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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 12 October 2020 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 7442F3A08BB for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.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 zyDvF_T4dDpF for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [98.153.82.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21DA33A08AE for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RQQ0B6GK2800B6CC@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mrochek.com; 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
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RQN4TDY6V4005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org, ned.freed@mrochek.com
Message-id: <01RQQ0B48LT0005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:43:03 -0400" <20201012184303.C3C2B234F9AF@ary.qy>
References: <01RQPKW2Y2E8005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> <20201012184303.C3C2B234F9AF@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/p-jflVXh0p1zWkuX6c7el6RyWXo>
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: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 20:13:42 -0000

> In article <01RQPKW2Y2E8005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> 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?

				Ned