On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 03:45:31PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:39:43PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 01:22:27PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:14:01PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > So it boils down to "MTA needs care on a regular basis" and "some > > > > blacklist can add your MTA for no good reason". First one is universal > > > > (applies to any Internet-facing service), second one can be beat with a > > > > creative use of hosting. Also, https://mxtoolbox.com. A non-free > > > > service, but a useful one. > > > > > > Way to oversimplify, and "creative use of hosting" basically means > > > "hope and pray". It's also not actually true that there's hosting > > > magic which makes you immune to blacklist stupidity unless your > > > hosting is gmail or something equally too large to block. > > > > Unless a blacklist adds victims by AS number, a change of MTA's IP > > (hence the hosting) and an appropriate DNS reconfiguration is > > sufficient to sidestep it. > > And cause different issues, because you're no longer on an IP with an > established history.
A blank slate. There's nothing wrong with it. Blacklists are called that for a reason, they do not block whole IPv4/IPv6 address space. > You're also assuming that they're blocking by IP rather than domain, > which is quite bold assumption since the blacklist is a black box and > domain based blacklists most certainly exist. That said, I have in > the past configured specific domains to recieve email from specific > IPs because they arbitrarily stopped accepting mail from other IPs. Haven't encountered one yet, but I trust you on this. > > Of course, one can get an already blacklisted IP, so a certain amount of > > "hope and pray" applies here. > > Or, you're trying to send to someone who's blacklisting broad ranges > of IPs or ASs and you're just wasting your time changing IPs. Nothing > like find that out after going down that road. And that's where "hosting" comes into play. Blacklisting, say, whole Amazon AS is a little extreme, don't you think? > > > In my experience with the younger generation, they already don't > > > consider email a primary means of communication except within a closed > > > environment like a school. > > > > That's something I agree with. Still, I propose to wait until > > post-Generation Z gets their first job. > > Why? Current young working age people are alredy far less invested in > email than their older peers. This isn't changing as they continue to > work. I disagree. "We do things this way because we got used to it" still holds some weight. > If anything, they're pushing companies away from using email as > a primary means of internal communication. But they lack weight to do so effectively yet. Certain positions come with an age. > > > In business the trend is increasingly toward outsourcing email to a > > > large cloud provider (e.g., MS/outlook) so a future in which > > > businesses mainly communicate between a small number of very large > > > providers is not all that remote. > > > > The trend is here, sure, as long as you consider small business. > > Large one - not so much. > > Maybe not ten years ago, but CIOs need to now have a good answer to why *not* > outsource email. Privacy of internal communications? Risk limiting? A good CIO should always have pro- and contra- arguments for any proposition. > For the most part, large businesses that aren't IT providers don't > particularly want to manage email servers. It might be hard for them > to change their existing infrastructure, but in my experience it's > something they're definitely looking at. I'll believe it then I'll see it. Reco
