The IPv4 rep for the same MTA is Good. http://www.senderbase.org/lookup/?search_string=152.78.0.0/16
Would be interesting to see why the IPv6 rep would be different. Spam from that MTA would presumably go out over whichever protocol was available. Perhaps because there’s a much smaller sample size on IPv6 (maybe 3% of our outbound is IPv6 last time I looked) it’s more susceptible to a small amount of email that’s deemed spam. Anyway, thanks :) Tim On 24 Sep 2014, at 13:41, Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > Tim, > > Roger that! > > We're checking internally what's going on. > > Changing just one nibble in the host portion of the address makes > SenderBase score "neutral", so something must be up for that > particular /128. > > When I learn more, will ping you. > > --a > > > On 9/24/14, Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote: >> My emails to Cisco people are now bouncing. >> >> It seems the cause is a poor rep on one of our MTAs: >> http://www.senderbase.org/lookup/?search_string=2001%3A630%3Ad0%3Af102%3A%3A25e >> The DNS reverse seems fine for falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk >> >> But the email bounce (with username deleted) says: >> >> Final-Recipient: RFC822; [email protected] >> Action: failed >> Status: 5.1.1 >> Remote-MTA: DNS; alln-mx-01.cisco.com >> Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 Connections from the host falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk >> (2001:630:d0:f102::25e), originating from SenderBase Network Owner ID: None, >> are being rejected due to a low SenderBase Reputation Score. See >> http://www.senderbase.org for more information or contact your IT support >> team. >> >> If any Cisco people are on this list, please have someone have a look. I >> think Andrew Yourtchenko is, and he is one person with bounces. >> >> Tim >> >>
