Lukasz Maik <[email protected]> writes:

[not sure what the relationship of ricoh-europe is to a US .org is]

> Sure, please find full tests results here: 
> https://www.mail-tester.com/test-bw02eaxrt
>
> We've lost a point for not having DKIM/DMARC authentication, which is 
> unfortunately not supported by our hosted exchange.
> We also lost 0.5 point for not having alt attribute in the images, so we will 
> add it.
> Total is 7.8/10.
>
> The problem, when user is sending normal work e-mails, recipients are
> finding those messages in the Junk Email folder. Even people with who
> he was previously working before.

I'm not sure anybody said this yet, but: spamassassin the project is not
going to add your domain to a whitelist because you are having problems
with how others sort your mail.  As I understand it, the project would
only consider that sot of addition for domains that are 1) really known
to send pretty much zero spam and 2) users of spamassassin are
inconvenienced by what they perceive as incorrect tagging as spam.
Note that this is very different from senders being unhappy about how
recipients tag the messages.

Reading the  test report, I see that you have a URL in SBL

This domain has two hits in rfc-clueless

  https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/naadac.org.html

and the outgoing IP address is

   208.70.208.232               Spam Grouper Net block list


So basically you (they?) need to clean up all the issues.  That may
involve finding a mail host that doesn't do business with spammers and
whose IP addresses are not in DNSBLs.


Also, if you are bothered by recipient filtering decisions, you need to
ask the recipients what filtering they are doing and why they sorted how
they did.  That's up to them, not the spamassassin project.

It may be that they have no idea and are uncooperative.  I have had
problems with yahoo misfiling mail, and found the experience of asking
them about it not to be useful.   So it is possible that your recipients
should get a different email provider.



You might also remove URLS to social media.  They have privacy policies
which are inconsistent with addiction treatment anyway.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to