Re: Different RCVD_IN_DNSWL rules applied to my IP

[Alessandro Vesely <vesely@xxxxxxx>]

On Mon 05/Sep/2022 14:36:17 +0200 Greg Troxel wrote:
> 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.


It was partly tongue-in-cheek, opposing the tendency to use "professional" mail 
providers, which actually are not all that better than a well configured 
private MTA.  Indeed, the bigger they are the more they are targeted.

Anyway, your explanation makes sense, especially the second part.  Thanks.


Best
Ale
--