Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 06/03/2018 14:18, Dave Warren wrote: > On 2018-03-04 05:46, David Jones wrote: > >> That's great. It means you know what you are doing when you change the >> default threshold to less than 5.0. In that case you need to change a lot >> of other scores down too including RCVD_IN_IADB_* and

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 06/03/2018 04:42, Luis E. Muñoz wrote: > I would argue that the current scores work very well for default installs. My experience shows otherwise >> That would be acceptable :) > > I disagree. Knee-jerk changes to rule scores based on a single report that > contradicts what others are

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 04/03/2018 22:46, David Jones wrote: >> Some us have very fine tuned SA's, and use less than 5.0 which was >> acceptable 10 years ago, but not in recent times, so a few .1's can mean >> user gets spam, V user doesnt get spam - I know what I prefer. > > That's great. It means you know what

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 2018-03-04 05:46, David Jones wrote: That's great.  It means you know what you are doing when you change the default threshold to less than 5.0.  In that case you need to change a lot of other scores down too including RCVD_IN_IADB_* and the KAM.cf rules probably score way too high for you

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 3 Mar 2018, at 3:54, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin wrote: On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record [199.127.240.84

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 03/03/2018 06:26 PM, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/03/2018 23:45, David Jones wrote: On 03/03/2018 05:54 AM, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin wrote: On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 03/03/2018 23:45, David Jones wrote: > On 03/03/2018 05:54 AM, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin > wrote: > > On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote: > > On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: > > -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 03/03/2018 05:54 AM, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin wrote: On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS  RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin wrote: > On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote: > > On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: > > -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record > [199.127.240.84 listed in iadb.isipp.com] >

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record [199.127.240.84 listed in iadb.isipp.com] -0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF RBL: IADB: Sender publishes

Re: IADB whitelist - again

ferent rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems either > ridiculous, or outright suspect: > > -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record > [199.127.240.84 listed in iadb.isipp.com] > -0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF RBL: IADB: Sender

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote: On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 2 Mar 2018, at 0:48, Sebastian Arcus wrote: But why does SA have to expose a rule for each and every code IADB provides? So that users can implement their own policies if desired? So that different rules can have a more granular effect on the inbound email flow, without this being a

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 03/02/2018 02:54 AM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote: On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote: On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 01/03/18 19:04, John Hardin wrote: On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 1 Mar 2018, at 10:29, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect: (Disclaimer, I have inner visibility

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect: -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS  RBL: IADB

Re: IADB whitelist - again

> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: > >> I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the >> persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB >> whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or ou

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect: -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB

IADB whitelist - again

I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect: -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record

Re: IADB whitelist

On 26 Dec 2017, at 15:04 (-0500), Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote: Bill, thank you for this excellent explanation, and for the kind words! I'm glad you didn't find anything glaringly incorrect or derogatory about my external-view explanation. And of course I stand by every kind word. [...]

Re: IADB whitelist

> > My sense is that ESPs engage ISIPP thinking they are getting an advocate and > ambassador to mailbox providers when in fact they get a teacher/evangelist > for sender best practices. ITYM 'schooled in best practices. ;-) ;-) Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President, SuretyMail

Re: IADB whitelist

On 26 Dec 2017, at 9:46 (-0500), Sebastian Arcus wrote: So you will excuse me if I take any whitelist which helps marketing emailing lists "improve deliverability" with a very big dollop of salt. Of course. I don't give significant ham weight to any of the default IADB rules other than

Re: IADB whitelist

On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote: What do you call *verified* opt-in (what the marketers call "double opt-in"), where the recipient needs to comfirm that they gave permission for contact via that email address before receiving any content, in order to avoid unwanted

Re: IADB whitelist

> > What do you call *verified* opt-in (what the marketers call "double opt-in"), > where the recipient needs to comfirm that they gave permission for contact > via that email address before receiving any content, in order to avoid > unwanted third-party subscriptions? Confirmed opt-in,

Re: IADB whitelist

On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote: Where we say "opt-in" we mean exactly that - single opt-in; if someone didn't ask for the email not only would we call that "opt-out", but we would not certify that sender's email. What do you call *verified* opt-in (what the marketers call

Re: IADB whitelist

> > 'magically' re-subscribe after a while, or simply get around rules by > creating a new list and re-subscribing everybody who unsubscribed. Just so you know, that behavior is specifically made illegal by CAN-SPAM. And Sebastian, I see that you are in the UK, which already has tighter

Re: IADB whitelist

Bill, thank you for this excellent explanation, and for the kind words! For those of you who don't know us, or me, I came out of MAPS; I was in-house counsel for MAPS during the first rash of lawsuits against MAPS brought by spammers. To say that I am rabidly anti-spam would be an

Re: DMARC and mailing lists (was Re: IADB whitelist)

Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2017-12-26 18:49: have you never been subscribed to spammers' blacklist without your permission? On 26.12.17 19:01, Benny Pedersen wrote: hopefully apache.org does know how to handle spam you did not narrow your sentence on apache mailing lists, perhaps you

Re: DMARC and mailing lists (was Re: IADB whitelist)

Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2017-12-26 18:49: have you never been subscribed to spammers' blacklist without your permission? hopefully apache.org does know how to handle spam

Re: DMARC and mailing lists (was Re: IADB whitelist)

RW skrev den 2017-12-26 18:05: I didn't receive any posts in "IADB whitelist" thread from the OP because they all failed DMARC with a reject policy. I found the posts on gmane. On 26.12.17 18:21, Benny Pedersen wrote: stop reject maillists no matter if dmarc fails have you

Re: DMARC and mailing lists (was Re: IADB whitelist)

RW skrev den 2017-12-26 18:05: I didn't receive any posts in "IADB whitelist" thread from the OP because they all failed DMARC with a reject policy. I found the posts on gmane. stop reject maillists no matter if dmarc fails Posting to mailing lists with a domain using a strict DM

DMARC and mailing lists (was Re: IADB whitelist)

I didn't receive any posts in "IADB whitelist" thread from the OP because they all failed DMARC with a reject policy. I found the posts on gmane. Posting to mailing lists with a domain using a strict DMARC policy is inherently risky because you are losing the redundancy of an aligne

Re: IADB whitelist

On 25/12/17 23:57, Bill Cole wrote: On 25 Dec 2017, at 3:28 (-0500), Sebastian Arcus wrote: Also, any idea why are there 6 different rules associated with this particular whitelist? IADB has many independent return codes that each have distinct meaning. See

Re: IADB whitelist

On 25 Dec 2017, at 3:28 (-0500), Sebastian Arcus wrote: Also, any idea why are there 6 different rules associated with this particular whitelist? IADB has many independent return codes that each have distinct meaning. See

Re: IADB whitelist

On 25/12/17 10:45, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 25.12.2017 um 09:28 schrieb Sebastian Arcus: On 23/12/17 10:01, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: The 1st step is that a representaive of the rbl asks us to consider for inclusion. Thank you. If enough people receive spam sanctioned by a particular

Re: IADB whitelist

I certainly look at all fns and fps and make changes to try and fix things in the overall ecosystem. If you have evidence of such problems, throw it in pastebin. Beyond that I don't usually focus on one rule and you can always override scores / disable rules in your own cf file. I don't

Re: IADB whitelist

On 23/12/17 10:01, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: The 1st step is that a representaive of the rbl asks us to consider for inclusion. Thank you. If enough people receive spam sanctioned by a particular whitelist, will the minus scores associated with their rule(s) be reduced over time? Also, any

Re: IADB whitelist

The 1st step is that a representaive of the rbl asks us to consider for inclusion. Regards, KAM On December 23, 2017 3:03:26 AM EST, Sebastian Arcus wrote: >What is the process of including whitelists in SA default configs? It >is >not the first time I see pretty

IADB whitelist

What is the process of including whitelists in SA default configs? It is not the first time I see pretty obvious mailing list spam which has quite high minus scores from 2-3 whitelists included in SA: -1.5 RCVD_IN_IADB_OPTIN RBL: IADB: All mailing list mail is opt-in