On 14 Oct 2019, at 14:58, Nick via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>> If a large percentage of them have a signal which is 'poor' (FSVO
>> 'poor') then the inference is that the whole block is poisonous, and
>> you bin it (or put mail from it in the junk folder).
>
> It is not an inference. You agreed ("Does that really happen?" "No")
> that legitimate senders remain in the block. The whole block is not
> poisonous.
*shrug*
If the majority of a netblock smells bad, it is easier to deal with it as a bad
smell rather than make exceptions for lovely fragrances within.
> My question remains unanswered. Why not treat each ip address on its
> own merits? Is it technically infeasible, too expensive, less
> convenient, or what?
Definitely less convenient. In my case, I treat individual addresses,
netblocks, email addresses, domains both as separate entities *and* together.
Sometimes the signal for an individual IP address is vastly outweighed by the
noise of the surrounding netblock. Sometimes it's the other way around (rarely,
in my experience). Occasionally an individual IP address will look perfectly
shiny and be in a great neighbourhood, but then starts sending phishing emails
(just one example of many) and will end up with a poor local reputation. If it
happens to be in a farm of related hosts for a given sending domain, that puts
them all on notice.
I refer back to my first email in this thread:
"Their network; their rules".
Each and every operator does things slightly differently, based on the
available data and the previous experience of said operator. Scale influences
both of those things.
Graeme
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
