Michael Peddemors wrote: > > Transparency is key. Make sure your rDNS is sane, has your domain, and > an associated URL for that domain. >
Yes, RDNS, DMARC, DKIM, and SPF ... all done correctly, and we can still get on a list through no fault of our own. > However, yes.. hosting companies DO complain that it can take up to 8 > man hours for removal. This is a key fault in the "system" for which we lack collective drive to fix. We don't have industry-accepted mechanisms to expedite communications and actions between ISPs and BL entities. This could be handled in seconds with automation, while manual processes consume hours and only serve to lull all parties to inaction. This is why I'm looking for an assertive and proactive host with established relationships that eliminate or mitigate that long and painful process. > and you might want to consider your neighbours on > the provider you have chosen. If the hosting company allows spammers, > you might get painted by the same brush. And if you have a hosting > company that doesn't support you getting off a blocklist, it is a good > indication you have the wrong provider. > I've been with my big hosting company for almost twenty years, running my own SMTP servers for about five. Overall they're a decent company in a complex industry that shares many challenges. Like all hosts, they have policies against outbound spam, and REact when there are issues. But I don't believe there is enough incentive for them to be PROactive to prevent outbound abuse, or to implement and improve mechanisms to react quickly enough when it happens. I've made many suggestions to their management that I know have been considered. But effective changes have not been made and the problems continue. So yes, this is an indication that I have the wrong provider for my use case, and that's why I finally posted here. > You get what you pay for.. the hoster offering $.99 hosting can't afford > good engineers or support teams problably, and don't give a darn who > signs up.. > If management decides to attract more random business to increase revenue, and to cut costs for the resulting problems, that's just bad management, and typical in corporate acquisitions as ISPs are bought up. The practice sacrifices quality for quantity and ultimately sabotages the future. A "99 cent" host could make better business decisions, and secure even more quantity by providing a higher level of quality. That's insight that takes a bit more forethought and drive to implement. I don't think the pricing model is directly related to the quality, that "you get what you pay for". Paying more doesn't truly imply better services. To be clear, I cited an example of our modest mail needs, but I am not interested in cheap hosting. The established per-user/per-domain pricing model doesn't agree with the less-common use case where there are many domains and a few users. I also run my own DNS, LAMP sites, and more. For our purposes here I'm looking to pay a reasonable fee to the right host(s) for better services. Thanks!!
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
