Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Well - if they get it wrong and won't fix it and they are causing my
good emails to bounce for 2500 domains, what am I supposed to do?
Well, Do they in fact "have it wrong"? If their listing criteria
considers sender verification to be "mail abuse", well, you fit their
listing criteria. I don't agree with it, and I doubt many here do, but
that is apparently their policy.
I'm not that confident with people that wakes up in a morning and decides that a technic is wrong irregardless of the "good uses" it may have. Also, some of the assertions in the UCEPROTECT's site may be regarded as being even false or misleading, like the one saing that theirs "is the only effective method to block spam".
It is misleading: they may easily stop a lot of good senders in the way to block spam. And it is false: to my knowledge, the most effective method to block spam is shurely to shut the mail server down...
That said, Marc, if some technically unskilled customer bought their services and you need to have your mail accepted by its servers, the fastest way I see is to adjust to UCEPROTECT's rules. Then, eventually, you may try to convince your peer that UCEPROTECT's services are based on insane policies.
Why don't you dismiss sender verification and move toward greylisting? I think it could be effective as much as sender verification is.
I'm not going to change based on being forced by one block list that
refuses to remove me from their spammers list because they don't like
my spam filtering methods.
As to greylisting - the problem with that is that it causes legitimate
email to be delayed. Having said that I do use some greylisting on what
I consider to be suspicious. I have 3 MX records and the lowest one
returns defer for questional emails. If they are legit then they retry
on the second MX and it will be accepted.
|
