On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 18:37 -0700, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Oct 28, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote: It's fine to use no-reverse-lookup as a component of a spamminess score. It's not OK to use it as proof of spamminess. People running large mailservers made that decision some time ago. Disagreeing with them won't make them accept your email.
I didn't say it would. IMHO reverse lookups are excellent and useful. My only beef is with the idea that the absence of a reverse lookup entry has any useful meaning any more, or, in particular, is proof of spamminess. It would be interesting (and would alter my opinion) to see statistics of real spamminess positives ("is spam") dropping significantly if failed reverse lookups are removed from the calculation. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4