On 2019-10-14 15:38 BST, Alexander Zeh via mailop wrote: > My best guess from a receivers perspective is: > If >99.9% of the traffic from a netblock were spam (let’s say from > half of the IPs in that block), I don’t want to accept any more > messages from the other IPs from the same netblock (and risk unhappy > recipients and - even worse - financial impact because they contact > support) because statistically they are most likely spam too. > > Even though some of the other IPs might be clean.. the positive > impact of rejecting the whole netblock is most likely no more spam, > even from IPs I never received a single mail from before (meaning > happier users, no support costs,…) vs. the negative impact of very > few false positives which cost almost nothing. > > I don’t say that this is necessarily good the way it is, but I can > totally understand the idea behind that.
Thanks for another answer to my question (of "why not consider each ip address on its own merits?"). Graeme Fowler answered "Definitely less convenient" and yours I interpret as "less convenient and more support costs". It's unclear whether the support consideration applies to Google. There is no formal support who can be contacted, is there? (A result from my web search said "if you’re lucky, a Google volunteer may assist you further" on their web forum). The OP who began this (very long!) thread said "I have never sent any spam-like message myself nor my server wasn't relaying any." Google are placing mail from the OP's server into "junk", arguably a harsher response than yours of not accepting the mail at all. Presumably for Google, this comes down to convenience, if your and Graeme Fowler's answers are representative. -- Nick _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
