On 17/02/2025 03:23, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2025-02-16 at 04:41:25 UTC-0500 (Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:41:25 +1000)
Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net>
is rumored to have said:
On 16/02/2025 01:07, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2025-02-15 at 07:42:44 UTC-0500 (Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:42:44 +0100)
wissen.online | Stefan Mehlhorn <mehlhorn@wissen.online>
is rumored to have said:
Hi Bill,
so do you have another idea?
Hi Stefan,
No, I do not, aside from the implicit starting point: do not send spam.
Make sure every recipient is an individual who has asked for your email
and wants it, to the greatest degree possible. If you cannot do that,
nothing anyone can tell you will fix your deliverability. SpamAssassin
is not designed to allow "legitimate" bulk unsolicited email. Users who
want that should whitelist the spammers of whom they approve and avoid
showing it to SA.
Relevant to avoiding having your email seen as spam by SpamAssassin,
sending less spam-like email and finding a new and better domain name
are the full extent of my deliverability advice. I understand that
these recommendations are not easily implemented for an established
organization.
errrr. the problem is the dynamic style address block, not spam. PBL is
a list that is essentially a DUL.
Yes, and it must never be applied to the initial submission of email. SA
works pretty hard to figure out which hand-offs to check against DNSBLs,
and to NOT check initial submission against the PBL and similar lists of
end-user addresses.
BUT THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM HERE AT ALL.
Benny (for once) gave the *only* sensible answer, get an IP that is
static and not in a PBL (DUL/Dynamic style) address pool and get proper
A/AAAA and matching PTR records.
No, Benny, as usual, added nothing but noise to the discussion by
looking past the submission point to find a PBL-listed address.
Ohhh thats right, because in
<5c3ceee5-3d37-4eb5-b130-faf335471...@apache.org> you pretty much
implied Stefan was a spammer, without providing evidence I might add, so
cough up, let the rest of us know what you do and we don't, and just
because they use a certain TLD, doesnt wash as proof, despite the fact I
know what you're getting at given some early adopters of that TLD, as in
thgis part of the world I see a fair bit of legitimate stuff from it
these days and very little from the miscreants.
--
Regards,
Noel Butler
