No problem - if it creates less work in the long run, then it's viable strategy.
Thank you and take care, Scott On Wednesday, 11-03-2026 at 00:31 Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote: Sorry for the trouble my friend. I'll reply here so anyone else interested can see it. I know my strategy isn't well received here, though if I'm being honest, I care more about results than opinions so I'll ask that if anyone would like to berate me for it feel free to reply off list. I'm rather used to being berated for everything I do that isn't exactly like the way other people think it should be done. But with the way spammers rotate through IPs on networks that exclusively or almost exclusively send spam these days, what I do is effective. It was my determination that the spam to ham ratio from Aptum's ASN fell so hard toward spam that whitelisting the good senders was more effective than blacklisting the bad senders. That doesn't have to mean it's all gigantic numbers, I could do a log audit and find 250 total emails in 60 days but if all 250 are spam then it falls on the side of "I'd rather whitelist what people actually want from here, because it clearly isn't much." Most of the time I get it right. On rare occasions I miss something. It looks like I missed PolarisMail. It doesn't seem that Polaris customers and ours converse enough that it landed on the radar, but now they can freely. I've whitelisted their ranges. Our customers are informed on how to get around this if we happen to block something they want. Both in terms of filtering they can disable if they desire, or whitelisting if they want me to exclude someone who got caught in it. We're up to blocking almost half a million spam emails per day with this strategy and whitelist requests have dwindled down from a small campfire to a single burning ember, which is exactly the way I was hoping the numbers would go after a few months of running this way. Whoever intends on replying off list to berate me, I hope you read to that part ;) Jarland On 2026-03-10 22:34, Scott Q. via mailop wrote: > I apologize for the public contact but direct messages to Jarland are > also bouncing. > > Jarland, can you check why your servers are blocking messages from > 65.39.216.0/25 , 69.172.250.0/24 , 66.179.84.0/24 ? Bounce says: > > 45.43.208.31 does not like recipient. > Remote host said: 550 Unauthenticated mail not allowed from this range > to protected domain > Giving up on 45.43.208.31. > > That's when I tried e-mailing you to inquire about some customers of > ours receiving similar messages. We obviously have SPF/DKIM enabled... > > > Thanks! > Scott > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > [email protected] > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
