In message , ac <a...@main.me> writes > >Okay, so I am assuming then that my definitions of spam are accurate.
They are out of date ... on the big platforms (where perhaps 90% of the
world's mailboxes are now to be found) spam detection is entirely an
automated process ("machine learning" systems, with some guidance from
skilled humans as to what they should definitely reject)
These machine learning systems do the learning part by observing how the
users (the people whose mailboxes the systems are protecting) deal with
their incoming email. If the email is rapidly deleted or "marked as
spam" then the systems learn that the email was in fact spam. If the
email is automatically placed into a "spam folder" but the user
interacts with it and marks it "not spam" or moves it into their inbox
so that they can reply then the system learns that it has made an error
and that more email of a similar type should not be treated as spam
As a result of this the working definition of spam for 90% of all
mailboxes is "email that is not wanted in the inbox just at the moment"
This definition is not directly based on "permission" or "bulk" or any
statutory definition -- though emails that are sent with permission or
that are not sent in bulk are less likely in practice to be classified
as spam.
>My point is that even "verify your email address" could be Spam Abuse.
Yes I agree (and if enough of the people who receive such messages agree
as well then such email will end up in the spam folder or will be
rejected).
Now of course the skilled humans may seek to override what the machine
learning system decides (typically for example, emails from airlines
containing boarding passes are deemed never to be spam) but this
overriding depends entirely on the senders cooperating (an airline that
sends marketing email from the same machines and with the same crypto
identifiers as their boarding passes is going to rapidly find that their
"deliverability" quickly declines.
>Recently I received around 14 "verify your email address" emails in the
>same 15 minutes...
There are systems, used by criminals, who will deliver hundreds or even
thousands of these within a short time period. They are used to flood
mailboxes so as to hide account takeover and other wickedness.
A short time spent with a search engine will find these :(
>I would say that sending so many "verify" emails, in such a short time,
>is Spam Abuse
I would say that it was a pretty small attack ... but I could not say
why it happened to you. If it happened to me I would look very carefully
at the rest of my email that day.
>Is anyone willing to venture a number and time period for what would be
>considered 'fair' in terms of sending verification emails?
Systems that fail to ensure that such emails cannot be automatically
generated (by adding CAPTCHAs for example) need to be updated. This will
benefit the system owner by ensuring that all signups are genuine.
You might also usefully read ...
https://www.m3aawg.org/rel-WebFormHeader
... though in practice take-up of the proposed header has been limited
and if you are going to update your systems to generate it you might as
well update the relevant web pages to add CAPTCHAs, randomise field
names or whatever else you think will prevent automated list bombing.
--
richard Richard Clayton
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
