-2

I have 3 servers and 3 IP's.

Server 1 - Static IP - 111.111.111.111
Server 2 - Static IP - 222.222.222.222
Server 3 - Dynamic IP - 333.333.333.333

Now Server 3 is always assigned the IP 333.333.333.333 because it's the only one left, the two others are, as shown above, static to the two other servers.

Is there any reason to assign Server 3 a static IP in regards of "credibility" to the "outside world" (Such as in terms of SMTP / Server credibility) despite the server always have and will be identified by the same IP?

Are there other reasons to give Server 3 a "static IP"?

This is not about SPF / DKIM / Reverse DNS, I'm very well aware of these things and they have been configured. - The question is not about getting unblocked.

Epodax
  • 121
  • 7
  • I think this is basically a duplicate of http://serverfault.com/questions/48428/how-to-send-emails-and-avoid-them-being-classified-as-spam – BlueCompute Jan 05 '16 at 10:18
  • @BlueCompute The issue is not SPF / DKIM, I'm very well aware of these things, my issue lies with the Static / Dynamic IP. – Epodax Jan 05 '16 at 10:20
  • Your issue is getting blocklisted, no? You have to take that up with whoever maintains the RBL, we can't de-list you from here you know – BlueCompute Jan 05 '16 at 10:22
  • @BlueCompute The "issue" yes, the question, No. Putting it rather simple "Does a dynamic IP affect SMTP credibility or general server credibility" – Epodax Jan 05 '16 at 10:24
  • The point is that it doesn't make any difference how you assign the IP addresses to your servers, the important thing is what the RBL provider thinks about the specific IP address / range you are using. There's nothing we can do about this, you have to speak to the RBL provider. What is the ACTUAL IP you are using? – BlueCompute Jan 05 '16 at 10:30
  • 1
    To answer your question: If the RBL provider believes that the IP is a dynamically assigned public IP then you will get blocklisted, but you know this because it's happening.... – BlueCompute Jan 05 '16 at 10:32

1 Answers1

1

Usually many RBL's will block dynamic ranges from ISP'S, no matter if actually this dynamic range is being used as static addressing.

As an exmaple, you may look at PBL from Spamhaus: https://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Spamhaus%20PBL#183

The PBL is simply a list of all of the world's dynamic IP space, i.e: IP ranges normally assigned to ISP broadband customers (DSL, DHCP, PPP, cable, dialup)

Xavy
  • 149
  • 3
  • The IP isn't listed on the PBL. – Epodax Jan 05 '16 at 09:43
  • 1
    Another reason for this is reverse DNS lookups. Have you added a reverse DNS for such an IP? – Xavy Jan 05 '16 at 10:10
  • Yes, I have added reverse DNS. – Epodax Jan 05 '16 at 10:12
  • 2
    Perhaps worthy if you could mention which provider blocked you and which message which it reported back. It usually gives some clues on the reason of listing. If this happened with MS mail servers (msn.com, outlook.com, etc) you may need to subscribe to their reputation programs (JMRP/SNDS), review their ToS, and request unlisting if fulfulling them – Xavy Jan 05 '16 at 10:23
  • Verizon and "because your ISP indicates that it is dynamically assigned" – Epodax Jan 05 '16 at 11:03
  • Probably your IP has a reverse DNS lwith some dynamic tag, which shows it to be part of a dynamic range. Just compare for instance (I've picked two random IP's from a Spanish ISP): dig -x 83.60.169.0 +short 0.Red-83-60-169.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. dig -x 88.26.229.236 +short 236.Red-88-26-229.staticIP.rima-tde.net. In any case it looks that it is Verizon policy to block dynamic ranges, thereore, I'm afraid that if you intend sending mails to verizon accounts you will need to assign a fully static IP address – Xavy Jan 05 '16 at 11:22
  • What I'm trying to find out is whether the "lack" of static IP address is a actual issue for SMTP and possible other things, because if it is I will make it a static IP, but there's no reason to make that change if it isn't the issue. – Epodax Jan 05 '16 at 11:26
  • It is not for SMTP protocol, but it is a common measure in industry for fighting against spam.. Sorry for not having understood your actual question – Xavy Jan 05 '16 at 11:28
  • It's fine, I'm just trying to figure out the underlying issue so I'm not applying "fixes" that doesn't solve anything. – Epodax Jan 05 '16 at 11:45