Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP / no bad reputation?

Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com> Tue, 13 October 2020 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <laura@wordtothewise.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE223A0EC6 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=wordtothewise.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7S4dgIlpZrwY for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.wordtothewise.com (mail.wordtothewise.com [104.225.223.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A213A0EC0 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.227] (unknown [37.228.231.27]) by mail.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 437E29F1F7 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=aardvark; t=1602574155; bh=Nh79Xv6lkHkMVaCUq0KWJYNa3hw0f0Eh0H1O1VbMpjA=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=DZM7XWzZ+aJXg4du0UHnKa9v5cJUjkOGLUlX8yS+EQc5KN/63ZKtXqvJjr+/8GmXO hUu8ilWB2AkZQi7KYYNgk1bMe1ugbnz0K8mQuzVJe1350knQMq21Hnk0NOvlZ0kGOO lqLaFyuYhfhF7KRZOgPdfgP0eGTfIxGBUal2bXr0=
From: Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2F6C23BE-D19A-42BE-9611-A3AB6E920085"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:29:12 +0100
References: <01RQPKW2Y2E8005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> <20201012184303.C3C2B234F9AF@ary.qy> <01RQQ0B48LT0005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> <3d771644-efdf-7e69-9f1e-358196de08@taugh.com> <01RQQ33GYXOW005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAMO9ifsMK8yTjERU+v8ZjEAff9UQMBCyXkO0XzP8_6EvCCbYfw@mail.gmail.com> <20201013043715.GA45359@kiel.esmtp.org>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20201013043715.GA45359@kiel.esmtp.org>
Message-Id: <2291D068-62B1-4F5D-A020-B752E9B9BBF9@wordtothewise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/BWvtwN820dTtxafcg1pw_CL1-lQ>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP / no bad reputation?
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 07:29:18 -0000


> On 13 Oct 2020, at 05:37, Claus Assmann <ietf-smtp@esmtp.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> 
>> [[...]] They pay for its electricity,
>> bandwidth, and hosting fees, and it is no one's business to tell them
>> whose mail they must accept or reject, and why.
> 
> I am paying fees to my bank and they state they want to be contacted
> by e-mail. So I expect them to accept my e-mail (and answer if needed).

The choice to run your own server means you’re choosing to handle your own deliverability. In some cases, that means sending to specific places isn’t viable. We ran into a similar problem trying to send attachments (that were asked for and necessary) to a government department. Our tiny little mailserver couldn’t. We fell back to a gmail address and got the process handled. Was it frustrating? Eh. It was kinda annoying. But it wasn’t a huge barrier. 

In another recent case one of the major filtering provider started bouncing mail from us. Not because our MTA IP was blocked, but because they were doing some 2nd received line filtering and the IPv4 NAT our cable modem goes out was blocked. We followed the instructions in the bounce message and it was resolved in < 24 hours. Now, was it a mistake or was one of our neighbors spewing a bunch of spam / virus out through the NAT? I don’t know. In any case, it was resolved. 

I’ve actually found that filters are getting more friendly to small servers. 

The reality right now is: if you make the choice to run a mail server of any size you’re going to have to deal with deliverability issues. That’s part of what you’re opting into when you decide to run your own server. There are people out there who have spend over a decade providing deliverability advice, tools, and resources all for free. 

Filtering isn’t going away. If spam went away tomorrow, filters would still exist. This is just the reality any mail server operator needs to deal with. Don’t like it? You can outsource it to a 3rd party who will handle that for you. 

laura 

-- 
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
laura@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741		

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog