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

Sam Varshavchik <> Mon, 12 October 2020 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D093A0C4F for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 15:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tyonmYONXSlP for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 15:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 400F73A0C46 for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 15:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p15so18779717wmi.4 for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 15:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ticvj/mG0N1WpwwouFrS8Srp18EP+4Tb41RZw0PzPRM=; b=qsTQuDlvyIC2jqGdb/TmMnyA7rO688kMqbV6yNf45Bgl+b6REoiz7NByUiAtU18Pr3 yxOUHysXJS8CzIT7kRyFggQCQAFftR2p3+p2Wzi88JZ7t3+1wrnau+ExZFeOjvkMxXdF Icrtifoqm9cXdIYVwpEMqHmWLCvTGtNNQwY5zIPMdrWnXfsFkbwcMHL5xyNg7sKz0y3p H4rNDRVcA5lfIU5IU4XETQqTudp97ZQKinkDgpuHGrjXm23aR5ea9buvw8Nl2rPc1Swp hCIvaLXToEfmTzoZMi/Uyx5sIgvstWJ3795z4pkodQiwCgxFfCZDKzZAUvZriBX6CIk5 BajQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=ticvj/mG0N1WpwwouFrS8Srp18EP+4Tb41RZw0PzPRM=; b=OGwLBsF2afveSk5tETMEQDSaI2JMhVYZWs9nuJmYKovyV71KoNSxd03Nq2gJVeE05p zd6/rdnH/vNpwBKqiwxrSoTTdX/v+kPjUvXZKVwVOiWOJ+2B0X64zu2PM/yUismdg72B qO86MA1EP2lTJgh2kx7zx6gm9chE36Q/bOK+laTQX/MLovpnLivbjnhT/T0ECWDR0rJb HHXQWGsb2yFoDxUfjw5wTtnrZ68Mmdq1AcR/e1JxPqcizoc9HTeweESr9ExxJbTM1OB/ uqyrYi3j4nYOelsO7IYoFk9vTfTP1DNgJ5UrFoqgzREqAmHCaSNcy0S+KlAcRKrrgbHD z8jw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531SVGcb1OIRyE/8PP5babOM0IvRBRCHBFZP4jMCBFV+Ll9I2W9J iafv9xVnKsBVB2ebRRdaISmRz2XpSoBVskadfaDBNFNA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzRhqxPEgBF+EH8siE5V4/bUsnnUU3LAcvsNRmLddnYRf21SsoY2bc7Rd9WpYsy6/xr4cNQ8sW9sBiVwq+cDLc=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6355:: with SMTP id x82mr13363153wmb.177.1602541903244; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 15:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20201012184303.C3C2B234F9AF@ary.qy> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Sam Varshavchik <>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 18:31:31 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] own mail server: DNS / static IP / no bad reputation?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:31:47 -0000

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 5:33 PM Ned Freed <> wrote:
> > Depends how much you want to pay people to accept your mail.  I don't
> > think we want to go there.
> My problem here is that that you seem content with coming up with an excuse
> for any blocking people do, no matter how capricious, no matter how arbitrary.

I don't believe I ever offered a single excuse on anyone else's
behalf. Stating that anyone is free to run their mail server in
whichever way they see fit, and employ whichever filtering approach
works for them -- that is not an excuse of any kind. I'm not passing
judgement on, or asserting as to the merits of, their mail filtering
strategies, and I don't feel any obligation to defend their specific
decisions, or their merits.

To me, it boils down to a very simple concept. It's someone else's
mail server. It's not my mail server. 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 don't see that as
excusing anything, only stating a fairly basic principle. I have no
business telling anyone how to configure their mail server, but I
would appreciate the same courtesy extended to me, which is that
nobody has any business telling me how I must configure mine's.

I understand that some may feel that someone else is being arbitrary
and capricious in their E-mail receiving policies. Well, perhaps they
are. Perhaps I am arbitrary and capricious, but it's my business, too.
It's still their mail server, or my mail server; and they can be as
arbitrary and capricious with their mail server, or I can be arbitrary
and capricious with mine's, as they or me wish.

At this point, this argument always sidetracks to discussions of
interoperability, various user and customer service issues, and other
similar worthy goals; or once in a blue moon I get accused of somehow
working to undermine E-mail interoperability, in some unclear way,
assigning to me some Dr. Evil-like powers to do so. I haven't heard
anything new, to those points, in many years, though. So let's just
consider all those arguments as simply repeated, once more.