On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Simon Forster <simon-li...@ldml.com> wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2017, at 16:59, Stefano Bagnara <mai...@bago.org> wrote: > > On 17 July 2017 at 16:57, Simon Forster <simon-li...@ldml.com> wrote: > > > On 17 Jul 2017, at 13:28, Stefano Bagnara <mai...@bago.org> wrote: > > Senderscore, > senderbase, uce-protect, spamhaus, spamcop and other sources are not > publishing informations that declare OVH worse than others direct > competitor in EU. > > > <https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/networks/> > > ovh.net at #9. Some of their listings are fairly obnoxious stuff which > should be dealt with quickly. > > Summary: Spamhaus seems to be saying they’re quite bad. > > > That page is a moving target and I rarely see OVH there, BTW, now that > I look it I see > #1 Microsoft > #4 Amazon > #9 Google > #10 OVH > > So, it is clear to me that this is also about volume, so big > legitimate senders ARE ALSO on the big spam sender list, or Google is > a worse option than OVH. Is there anyone blocking Google or Microsoft > network at all? ;-) > Remeber that OVH is one of the largest sender around, so it is > expected to be there: that report is just "largest" not "worst". OVH > is big, like Google and Microsoft and Amazon are big senders... If you > see "non-big senders" in that list, then THEY are worst spammers, IMO. > > So, IMHO that report is not a report that let us say OVH is worst than > "Put your other ISP here", unless you think that "big == bad" and in > that case OVH is in company with Microsoft and Google. > > PS #1 on the same page is Microsoft — but that looks more like someone > finding a way to game their signup process to get snowshoe spamming set up > on Microsoft's networks. IIRC, there’s a gang rotating around big providers > doing this — so different… quality of problem. > > > You don't "convince" me on the "poor microsoft is on that list by > mistake because someone is tricking them... " neither: if the report > is good then Microsoft is the worst provider and Amazon and Google are > worst than OVH, too. Otherwise that report is not to be used for this > reason. > Do you have a "quality excuse" for Google and Amazon, too, so that > they are not to be considered "worse than quite bad”? > > > So there’s a misalignment of perspective here. Probably my fault ‘cause I > was picking you up on one point in your original email. > > Let’s draw a distinction between “corporate” outbounds, where “corporate” > outbounds are MTAs managed by the entity concerned, and hosting space. > Think Gmail and Hotmail outbounds for “corporate” outbounds. > > OVH generally has a poor reputation as evinced by others — whether from > corporate outbounds or just their (hosting) space, others will have to > confirm. > > Microsoft, Google and Amazon and working hard to get bad reputations for > their hosting space but I think it’s generally agreed that they do quite a > good job managing spam from their corporate outbounds. Thing is though, > Microsoft and Amazon display some indications that they care about abuse of > their infrastructure — abuse on the hosting side. There seems to be some > desire to fix the problems. > You included Google in one but not the other. In any case, GCP blocks outbound port 25 for GCE and doesn't have a mail service, so at least on the hosting side, they've erred on the side of opting out of the issue. https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/tutorials/sending-mail/ I do find it interesting that we're on that list with 90 complaints in the past 9 months. 10 complaints per month at our volumes is a pretty trivial number, and probably not particularly representative of the actual volume of spam that spammers manage to send through us, unfortunately. Brandon
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
