Delivery-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 11:56:59 -0500
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [38.229.72.13])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E78291E0420;
	Tue,  8 Mar 2016 11:56:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF8A39283;
	Tue,  8 Mar 2016 16:56:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCCE38E52
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue,  8 Mar 2016 16:56:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at 
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id LKfrIdPu6Fxk for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Tue,  8 Mar 2016 16:56:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.29])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1DB3200DF
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue,  8 Mar 2016 16:56:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF54920CA5
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue,  8 Mar 2016 11:56:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161])
 by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 08 Mar 2016 11:56:42 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sadiqs.com; h=
 content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
 :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc
 :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=mYIXpa5yhqimmTCqF3yhT/6FcmA=; b=wEwCmr
 tejiGf9qpE6r1S2Vd1YA5q9szmrPn/tE+JLOV/4OKTVLw0TVRoHqkOjVatkjl6YG
 ovc8EQ456+QDj58GFPJoNkpkkV16YqsgS7BfJ8C/730fTddxVEcLheWxLf9WTMQL
 NrU4yKLNqX8ABQVMJG8uKFMuyZQxSxF5diXeg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=mYIXpa5yhqimmTC
 qF3yhT/6FcmA=; b=joH58QMi/W/EyFb9AMhpSN88v9qccUXhUSJyiSEWX00e2f8
 2nGL1/AmqKGNvgQgprcRIvyNBmSFltht309ga81Sunq9G7DtiPM34V2yuH4xkfW+
 rQcSPSTWbKB141iaeZpAdFe2v8HtJwzKldPo5ziLeYrGjUPo+4RHbKqVo1Qc=
X-Sasl-enc: 4VejapsmF8M5g2acSJP++GgN7VwdHja41iwGzyBi1ef1 1457456202
Received: from [10.0.0.100]
 (cped4ca6d682f3c-cm84948c577ca0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [174.117.80.248])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 87C55680185
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue,  8 Mar 2016 11:56:42 -0500 (EST)
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
References: <ce61c6a69cb89961fb4c80cbbb9c5987@openmailbox.org>
From: Sadiq Saif <lists@sadiqs.com>
Message-ID: <56DF044A.1040003@sadiqs.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:56:42 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ce61c6a69cb89961fb4c80cbbb9c5987@openmailbox.org>
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Does sending webmail using Tor increase the
 liklihood of it being regarded as spam?
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

On 3/7/2016 14:10, blobby@openmailbox.org wrote:
> I am wondering if using an exit node IP increases the possibility that
> sending email from a webmail provider is more likely to end up in the
> recipient's spam folder. For example, sending email from
> hello@vfemail.net to goodbye@hotmail.com
> 
> I think not because, from the email headers I have seen, the exit node
> IP is never included in the message headers at the destination.
> 
> The IP of the sender is that of the webmail provider not the exit node.
> So it should not matter because, even if the exit node IP is "bad", it
> is never seen by the recipient.
> 
> Thoughts?

Unlikely, as you said, IP based reputation heuristics is usually applied
to the sending server's IP(s), not the submission source IP.

Using the IP of the submitter will result in a large percentage of false
positives as most residential IPs are in BLs for dynamic IPs.

-- 
Sadiq Saif (AS393949)
https://asininetech.com
@staticsafe
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

