See screenshot. Learn more link is this:

https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126?hl=en#authentication

Is it possible to get more spefics which policy is not met?

All policies? They call it "guidelines" and there is a tool at 
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6227174 that helps to check. I 
don't really. It needs to be answered to following questions.

 1. Do we use a consistent IP address to send bulk mail?

Get all email archive and see which IP addresses were used. Possible?

 2. Keep valid reverse DNS records for the IP address(es) from which you 
send mail, pointing to your domain.

Received: from psf.upfronthosting.co.za ([2a01:4f8:131:2480::3])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 
iu6si197941884wjb.116.2016.01.11.03.09.46
        for <techtonik@gmail.com>;
        Mon, 11 Jan 2016 03:09:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psf.upfronthosting.co.za (localhost [10.0.0.1])
	by psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24A5556217
	for <techtonik@gmail.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:09:46 +0100 (CET)

It looks like 2a01:4f8:131:2480::3 doesn't have reverse DNS record 
(PTR).

 3. Use the same address in the 'From:' header on every bulk mail you 
send.

Not sure is changed name is the same address.


And guidelines for IPv6 are more strict. "The sending IP must have a PTR 
record (i.e., a reverse DNS of the sending IP) and it should match the 
IP obtained via the forward DNS resolution of the hostname specified in 
the PTR record. Otherwise, mail will be marked as spam or possibly 
rejected."

So PTR is inevitable.

On Monday 11 January 2016 at 14:01:27, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> So PTR is inevitable.

Maybe ping here:
http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue568

Critical for more than 6 months? I think the mails from this tracker
are already in SPAM. Need another channel for communication.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Bernhard Reiter
<issues@roundup-tracker.org> wrote:
>
> Bernhard Reiter added the comment:
>
> On Monday 11 January 2016 at 14:01:27, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> So PTR is inevitable.
>
> Maybe ping here:
> http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue568
>
> ________________________________________________
> Roundup tracker <issues@roundup-tracker.org>
> <http://issues.roundup-tracker.org/issue2550900>
> ________________________________________________

On Monday 11 January 2016 at 15:03:50, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> Need another channel for communication.

You are probably right, that it should be escalated.
Please do me a favour and ping there first
(because I saw that you may have an account there).

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Bernhard Reiter
<issues@roundup-tracker.org> wrote:
>
> Bernhard Reiter added the comment:
>
> On Monday 11 January 2016 at 15:03:50, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> Need another channel for communication.
>
> You are probably right, that it should be escalated.
> Please do me a favour and ping there first
> (because I saw that you may have an account there).

My account there is inactive and I don't have energy to recover it.
Sorry. The best way would be to pop up on IRC infra channel
https://www.python.org/community/irc/ but I am busy with releasing
right now.
-- 
anatoly t.

Look like this was handled by forcing postfix to use ipv4 only
around may 5th.

See:

 http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue568

Is this still a problem Anatoly?