On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:10:05 -0400
Celejar <cele...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 20:36:39 +0100
> Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:49:15 -0400
> > Celejar <cele...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, but why isn't trying to limit spammers getting hold of an
> > > address a logical part of a defense in depth strategy?
> >
> > It is, but if you are reachable then a human can enter your address
> > on
>
> Yes, but humans don't scale the way bots do ;)
No, but you don't care about how many other addresses are harvested,
just about yours.
> > >
> > Unfortunately, there's nothing to beat running your own mail server,
> > which is not particularly high-maintenance after setup. The address
> > at the top of this email was created nearly 23 years ago, and has
> > been used widely around the Net, including several Usenet groups. I
> > get between one and four spams a day in my inbox. As it happens, I
> > put a new CIDR group on my blacklist today, for the first time in
> > perhaps a year.
>
> I've certainly been tempted for a while. And I suppose that receiving
> is less problematic then sending, where one apparently has to manage
> reputation, worry about past users of an IP address, monitor
> blacklists, etc.
>
Yes, sadly that boils down to having a competent ISP, and I know that
in some parts of the world there's not much choice. In the UK, we have
three good ISPs, one of which is amazing but expensive. In general, if
you can find an ISP who will provide a fixed IPv4 address at little or
no extra cost, they probably know what they're doing.
It is possible to send through a smarthost, which an ISP may provide,
without worrying about your own address, but you lose one of the
advantages of your own server, of having troubleshooting information
about outgoing emails. ('My message, ID xxxxxxxx, was accepted by your
server at xx:yy:zz two days ago... what did you do with it?')
--
Joe
