Hi Bill, Although we try to rationalize as much as possible, I believe most ESPs are aware that each ISP is different (if some ESPs aren't aware of that they should look at the SMTP replies), there's not one single universal metric. There are plenty of metrics, and of course different for ISP. But when one of the metrics is totally off chart, or not interpreted as it's supposed to do, well, that's never good. Metrics aren't truth, they're just indicators that we then have to interpret, so when Michael says something which is not what the JMRP page itself says, that changes something. Probably if it wasn't an ISP as big as Hotmail it wouldn't be such an issue.
-- <https://www.splio.com> Benjamin 2017-10-30 5:22 GMT+08:00 Bill Cole <mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.com> : > 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 the consent is withdrawn or some other direct request from the recipient.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 >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
