> On Mar 7, 2018, at 3:40 PM, Stefano Bagnara <mai...@bago.org> wrote: > > On 8 March 2018 at 00:08, Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com> wrote: >> [...] >> I don’t either, but I am not fighting language with folks. > > I'm sorry Laura. My mother language is not english and your "tone" is > unexpected to me, so I probably used wrong translations for my > questions.
No, you were right. My bad for being unclear and coming across harshly. What I’m saying is that other people decided to call these things spamtraps. I think they’re wrong, but am not going to fight over terminology (which is what I meant when I said language) and will just use their terminology even if I think it’s somewhat misleading. > No need to fight anything.. I'm just discussing in a list and trying > to give and get back like I always do. That was more a reference to 20+ years of history of arguing email / spam related definitions in various places. I had my fill of arguing about terminology (confirmed! Double! Confirmed! Double!) somewhere in 2004. >> [...] >> I have, and know other people who have, and again, this was discussed >> earlier this month at M3AAWG. > > I'm not in M3AAWG, but I hoped that some info that can be shared in > the M3AAWG could be anonymized and shared here too. > If this is not the case, then ok, I just asked. Maybe someone else > will feel to share something. Most of the M3AAWG sessions have statements of confidentiality associated with them. This was one of them. I’ve repeated some of the things I said as part of the panel, but won’t be repeating stuff any of my colleagues said. But, in terms of anonymizing and sharing… that’s what I did. >> But, it’s kinda a big deal to call out stuff like this and while we’ve >> called out blocking companies / blacklists in the past, I’m not in a >> position where I think that will provide an overall benefit by making the >> information public. It’s also not like I’m the only person who knows this. >> >> In one instance with a client, they were using one of the aforementioned >> delivery monitoring companies and saw a “pristine trap" hit. They were able >> to identify the specific address as the company provides the full text of >> the message. They had recent (within a few weeks) click data from that >> address and a purchase within a few months. > > OK so if I got it right then these "delivery monitoring" spamtraps are > not really used by anyone but the delivery monitoring service itself. > It helps the paying ESP/ISP to identify problematic senders in their > network and they also need spamtraps for them.. maybe they have too > few of them so they have been a bit "easy" introducing new domains to > have more data to monetize. Yup. Basically. > In this case either they had a bug, needs to better document how they > create spamtraps or they are "abusing" their customers trust. > We can agree that it is hard to define what can be a spamtrap and how > many months are needed for them to become spamtraps, but I think we > all agree that a valid/working inbox can't become a spam trap in a > week. Sure, we agree. But there are folks who don’t agree with us. Some of those folks run spamtrap networks that feel blocklist data. I think it’s important to acknowledge that. At one point you could do COI and still get on a blocklist because you sent to a spamtrap. At one point you could do COI and mail to folks who’d only opened an email in the past few weeks and still get on a blocklist because you sent to a spamtrap. This affected real senders who weren’t spamming. laura -- Having an Email Crisis? We can help! 800 823-9674 Laura Atkins Word to the Wise la...@wordtothewise.com (650) 437-0741 Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
