since the behavior has flip-flopped, I am not sure that we really know any more about what the problem is now than we did before.
-wes On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:50 PM Ben Koenig <[email protected]> wrote: > If users took responsibility for verifying the source of the email then > this would all be irrelevant. Case in point- protonmail doesnt seem to care > about his emails presumably because we are supposed to be using > public/private keys to verify messages instead of waiting for google to > give the green light. > > Relying on central services to verify someone's identity is definitely a > problem, even if you don't see it. > > But hey, at least we know what the problem is now so thats at least > something. > -Ben > > Sent from ProtonMail mobile > > -------- Original Message -------- > On Jun 3, 2021, 5:31 PM, wes wrote: > > > I think this is an ongoing topic and probably doesn't need to be closed. > > however you are welcome to use gmail's mute feature if you would like to > > stop seeing it. > > > > the footer was removed last week or so, as a test at tom's request. since > > then, I have seen emails from him flagged as spam, and also not flagged. > > > > decisions to flag or not are based on a scoring system. each indicator of > > email legitimacy is given a numerical value, and the scores from each > > factor found in a given email are added together. the email service > > provider sets a threshold of how high a score has to be to flag the > email. > > different providers will have different factors they consider, and set > > their own threshold. > > > > using linode to send emails is definitely a problem, even if you don't > see > > it. > > > > -wes > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:22 PM TomasK <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> FYI > >> > >> This email has landed in my gmail inbox, not spam - perhaps it is time > >> to retire this super long thread - before enough people mark is as spam > >> - LOL. > >> > >> Maybe gmail-machines (yes it is Matrix reference) pays attention to > >> human replies and re-classifies ... > >> > >> Tomas > >> > >> On Thu, 2021-06-03 at 14:11 -0700, Tom wrote: > >> > > Hello, > >> > > >> > Thanks for reaching out to inform us about this blocklisting. We > >> > understand and share your concern regarding the recent listing of our > >> > ASN with UCEPROTECT's Level 3 service. After researching the details > >> > of > >> > the listing, we have determined that the Level 3 service offered by > >> > UCEPROTECT is not reputable, and we will not be paying for delisting > >> > from their service. > >> > > >> > If you discovered this listing as a result of researching a bounced > >> > email, can you please tell us the name of the mail provider which > >> > rejected your mail? We have found that customers reaching out > >> > regarding > >> > this listing are really being rejected by internal RBLs of mail > >> > providers, but are reaching out because the UCEPROTECT listing is the > >> > only public service where they were able to find their IP address > >> > listed. We can usually request delisting with most providers if > >> > you're > >> > able to provide us the following information: > >> > > >> > A copy of the 550 bounce code from the mail server > >> > The domain name sending mail > >> > Confirmation that SPF has been configured for the domain sending > >> > mail > >> > > >> > We understand the importance of email deliverability and how it > >> > impacts > >> > our customers, which is why all Linode accounts created after > >> > November > >> > 2019 are incapable of sending any email by default: > >> > > >> > https://www.linode.com/blog/linode/a-new-policy-to-help-fight-spa > >> > m/ > >> > > >> > Thank you in advance for providing the requested information. We’re > >> > happy to work towards getting your Linode’s IP address removed from > >> > any > >> > blocklists that may be causing deliverability issues for your mail. > >> > Please let us know if you have any questions, or if you need anything > >> > else. > >>
