From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A320138350 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 03:15:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A5DA9E0933; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 03:15:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:1e9::8849]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BCA1E091C for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 03:14:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Contact-TNet-Consulting-Abuse-for-assistance by tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id 0383EtGZ025242 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 22:14:57 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Alternate Incoming Mail Server To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <20200406123504.fkcuaiiahsemympv@ad-gentoo-main> <20200406211758.4hbhn62guek55hnt@ad-gentoo-main> <3290988.V25eIC5XRa@eve> From: Grant Taylor Organization: TNet Consulting Message-ID: <7aee1ef7-c81c-fc17-f8f5-8a286098a30c@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 21:14:59 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3290988.V25eIC5XRa@eve> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 2935d579-51d6-4849-a0c4-6b4504fc30e7 X-Archives-Hash: 62ff40025465ddb6a0d2ea06d0b68f1f On 4/6/20 10:49 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > I am afraid most (if not all) ISPs will reject emails if the reverse > DNS does not match. My experience has been that there needs to be something for both the forward and reverse DNS. Hopefully they match each other and — and what I call — round resolve each other. Ideally, they round resolve /and/ match the SMTP HELO / EHLO name. I think you can get away with at least the first part. There will likely be warnings, but they probably won't prevent email delivery in and of themselves. > Using a dynamic range is another "spam" indicator and will also get > your emails blocked by (nearly) all ISPs. Yep. If it's not blatant blocking of believed to be dynamic clients (how is left up to the reader's imagination), you start to run into additional filtering that may or may not reject the message. > I would suggest putting your outbound SMTP server on a cheap VM hosted > somewhere else. Or you get an outbound SMTP-service that allows you > to decide on domain name and email addresses. Unfortunately the spammers have made many such cheap VMs IP net blocks have bad reputations. I'm starting to see more people blocking the cheaper VPS providers. -- Grant. . . . unix || die