On 05/04/18 19:20, Ryan Harris via mailop wrote:
> If we advertised (announced) IP space with a /20 CIDR via BGP for
> months, then stopped that advertisement for 7 days and re-advertised
> but with 2 different /21 CIDR ranges, would this produce a negative
> effect to our IPs reputation?
>
> I
Thanks Ken and David. It's helpful to get your insight.
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:47 AM, David Hofstee
wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> If spamfilters use machine learning, like the ones at Google, Microsoft,
> Yahoo, Proofpoint (and Cloudmark) then they tend to have a lot of inputs.
> Including "reputation
Hi Ryan,
If spamfilters use machine learning, like the ones at Google, Microsoft,
Yahoo, Proofpoint (and Cloudmark) then they tend to have a lot of inputs.
Including "reputation" on AS and IP which may be dependent on changes in
routing. Because that is one of the tricks that spammers use. This ca
On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 12:21 -0600, Ryan Harris via mailop wrote:
> Could this cause other issues I'm not thinking of?
I think you just need to make sure that whatever you're doing wouldn't look
like hijacking to a (moderately intelligent) machine learning algorithm.
And if you're keeping it all un
Hi Mailop,
If we advertised (announced) IP space with a /20 CIDR via BGP for months,
then stopped that advertisement for 7 days and re-advertised but with 2
different /21 CIDR ranges, would this produce a negative effect to our IPs
reputation?
I would think that due to the previous /20 range bein
Forgot a key factor, after the 7 day blackout period we would re-advertise
for less than a month before using IPs; hence concern over CIDR change or
the lack of 90 days advertising (announcing) the /21s via BGP.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Ryan Harris wrote:
> Hi Mailop,
>
> If we advertise
