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

Ned Freed <> Mon, 12 October 2020 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C153A1491 for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 05:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Yxq6EIHji2I for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 05:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1BD33A1464 for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 05:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> for; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 05:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=201712; t=1602506842; bh=fyugVwltx6y3NKDFEaxKjZKeXziEAHcrzfbLtYRp9M8=; h=Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=PstE+Z6A9yL7dOJmNRdj4+TBVF7SxmRERJ78cZy7d2aR+6kPHdIHGk0jZ+KCjz/k2 sjsPDT2zYBArMgxmEnesFbUIGU68O0qvlvpMtD0JJRK8bttF5ew41D4xNCcW3fvaK2 NJnvcYXQuvCiPaoJi7K/dnIWyOIfXik/OuL9SZYw=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> for; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 05:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 05:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ned Freed <>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:34:45 +0200" <>
References: <> <20201009204511.42EE023305C4@ary.qy> <>
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 12:52:28 -0000

> [please use only the list for replies, thanks.]

> John R Levine wrote:
> > The place I use is called Tektonic,

> Thanks, unfortunately they don't support the OS I'm using.
> But now that you wrote about "VPS" I know what to look for
> (not simply "hosting" - that showed mostly "web hosting")

> > (mostly) transparent outbound mail filtering so their reputation seems

> If STARTTLS is used, they shouldn't be able to do it, unless they
> mess with SMTP (or much worse: with TLS), right?

Add to that the reality that VPS solutions are far from immune to the
same sort of blocking issues you get from a cloud provider.

Several of the people I know using VPS solutions to send small amounts of
legitimate commercial email have been hit by IP reputation blocks recently. In
at least two cases all it took was a single noisy neighbor sending a bit too
much mail without jumping through the necessary hoops. AFAICT no spam,
phishing, etc. was involved.

Keith may have expressed himself badly, but like it or not, he has a point.
Operating a mail system is increasingly difficult, and a lot of that difficulty
is associated with limits and restrictions imposed by large providers in a
fairly arbitrary way.

And no, I don't have a solution to this problem. But claiming the problem
doesn't exist, or that VPS solutions or whatever are the necessary magic, isn't

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to figuring how the limit changes
one of the MSPs has just implemented so the small amount of opt-in mailing list
mail I send to them isn't unnecessarily delayed.