Re: Different RCVD_IN_DNSWL rules applied to my IP

[Greg Troxel <gdt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@xxxxxxx> writes:

> On Sat 03/Sep/2022 12:42:25 +0200 Bernd H. Steiner wrote:
>>
>> Am 03.09.2022 12:30, schrieb Greg Troxel:
>>
>>> I would be shocked if eden.one ended up in HI without you
>>> knowing about it by way of applying, and highly surprised if it were HI
>>> at all.  HI is things like bank servers that send alerts, very broad-brushy.
>>
>> the *maximum* trust level for category 6 private/personal is MED
>
> Is that a political meddling?

No, it's a perfectly sane policy.  DNSWL assigns trust levels based on
expectations about future behavior and the relative consequences
abenefits to relying parties.  Personal servers tend not to have large
IT organization with 24/7 cybersecurity watchstanders.  The amount of
things in HI is quite limited, and my impression is that it's mostly
banks and things like that (sending transactional mail and alerts).
Those have a much higher risk of false positives because (apparently)
the marketing people make them send HTML and put other crud and thus
they typically hit a bunch of smallish rules.

I don't know why you think this is "political" or if it is which flavor of
political thought it would drive.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature