All nice and well, but a bit decades to late. There should never have been such default whitelist. Companies should take care not be on blacklists, and should maintain some degree of standard implementation to send out email. After all spf -all exists already for a long time. So why are google/microsoft/yahoo etc still not using it? Why don't they separate free/spam clients on different infrastructure. Now these companies are big enough to abuse the market and force everyone to customize just for them. If you would block them now like any other company, clients complain and move their business to .... yes the market abusing companies.
It is just crazy that on the internet you are expected to clean up someone else's mess. If the macdonals next door creates a mess, you are also not cleaning it, you go and ask them to clean up their own shit. > > > > In my opinion, this is an indication that the default welcomelist > entries in the official > > > > > > > I'm good with that, so long as likes of google are not in any whitelist > either. > > I haven't been following all the anti spam stuff as much as I used to (I > have people to do that for me so I can enjoy more of life) in past few > years, but I've never believed the big providers should ever have been > whitelisted. > > I've used clear uridnsbl skip domain for donkies years (I think that's > the option that removes the dnsbl whitelistings going off memory) but > perhaps there should also be a similar command (if not already exist?) > that clears and disables /all/ whitelisting in rules as well, yes I know > in the past the recommended method was writing a gazillion entries in > local.cf zeroing out there scores, but isn't that kind of stupid in 2024. > > > > > Trust must be earned, not implied (or bought), as Joanne points out, "my > spam is your ham and vice versa" > > > -- > > > Regards, > Noel Butler > > >
