6 ms·

I completly agree with you. While Hetzner is my actual neighbor as their headquarters is right in the neighboring town, I still use a server at very small scale

I completly agree with you. While Hetzner is my actual neighbor as their headquarters is right in the neighboring town, I still use a server at very small scale provider. I have no problem with my email server. I receive some spam here and there, mostly from Russia. But I immediatly block the according IP addresses for some time. For years I avoided to use any external service to decide whether its Spam or not. But about 2 years ago I started to rely on some of the external Blocklists. Till today I have no problem sending Email. Even as I don't use DKIM or DMARC.

jimmydorry 4y ago
If you are using external blocklists, you are perpetuating the problem here. Small mail operators end up on blocklists through no fault of their own, and it sounds like your server would reject them just like the big servers do.
- EvanAnderson 4y ago
  You don’t have to use blocklists to block messages. I use blocklists in my self-hosted setup but only for the purpose of adding header fields that my Bayesian anti-spam filter can use to classify messages. I don’t reject anything out-right, aside from attempted spoofs of the domains my server is authoritative for. Everything is received— it just may end up in an “Unsure” folder if it seems too shady for the filter to put in my inbox.
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    That sounds like a better solution and not at all what I would assume someone means when they say that they use blocklists to filter out spam.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  Not using block lists will inundate mail servers with spam. It's a necessary evil.
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    And for most people, using a large mail provider is the necessary evil. I don't see much difference between a small mail provider using block lists and a large mail provider using the same block lists + their own proprietary lists and metrics. Both result in other small mail providers getting blocked for arbitrary reasons with limited recourse.
    - friendzis 4y ago
      Using large mail provider is not necessary evil in my book. It is just so much more convenient than self hosting. Today, with ready-made containers and stuff we start having a fighting change, but the moat is possibly too big to fight with email falling out of favor
  - jjav 4y ago
    I don't use any kind of block list on my mail server, as I find the concept to be fundamentally flawed. I accept all incoming email as long as basic sanity on the connection is met and then apply bayesian filtering after the email has been accepted. I get just about no spam at all (<10 per month, maybe).
    - whiplash451 4y ago
      One spam every three days is insanely high IMO (compared to what you will get on gmail)
      - jjav 4y ago
        > One spam every three days is insanely high IMO (compared to what you will get on gmail) That's funny since on gmail I get tons more spam than on any of my self-hosted domain addresses. What's worse, I see emails in gmail misfiled as spam when they are not, which is far worse. I don't ever see that happen in my self-hosted system.
      - olau 4y ago
        I get > 1 spam per day on gmail.com. But I don't find that burdensome at all, in fact I'd prefer that gmail let more stuff through to my spam folder instead of swallowing things that it misclassifies, because I have seen several instances of lost legitimate email, something I still don't understand how is deemed acceptable to the people who wrote it. But I need to vote with my feet instead of complaining.
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  This is pure victim-blaming. The problem is that bulletproof hosting exists, not that people are sick of spam.
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    I don't follow. I am pointing out that using the same kinds of lists that the big providers use will result in smaller providers being arbitrarily blocked with little recourse. Do you disagree with that assessment?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      First, yes. They (the small providers) have recourse, it’s just annoying. They voluntarily signed up for that annoyance because of their ideology. But much more importantly, that question is orthogonal to my argument. Using blocklists is a good way to cut down on spam, the fact that it might block some trivial percentage of people who for ideological reasons might or might not be on those lists isn’t the receivers problem. You want this to not be the case? Contribute meaningfully to solving the problem in a more effective way. Don’t blame the people who just don’t want the spam.
      - vinay_ys 4y ago
        > ideological reasons might or might not be on those lists What's the ideological reasons here?
        1337shadow 4y ago
        Apparently people who want to self host email instead of paying some big tech
      - jimmydorry 4y ago
        The small providers typically don't have recourse if they approach a blocklist maintainer and ask to be taken off a list. That "trivial percentage of people" make up a substantial portion of service providers (for every Google there are many <100 user mail servers), which is what this thread was about. I pointed out that adopting blocklists just makes it harder to operate a mail server as a small provider, and nobody in this thread appears to disagree with that assessment. They instead seem to take issue with the tone of the message.
Aeolun 4y ago
> Even as I don't use DKIM or DMARC. I wouldn’t expect sending email to be the problem. But I’d be surprised if it’s delivered.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  One of SPF or DKIM is pretty much mandatory, and SPF is far easy to maintain.

jimmydorry 4y ago

If you are using external blocklists, you are perpetuating the problem here. Small mail operators end up on blocklists through no fault of their own, and it sounds like your server would reject them just like the big servers do.

EvanAnderson 4y ago
You don’t have to use blocklists to block messages. I use blocklists in my self-hosted setup but only for the purpose of adding header fields that my Bayesian anti-spam filter can use to classify messages. I don’t reject anything out-right, aside from attempted spoofs of the domains my server is authoritative for. Everything is received— it just may end up in an “Unsure” folder if it seems too shady for the filter to put in my inbox.
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  That sounds like a better solution and not at all what I would assume someone means when they say that they use blocklists to filter out spam.
koheripbal 4y ago
Not using block lists will inundate mail servers with spam. It's a necessary evil.
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  And for most people, using a large mail provider is the necessary evil. I don't see much difference between a small mail provider using block lists and a large mail provider using the same block lists + their own proprietary lists and metrics. Both result in other small mail providers getting blocked for arbitrary reasons with limited recourse.
  - friendzis 4y ago
    Using large mail provider is not necessary evil in my book. It is just so much more convenient than self hosting. Today, with ready-made containers and stuff we start having a fighting change, but the moat is possibly too big to fight with email falling out of favor
- jjav 4y ago
  I don't use any kind of block list on my mail server, as I find the concept to be fundamentally flawed. I accept all incoming email as long as basic sanity on the connection is met and then apply bayesian filtering after the email has been accepted. I get just about no spam at all (<10 per month, maybe).
  - whiplash451 4y ago
    One spam every three days is insanely high IMO (compared to what you will get on gmail)
    - jjav 4y ago
      > One spam every three days is insanely high IMO (compared to what you will get on gmail) That's funny since on gmail I get tons more spam than on any of my self-hosted domain addresses. What's worse, I see emails in gmail misfiled as spam when they are not, which is far worse. I don't ever see that happen in my self-hosted system.
    - olau 4y ago
      I get > 1 spam per day on gmail.com. But I don't find that burdensome at all, in fact I'd prefer that gmail let more stuff through to my spam folder instead of swallowing things that it misclassifies, because I have seen several instances of lost legitimate email, something I still don't understand how is deemed acceptable to the people who wrote it. But I need to vote with my feet instead of complaining.
Godel_unicode 4y ago
This is pure victim-blaming. The problem is that bulletproof hosting exists, not that people are sick of spam.
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  I don't follow. I am pointing out that using the same kinds of lists that the big providers use will result in smaller providers being arbitrarily blocked with little recourse. Do you disagree with that assessment?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    First, yes. They (the small providers) have recourse, it’s just annoying. They voluntarily signed up for that annoyance because of their ideology. But much more importantly, that question is orthogonal to my argument. Using blocklists is a good way to cut down on spam, the fact that it might block some trivial percentage of people who for ideological reasons might or might not be on those lists isn’t the receivers problem. You want this to not be the case? Contribute meaningfully to solving the problem in a more effective way. Don’t blame the people who just don’t want the spam.
    - vinay_ys 4y ago
      > ideological reasons might or might not be on those lists What's the ideological reasons here?
      - 1337shadow 4y ago
        Apparently people who want to self host email instead of paying some big tech
    - jimmydorry 4y ago
      The small providers typically don't have recourse if they approach a blocklist maintainer and ask to be taken off a list. That "trivial percentage of people" make up a substantial portion of service providers (for every Google there are many <100 user mail servers), which is what this thread was about. I pointed out that adopting blocklists just makes it harder to operate a mail server as a small provider, and nobody in this thread appears to disagree with that assessment. They instead seem to take issue with the tone of the message.

Aeolun 4y ago

> Even as I don't use DKIM or DMARC. I wouldn’t expect sending email to be the problem. But I’d be surprised if it’s delivered.

dsr_ 4y ago
One of SPF or DKIM is pretty much mandatory, and SPF is far easy to maintain.