On 11/02/2017 08:53 AM, Alexander Zeh wrote:
I dare to disagree with your opinion that the sender is to blame.
I don't think that the sender is responsible for what receivers do with messages.
I *do* think that it is /prudent/ for the sender to be aware of what recipients /might/ do with the messages, including only displaying part of the message.
How many other things are changed about messages based on what mailbox providers do, in an attempt to try to ensure messages are placed in the inbox? - I consider these common action as self evidence that senders do care about what receivers do.
Gmail is one of many providers / MUA vendors that have undesired behaviors. (Possibly by default.)Gmail decides to alter the way the message is shown.
This is misleading.
I agree.
I'd say either accept the message and show it completely, or if it's to large, then don't accept it at all on smtp level with a corresponding bounce message.
I have to disagree with this statement.MUAs have had the ability to only download part of messages from the email server for years, based on various criteria. I.e. IMAP clients not downloading attachments until requested.
I see zero reason to reject a message at SMTP time. (At least not for message size unless it exceeds an upper maximum bound, which needs to be well documented.)
Maybe that's not really a big issue because we require senders so set up list-unsubscribe headers and it will be a requirement in the next, reviewed criteria to implement RFC 8058 as well, so Gmail will use that in their interface.
I have seen recent public discussion that Gmail /might/ use the List-Unsubscribe header. I would not count on this actually being consumed. - Providing it is a good thing.
In any case, the receiver should be able to see the complete content of the email with a single click. If I'm looking for an unsubscribe link in an email I always scroll down completely, because this is where I expect it. If I find there something like "email was clipped, click here to see the entire content", I'd click on that.
That is you (and many others.) But that is NOT everybody.
Of course we don't tolerate unsubscribe links in light grey on white background. But it's not necessary to have that in the criteria, because that's already regulated by law and it's obvious for serious ESPs that this is way off of any best practices. If we'd have to add all these possible abuse cases in the criteria they would be even longer then they already are. That's one of many reasons why we have a vetting process in place to find problems like these.
Would it be possible to request that CSA members include an additional subscriber / recipient in messages that is a CSA monitoring email? - I'd think that it would be trivial to look for things like the existence of the List-Unsubscribe / X-CSA-Complaints headers.
I'm sure there are many flaws with such automated monitoring. But I think it's better than nothing, and would provide some data points.
Regarding the complaint team: The team does not only process CSA complaints but all spam complaints in Germany and is operated by eco (like the CSA). I'm sorry, but the content is only available in german as far as I know: https://www.eco.de/services/internet-beschwerdestelle.html Anyway.. as you can imagine they receive tons of (non CSA related) complaints, and it's not viable to answer every single complaint.
Does ECO not send auto-responders (with proper Auto-Submitted header) back to the (purported) complaint sender?
I'd think that would be trivial.It would also provide a place to provide some boiler plate stating that not every email is responded to. - It could even provide a place to state something like "Spam report ########## is being processed. For details, check <UR>."
It would be more than a (potential) black hole.
And even if they do, we already received complaints about the mails from out complaint team to the complainant.
I'm not following you completely. - Either you're stating that you (CSA / ECO) already have the information that you need, or that communications are already being sent back to the person submitting the complaint / report.
But I understand your point here. We will discuss that internally how we can optimise the communication towards complainants.Regarding our header: I'm sure you're talking about the X-CSA-Complaints header. Of course the header is not used by ISPs or technology partners to identify whitelisted emails. We operate an IP-based whitelist for that. The header is added for transparency reasons to receive complaints by persons who are actually able to read headers. The downside is, that there are many emails out there with that header who were not sent by a certified sender, because email abusers simply thought it might give them better delivery, or maybe because they used an email of a certified sender as a "template" for their spam.
Oy vey.
I hope I could shed some light into the "black box CSA" and how we work. I'm not sure if this still is interesting and relevant for everybody on the list, and I don't want to annoy the subscribers with an ongoing discussion between us.
I personally am interested. - I think the list provides an opportunity for other bystanders to learn more about CSA / ECO.
Anyway, I'm on this list now and will reply to questions here and off-list as well. And as I already said: Feedback and hints about senders who do not comply is highly appreciated.
Thanks for your feedback Alexander. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
