We have discovered a rather annoying email problem this week. Because of a closure of a data centre we have used for over 10 years, we have been forced to pickup our servers and move them over to a new data centre. As annoying and as much work as this is, we have found one particular issue with the change of our primary email servers over to a new IP.
In recent years, there has been a new emergence of spam email fighting systems. Cisco is using it’s power of basically routing almost every bit of data on the internet to directly monitor IP addresses real time. They call this senderbase.org and is part of their IronPort spam scanning service.
We have had our email servers running for years with a “Good” reputation on this service.
However when we move the IP to a new block, we have found that almost instantly, the IronPort services rank us as “poor” due to the fact that they monitor days / weeks / months of average email sent from the address. When we instantly move to a new address that last month did no email, and start blasting email galore through one IP. Bang we are canned.
In the past this has not been a big issue. But in Australia, our primary telco has recently been pushing an email spam service that relies heavily on this service. So we are finding that loads of Australian businesses are blocking our email services. The solution has been to relay through some other email services, but that is time consuming and fiddly, as we still have to leave the majority of email running through the new IP so that it develops a “good” reputation on the IronPort services.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the support people at IronPort answered emails for support to move the reputation of an old IP address over to a news one!
– Update- Since we wrote this. We have been in contact with the senderbase support people who have ranked us a “Good”. It took 3 email messages and 7 days, but they did finally assist.
As it turns out, this ranking is one of the most important aspects of running a valid email server. It is a shame they do not have a more transparent method of making the requests for review. We still cannot work out exactly what the cause of the poor ranking was. There is the possibility that it way by association with the network owner who would appear to deserve a ranking of poor.