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

Ned Freed <> Mon, 12 October 2020 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7442F3A08BB for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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_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 zyDvF_T4dDpF for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:13:41 -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 21DA33A08AE for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> for; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=201712; t=1602533317; bh=HBxm017mQwdi4HNAU+uOit9LhWiFhfxt7msAHwa6QI4=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=ow3yFLsYREh9cDDeVDkEUtUhYK+IVpDFLyDEb3dtr9kk0it5Yf7ITaFSGzTW5PYTv 3jq2+EGCPCf27Z5Ob/M4xLoCo0Dh/gv0zQmPwJIvqGQm+T67P5pB440mhQ6mYbXVvb T2Pf1cy8egNEKUU05REoUShR6ss3ErxXKaYU/xmQ=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ned Freed <>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:43:03 -0400" <20201012184303.C3C2B234F9AF@ary.qy>
References: <> <20201012184303.C3C2B234F9AF@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <>
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 20:13:42 -0000

> In article <> you write:
> >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.

> It's not just large providers. Spam filtering is a statistical process
> and history tells us that if a network is leaking spam and doesn't
> have a history of sending legit mail, if you block the whole range you
> will likely block a lot of spam and not a lot of legit mail. It is
> possible that by exerting arbitrarily more effort recipient systems
> can make the filtering somewhat more accurate, but nowhere is it
> written that it is my job to spend my money because [generic] you
> picked an unfortuante mail setup.

Please reread my message, this time noting the examples I gave. This goes well
past happenstance spam sewer adjacency and into legit senders not following
rules somebody just made up or changed.

> I agree this makes it hard to set up a small mail server and I wish I
> had better options to suggest. Neither "Don't filter" or "Filter
> perfectly" are on the table.

Is "filter responsibly" also off the table?