On 2024-01-16 at 18:33:23 UTC-0500 (Tue, 16 Jan 2024 17:33:23 -0600) Noel <noeld...@gmail.com> is rumored to have said:
This - getting a .com domain to send mail - is really the only choice you have.
I have not seen major problems with *.net or *.org domains getting deliverability and some ccTLDs have reasonably decent reputations.
But yes, a *.com is how most people would want to go.
If Spamassassin were to whitelist your domain *today*, it will be some period of time until all the people running SA have the updated rules. I don't know how long, but I'm guessing many months. For some, years.
The long tail is long, but since we encourage all sites to get updates daily, the sites which lag more than a week are likely failing in many other ways as well. The long tail is very low. If I put a rule into my SA sandbox tonight, and it is good enough, it will be on most SA machines within 4-5 days and will be essentially everywhere worth caring about in 10. If Kevin makes a change in the KAM list, most of his users will have the rule the next day, as he does not depend on the RuleQA process.
SA removing .date from the lists of suspect TLDs would likely fix all noticeable problems the OP has related to SA within a fortnight. That *DOES NOT* mean their headaches from using a .date domain would end, because most users' mailboxes are not protected by SA directly or indirectly.
I also can't imagine that SA is the only software filter preventing you from successfully using your .date domain for mail, so fixing SA won't do anything for those others.
SA may have more installs than any other spam classification tool, but there's a broad understanding amongst the maintainers that none of the behemoth mailbox providers (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo/AOL/Oath, GMX, Apple, etc.) use SA in any way. Fastmail may, Runbox does (or did a few years ago,) Proton probably does, and it is pretty much universal in the small-scale mailbox provider/outsourcer world, to the extent that world still exists. And yet, we cannot compare in scale to the world that uses proprietary secret filters.
The alternative is playing whack-a-mole asking individual sites to whitelist you until the end of time.
In theory, yes. In practice, not so much. Once you get the big guys on board and educate direct business partners, the numberXsize of sites rejecting independently based on a TLD is not so big.
-- Bill Cole b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) Not Currently Available For Hire
