On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:26:22 -0400, Bill Cole via mailop <mailop@mailop.org>
wrote:
>> That is absolutely ignorant to tell the people that you do mail in a
>> broken way and tell them it is for a reason, you don't want to tell.
>
>Sharing an outbound queue amongst many different machines is not
>"broken" in any way. There may or may not be rock-solid simple
>explanations for *WHY* that approach was chosen, but it is entirely a
>local issue of purely local concern. There is no RFC asserting that
>retries after a transient rejection should come from the same cliuent
>IP.
One rock-solid simple explanation is that, for a multi-IP sending instance,
random IP selection in the routing rule delivers more reliably than binding a
particular message to the VMTA that first attempted to send it. Sometimes
quirky things happen, and we will see that the customer delivers to Y! or
Hotmail et al. on three of their four IPs without incident, and sees zero
complaints and an open rate varying between 35% and 55%. The remaining IP
enjoys complete blockage for $REASONS.
The brokenness is introduced by giving a false response at the first knock.
mdr
--
"There are no laws here, only agreements."
-- Masahiko
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
