I don't know how Yahoo implements this stuff, but I do know that we have a bunch of throttling limits, mostly for low volume domains. They're designed to prevent a "break-out" spam campaign on a compromised server.
Its not as simple as "only allow N messages per hour from this IP", typically its some combo rule. "Message didn't have a message-id and no authentication and ASN xxxx, only allow 5 of those an hour for that IP" as a made up example. And yes, that means we're keeping counts on volume across various things, so we can see what "typical" volume is. In that type of case, Levine's "two messages a day" would work fine, but 117 every 2-3 days may not. Obviously, the goal with these rules is to not block these incorrectly, but no service is perfect. Brandon On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 1:31 PM Odhiambo Washington <odhia...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 20:53, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > wrote: > >> On Mon, 2019-01-14 at 18:55 +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote: >> > Heheee. I didn't know that Yahoo algorithms trust high volumes. Now I >> do, >> > but this is not a solution. >> > Going to search for an ISP (or a relay service) that is known to be >> > "trusted" by Yahoo, because it sends enough volumes to Yahoo >> > servers doesn't sound like something anyone would wish to go after when >> > they have their own server. >> >> You misunderstood me. It is not that Yahoo automatically trusts high >> volume >> senders, it is that Yahoo need to see a reasonable sample of email from a >> sender before making decisions regarding how to treat that email. >> > > And this reasonable sample is like how many? > > >> >> In your case, one possible reason for the delays could be that they do not >> see enough volume from your IP address to make a determination that your >> email does not need to be delayed. >> > > Is the volume defined or arbitrarily decided? > I could write a script to send 50 mails every hour to my own @yahoo.com > address to > achieve this :-) > > Since individual emails are probably not experiencing delays, you could >> just route the list traffic through Amazon SES (or similar) - thus keeping >> your independence as a mail server operator. >> > > That is the idea I am not buying! There must be another way better than > relying > on another SP. > > >> Again, tiny volumes may not be the cause of the issue, I'm just >> speculating >> based on your assertion that you are doing everything else correctly. >> >> > There we agree. Your suppositions are pretty okay for > empirical/theoretical arguments. > > > -- > Best regards, > Odhiambo WASHINGTON, > Nairobi,KE > +254 7 3200 0004/+254 7 2274 3223 > "Oh, the cruft.", grep ^[^#] :-) > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
