On 1/1/24 11:31, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> But why it is called that?

Why does it matter that the server is called "vps.chmurka.net"?

> Yes, and people will sometimes use that technique on address blocks that it
> is not suited for.

Yep.

Though, thankfully, those techniques tend to often look for relatively
specific patterns in text;
<number><delimiter><number><delimiter><number><delimiter><number> Where
each <number> and <delimiter> have some defined textual pattern, even if
it's not completely accurate.

> But why is it called that?

Why are you so curious why the server is called "vps.chmurka.net"?

If you're going to advocate for changing it, forgo the question and go
to the discussion around changing it and supporting reason therefor.

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>If you're going to advocate for changing it, forgo the question and go
>to the discussion around changing it and supporting reason therefor.

I can't tell you if it makes any difference or not without knowing if the
mail clients are thinking you are a VPS or not. But the headers of one of
the messages from the spam folder should tell you a whole lot. Most mail
systems will let you see all the marks against you on the Baysian filters
and how much the ISP is weighting each one. Once you see that, you know
where to concentrate efforts.

But, on the whole, having "vps" in the name is likely to get you marked
as a vps, in the same way having "mail" in the name is likely to get you
marked as a new server or -gw is likely to have you marked off as a gateway
by one of the many "reputation" services out there. Are you marked that
way? From your previous discussion it seems that you may be.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 1/1/24 12:13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> But, on the whole, having "vps" in the name is likely to get you marked
> as a vps, in the same way having "mail" in the name is likely to get you
> marked as a new server or -gw is likely to have you marked off as a gateway
> by one of the many "reputation" services out there.

That speaks to purported reputation services doing something I consider
to be very questionable.

> Are you marked that way? From your previous discussion it seems that
> you may be.

N.B. I'm not the OP.

--
Grant. . . .

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

>>I did it too (I'm not sure which configuration option affects EHLO, maybe
>>it takes it from smtpd_banner, or maybe from hostname, but I checked that
>>it sends vps.chmurka.net now). Thanks.
>
> So, why IS it called vps.chmurka.net if it is not a vps?

But it is on a VPS.

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 1/1/24 12:13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> But, on the whole, having "vps" in the name is likely to get you marked
>> as a vps, in the same way having "mail" in the name is likely to get you
>> marked as a new server or -gw is likely to have you marked off as a gateway
>> by one of the many "reputation" services out there.
>
>That speaks to purported reputation services doing something I consider
>to be very questionable.

You bet!

Some of them also use "geographical information" which is even more
questionable.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <umv0tn$l08$2$arnold@news.chmurka.net>,
Adam W. <gof-cut-this-news@cut-this-chmurka.net.invalid> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>>I did it too (I'm not sure which configuration option affects EHLO, maybe
>>>it takes it from smtpd_banner, or maybe from hostname, but I checked that
>>>it sends vps.chmurka.net now). Thanks.
>>
>> So, why IS it called vps.chmurka.net if it is not a vps?
>
>But it is on a VPS.

Okay, that will also get points against you. How many? Depends on the
recipient.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> I can't tell you if it makes any difference or not without knowing if the
> mail clients are thinking you are a VPS or not. But the headers of one of
> the messages from the spam folder should tell you a whole lot. Most mail
> systems will let you see all the marks against you on the Baysian filters
> and how much the ISP is weighting each one. Once you see that, you know
> where to concentrate efforts.

I hope I'll be able to get them soon (I'll contact poczta.fm).

Curiously, another email sent to another person using poczta.fm (before I
changed the EHLO, revDNS and certificate) arrived to them without any
problem.

I don't have a reason to distrust the person who claims he didn't receive
my email, but I also don't have any particular reason to trust him. He
accused me (on a newsgroup) of not responding to him, I told him when I
did and asked him to check his spam folder, and he never answered back.
So I can't be really sure.

poczta.fm's mail is handled by Interia (a Polish mail provider). I have
another account there (on interia.com) and I never had any problems with
mail not being delivered between it and my main (chmurka) account (I used
it for some testing in the past).

> But, on the whole, having "vps" in the name is likely to get you marked
> as a vps, in the same way having "mail" in the name is likely to get you
> marked as a new server or -gw is likely to have you marked off as a gateway
> by one of the many "reputation" services out there.

But this is a VPS. Is this something that should be concealed or avoided
(from the perspective of email deliverability)?

I have another VPS that's called "kvm" (kvm.chmurka.net) and I'm planning
to migrate my SMTP (and other things) there, but I didn't do it yet.

Adam W. <gof-cut-this-news@cut-this-chmurka.net.invalid> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't tell you if it makes any difference or not without knowing if the
>> mail clients are thinking you are a VPS or not. But the headers of one of
>> the messages from the spam folder should tell you a whole lot. Most mail
>> systems will let you see all the marks against you on the Baysian filters
>> and how much the ISP is weighting each one. Once you see that, you know
>> where to concentrate efforts.
>
>I hope I'll be able to get them soon (I'll contact poczta.fm).

Ask the mail recipient for a copy with the headers.

>Curiously, another email sent to another person using poczta.fm (before I
>changed the EHLO, revDNS and certificate) arrived to them without any
>problem.

Welcome to the new world of Baysian filters. When your messages are right
on the edge, something minor in the subject or body may make the difference
between delivery and rejection.

>I don't have a reason to distrust the person who claims he didn't receive
>my email, but I also don't have any particular reason to trust him. He
>accused me (on a newsgroup) of not responding to him, I told him when I
>did and asked him to check his spam folder, and he never answered back.
>So I can't be really sure.

So you do not know for sure that it's being dropped into the spam folder.

>> But, on the whole, having "vps" in the name is likely to get you marked
>> as a vps, in the same way having "mail" in the name is likely to get you
>> marked as a new server or -gw is likely to have you marked off as a gateway
>> by one of the many "reputation" services out there.
>
>But this is a VPS. Is this something that should be concealed or avoided
>(from the perspective of email deliverability)?

Many filters will consider that to your disadvantage. How a particular
ISP or user has that set I can't say.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 1/1/24 12:48, Adam W. wrote:
> But this is a VPS. Is this something that should be concealed or
> avoided (from the perspective of email deliverability)?

I don't think so.

People disliking strings in host names is IMHO about like people saying
they dislike someone with a "C" in the other person's name. Arbitrary
and likely to have negative repercussions.

--
Grant. . . .

On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 19:33:41 -0000 (UTC)
gof-cut-this-news@cut-this-chmurka.net.invalid (Adam W.) wrote:

Check out the RackNerd and other provider deals at
https://lowendbox.com.

Chat with the VPS rep before you sign up. Ask them about which of
their locations are not in that greedy Swiss grifer's RBL. Whatever
host you choose, make sure they have a range for you that is not
marked by the extortioner. He puts entire IP ranges in his blacklist to
try to extort money from the victims. If you pay him he will remove
your IP. Then no doubt his cousin in some other district will add you
to get more sucker money.

The Swiss grifter refuses to remove some IP ranges from his extortion
list. So it is vital to make sure you are getting your IP in a range
that is not in there. Sadly, a few big email providers help him run his
scam and actually use his RBL, which should be prosecuted, IMHO.

I have a server in Racknerd's Dallas range. Email has been working fine
for over a year.

--
CRYP7010G3R | Don't be a dog. | Be a wolf. | 4477 | 7766
<6ee878aedba584e0399a0d5df7e2ce96$1@sybershock.com>
3883@sugar.bug | sybershock.com | alt.sources.crypto

gof-cut-this-news@cut-this-chmurka.net.invalid (Adam W.) writes:

> Hi,
>
> I'm running my own mail server for my own domain (chmurka.net) on a
> dedicated IP address in RamNode (81.4.124.88). Despite doing everything I
> possibly can (I have SPF records, I have OpenDKIM running to add DKIM
> headers, I have TLS enabled with a certificate from Let's Encrypt)
> sometimes email sent by me ends up in spam folders.
>
> I checked and I'm not in any RBLs (none I know of). Maybe the IP
> reputation is bad, because it belongs to a VPS hosting company (even if
> it's used exclusively by me for the last seven years and there's been no
> spam or abuse coming from it since then).
>
> Do any of you have any suggestions where to check the IP, how to de-list
> it, or where to move the SMTP server? Or maybe there's some paid relay
> service that I could sign up to, and they will relay my mail?
>
> I need to change only outgoing SMTP to work this way. Incoming mail works
> fine (because why wouldn't it...).

I've been impressed with Panix, primarily because they actually phoned
me to verify my account when I signed up. I also exchanged emails with
their staff before signing up, and they claim to be pretty careful about
spammers operating out of their IP space, responsive to complaints about
abuse, etc. -- personally I think the extra step of phone verification
is probably enough to make most spammers stick to DigitalOcean.

Anyway, I've been running a mail server with Panix for a few months and
have had no deliverability problems.

john

John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:
>I've been impressed with Panix, primarily because they actually phoned
>me to verify my account when I signed up. I also exchanged emails with
>their staff before signing up, and they claim to be pretty careful about
>spammers operating out of their IP space, responsive to complaints about
>abuse, etc. -- personally I think the extra step of phone verification
>is probably enough to make most spammers stick to DigitalOcean.
>
>Anyway, I've been running a mail server with Panix for a few months and
>have had no deliverability problems.

Indeed. I have not encountered any ISP as generally conscientious and
willing to support actual computer people as Panix.

However, I did receive spam from a Panix user once, I think from an address
scraped from Usenet. It was not entirely off-the-wall though:

--cut here--
From ht@panix.com Wed Mar 19 18:27:34 2008
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on
mailbackend.panix.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-147.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED
autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Lines: 15
Return-Path: <ht@panix.com>
X-Original-To: kludge@panix.com
Delivered-To: kludge@panix.com
Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74])
by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC831A25A
for <kludge@panix.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:27:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from panix1.panix.com (panix1.panix.com [166.84.1.1])
by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC9C13A8CC
for <kludge@panix.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:27:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from ht@localhost)
by panix1.panix.com (8.11.6p3/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id m2JMRXG03522
for kludge@panix.com; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:27:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:27:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: <ht@panix.com>
Message-Id: <200803192227.m2JMRXG03522@panix1.panix.com>
To: kludge@panix.com
Subject: rs232 to vga converter
Status: R

rs232 to vga converter

The Rs-Big-Print converts an rs232 serial input to a
vga output compatible with most vga monitors. It turns a spare
video monitor into a cost effective readout for all sorts of
applications requiring large letters and numbers viewable from
ten, twenty and thirty feet.
Two text sizes are included. The larger has 6 lines
with 12 characters on each line. The smaller has 8 lines with
20 characters each.

Come to WWW.RS-BIG-PRINT.COM to see examples of the
display, a photograph of the device and further description.

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> Indeed. I have not encountered any ISP as generally conscientious and
> willing to support actual computer people as Panix.
>
> However, I did receive spam from a Panix user once, I think from an address
> scraped from Usenet. It was not entirely off-the-wall though:
>
> --cut here--
> From: <ht@panix.com>
> Message-Id: <200803192227.m2JMRXG03522@panix1.panix.com>
> To: kludge@panix.com
> Subject: rs232 to vga converter
> Status: R
>
>
>
> rs232 to vga converter
>
> The Rs-Big-Print converts an rs232 serial input to a
> vga output compatible with most vga monitors. It turns a spare
> video monitor into a cost effective readout for all sorts of
> applications requiring large letters and numbers viewable from
> ten, twenty and thirty feet.
> Two text sizes are included. The larger has 6 lines
> with 12 characters on each line. The smaller has 8 lines with
> 20 characters each.
>
> Come to WWW.RS-BIG-PRINT.COM to see examples of the
> display, a photograph of the device and further description.

Hey, look, the first time a spam email actually advertised something
that's kind of interesting to me!

john

On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:29:58 +0000, John wrote:
>
> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>> Indeed. I have not encountered any ISP as generally conscientious and
>> willing to support actual computer people as Panix.
>>
>> However, I did receive spam from a Panix user once, I think from an address
>> scraped from Usenet. It was not entirely off-the-wall though:
>>
>> --cut here--
>> From: <ht@panix.com>

That address might be valid.

>> Come to WWW RS-BIG-PRINT . COM to see examples of the
>> display, a photograph of the device and further description.
>
> Hey, look, the first time a spam email actually advertised something
> that's kind of interesting to me!

Hope you're not ordering alone for the fact that it is spam.
--
Andreas

On Friday, 12 January 2024 14:24 -0500,
in article <87h6jil5ij.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>,
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:29:58 +0000, John wrote:

>> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

>>> Indeed. I have not encountered any ISP as generally conscientious
>>> and willing to support actual computer people as Panix.

>>> However, I did receive spam from a Panix user once, I think from
>>> an address scraped from Usenet. It was not entirely off-the-wall
>>> though:

>>> --cut here--
>>> From: <ht@panix.com>

> That address might be valid.

It is.

>>> Come to WWW RS-BIG-PRINT . COM to see examples of the
>>> display, a photograph of the device and further description.

>> Hey, look, the first time a spam email actually advertised
>> something that's kind of interesting to me!

> Hope you're not ordering alone for the fact that it is spam.

Remember the Boulder Pledge!

--
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com>
Be kind to animals; kiss a shark.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 13:36:38 -0600
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 12 January 2024 14:24 -0500,
> in article <87h6jil5ij.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>,
> Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:29:58 +0000, John wrote:
> >> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
> >>> Indeed. I have not encountered any ISP as generally conscientious
> >>> and willing to support actual computer people as Panix.
> >>>
> >>> However, I did receive spam from a Panix user once, I think from
> >>> an address scraped from Usenet. It was not entirely off-the-wall
> >>> though:
> >>>
> >>> --cut here--
> >>> From: <ht@panix.com>
>
> > That address might be valid.
>
> It is.

I find it interesting that the order link goes directly to a
form hosted on the main PANIX web site:

https://www.panix.com/~ht/pcgi/forms.cgi

(The "fmscount counter" field shows 3888 for me.)

> >>> Come to WWW RS-BIG-PRINT . COM to see examples of the
> >>> display, a photograph of the device and further description.
> >>
> >> Hey, look, the first time a spam email actually advertised
> >> something that's kind of interesting to me!

That actually is an interesting product. It looks reasonable
dated too; like something that could possibly date back to the
1970s (even though VGA technology isn't even that old -- VGA was
introduced by IBM in 1987, I believe).

> > Hope you're not ordering alone for the fact that it is spam.
>
> Remember the Boulder Pledge!

That's important, and I remember that the late Roger Ebert
created it:

https://www.lumbercartel.ca/glossary/boulderpledge.pl

Thanks for honouring him.

--
Randolf Richardson 張文道, CNA - noc@inter-corporate.com
Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
https://www.inter-corporate.com/

On 1 Jan 2024 18:13:41 -0000
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>
> >If you're going to advocate for changing it, forgo the question and go
> >to the discussion around changing it and supporting reason therefor.
[snip]
> But, on the whole, having "vps" in the name is likely to get you marked
> as a vps, in the same way having "mail" in the name is likely to get you
> marked as a new server or -gw is likely to have you marked off as a gateway
> by one of the many "reputation" services out there. Are you marked that
> way? From your previous discussion it seems that you may be.

Why would "mail[.example.com]" cause a system to be marked as a new server?
Wouldn't it be marked as a mail server?

I've encountered many mail servers that begin with "mail." (or "mail#."
where # represents one or more digits) as part of their hostname (for which
reverse-DNS correctly matches). We've been using mail. for decades with our
outbound IPv4 and IPv6 addresses without any problems, but I'm curious to
know more if you've discovered such naming to be problematic.

--
Randolf Richardson 張文道, CNA - noc@inter-corporate.com
Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
https://www.inter-corporate.com/