarded the message to that address, and got an automated reply and my IP removed a few days later.

Maybe your situation is different since you're not getting a bounce message, but try emailing that address if you haven't already.

thanks, will do

see notes above, no joy :(

Nothing Google does can surprise me while I can still say 'OK Google' to 'OK Google' and it think I want to search for 'OK Google', who ever searches for 'OK Google' ? Or maybe it's the Android N preview that bricked my phone that explains my mood.

According to Google themselves, to avoid "over-prompting" users.

If the most popular sites bring up the click-to-play prompt, users will get frustrated quickly or habitually click.

Because Google of 2010s is the same as Microsoft of the 1990s. The only difference being most of the tech world in the 90s realized how badly Microsoft was abusing their position and almost nobody complains about Google.

Just to be clear; I'm in favor of ditching the include Flash by default in Chrome, but I'm not in favor of them making exceptions for certain sites. That's just horse shit.

> almost nobody complains about Google

That's because most of the tech world in the 2010s understands the difference.

Because Google doesn't want to dog-food their own policy because it may impact their business. If it impacts others, who cares.

It does seem like a rather arbitrary decision, but they only get 1 year extension (hopefully there won't be some "last-minute compromises", to allow say the top 3 sites use flash for yet another year).

If non of those top ten sites are porn site I'll be disappointed.

Haven't looked on the top ten sites list yet, but xvideos uses HTML5 on desktop and mobile now.

Because something something, DO NO EVIL, something something.

Seriously, Google is as bad as every other tech company, but for some reason, when they do shit like this, people tend to over look it (not sure if because a lot of folks directly or indirectly have their livelihoods connected to Google properties or what not)

I'm rather baffled as to the sinister narrative you're attempting to construct here.

(I sometimes worry I come across as a Google apologist. I suppose I am in a devil's advocate sense. It's not that I think Google is a shining beacon of decency. It's just that the quality of anti-Google thinking on HN is so low I find it difficult to let it pass. If you could all step up your game somewhat then I can stop chiming in).

I notice the same thing. As far as the Flash thing, I'd imagine it's a matter of trying to balance the desire to wean people off of using insecure plugins while minimizing complaints. Certainly not "fair" to give some a pass and not others but at the same time, if (made up number) 95% of non-sketchy Flash usage takes place on ten sites, you can weed out a huge swath of exploit problems while minimizing hassle as you wait for the top 10 to move away from Flash as well.

It's an imperfect solution to be sure. But in these situations (officially ending support for WinXP/IE6, ending support for some plugin, etc) there is no perfect one. There needs to be some motivation to get users and websites to move on from Flash but there's also consideration for breaking commonly used services.

Because conveniently several of them are Google properties. If their sites weren't top 10, but top 20, then we would see the top 20 sites exempt.

"several"

Aside from YouTube, I don't see any other Google properties in the list.

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-dev/...

YouTube is the only Google property on the list. In fact, there are more Amazon properties than Google. So the "point" you were trying to make didn't work out.

Why would they build html5 versions of their properties and then serve flash versions to their html5 browser?

I believe this has more to do with supporting old browsers that don't have support for HTML5 video.

Because they don’t have html5 versions of all of their properties? several of them are still flash-only, for example, Google Finance.

That's not a response to anything I said.

My point is that they are building html5 versions of many of their sites (like Youtube, probably the biggest site supporting html5). Why would they care about serving the old flash versions of those sites to their html5 browser?

I agree that they have not moved all of their properties in lockstep over to html5. But I think Youtube supporting html5 provides more information about their motivations than the number of domains they are putting on the default whitelist.

"Several" means one now?

Because they're the ones most likely to get Google into legal and regulatory trouble if they don't work.