On 28 Oct 2017, at 12:03 (-0400), Benjamin BILLON via mailop wrote:
Mhh I'm not sure to follow how it's related. Your freemail accounts
are
then absolutely not reactive, ok.
None of my addresses are "reactive" to HTML in bulk email. Even when
I've affirmatively subscribed to a list or putatively given a sender
implicit permission to market at me at a real address, the only URLs in
commercial email I've ever used are unsub links that I've
sanity-checked.
So if the sender was doing things good
enough, he shouldn't be sending to those at the first place (I guess
you
don't subscribe your spamtraps to newsletters just for fun or watching
the
world burn),
Right. The only way a sender has any of those addresses is ultimately
from mailbox provider breaches, dictionary attacks, and typos in
unconfirmed subscriptions.
and if he was doing things even better, those would stop
receiving emails at some points anyway as they'll be considered
"inactives", and therefore not targetable anymore. Which is a policy
that
senders (not all, definitely not all of them as of today) enforce
because
reputation systems take recipients' reactivity into account, not
because
the consent is withdrawn or some other direct request from the
recipient.
I don't believe I've ever experienced a legitimate sender doing that:
seems extreme and a bit unwise. I suppose whether a sender does that is
largely dependent on the characteristics of the recipients. The last
time I was involved on the sending side of supposedly "tracked"
campaigns we had solid evidence that more users reacted "out of band"
(jumps in normal logins correlated to campaigns) than supposedly
"opened" messages based on image retrieval.
What does that have to do with JMRP, and how having even less reliable
metrics is a good thing?
I'm just noting that what ESPs call "metrics" are fundamentally
different across different mailbox providers and audiences. Microsoft
JMRP numbers are only directly comparable to Microsoft JMRP numbers, NOT
to similar feedback from other providers. That should not be news to
you. It's not good or bad, it just IS. A faith in ANY feedback metrics
being quantitatively accurate reflections of what happened with a piece
of email after delivery (beyond simplistic objective facts like URL
retrieval) is at odds with reality.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Currently Seeking Steady Work: https://linkedin.com/in/billcole
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
