[conspire] (forw) IP reputation of 96.95.217.99, pacbell.net's NDR

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Don Marti (dmarti at zgp.org):

> I have had similar problems with deliverability to Hotmail, Yahoo, and
> Gmail, even though my server IP address has not been a spam source. If
> too much spam comes from nearby addresses sometimes a range of
> addresses gets blacklisted or just "bad reputation".

Sure, but mine isn't on any industry DNSBL.

> Latest stuff I had to do was reading these two articles and messing
> with DKIM.
> 
> https://bridge.grumpy-troll.org/2020/07/small-mailserver-bcp/
> 
> https://www.linode.com/docs/guides/configure-spf-and-dkim-in-postfix-on-debian-8/

I've so far eschewed all involvement in DKIM/DMARC, on grounds that those
technologies were IMO badly muffed by the Company Then Known as Yahoo.
(I refer, in particular, to the way DKIM is needlessly hostile to
standard mailing lists.)

My recollection is that any SMTP-sending domain with a declared SPF
policy (as mine do) is deemed DMARC-compliant.  And FWIW, I've 
not yet seen any RBL sanctioning a domain for mere lack of DKIM.

Just to make the point (not news to you, but for others' benefit),
the fact that my IP is on _none_ of the hundreds of DNS blocklists
queried on any of the four multi-RBL sites I mentioned is confirmation
that I really _do_ run a clean SMTP operation, and that the antispam
community recognises that.

If DKIM implementation were now a de-facto requirement, my IP would 
surely be blacklisted in many such places, not in none of them.


BTW, in a _sense_, I do publish DMARC information.  ;->


:r! dig -t TXT _dmarc.linuxmafia.com +short
"DMARC: tragically misdesigned since 2012.  Check our SPF RR, instead."


(That is a DMARC RR that is deliberately non-compliant with DMARC.
Before you say "But that could get your IP blacklisted", remember
that I keep checking DNSBLs, and it doesn't.)