I can scarcely believe this needs to be "enunciated" in this day and age.
There's another principle at work here as well. Akin to Central Limit Theorem or the Law of Large Numbers, a small percentage deviation from the norm in a large sample size is also, statistically, a large sample size. Thus, when you are talking about small fractions of a percent of the total number of incidents regarding an abuse phenomenon on the orders of multiple billions of events per day, you're speaking of tens of thousands of incidents. Imagine not one, but ten thousand "Nadines." Every one of them an account owned by someone EXACTLY like Michael Rathbun. Now imagine with every "Nadine" you are annoying Michael Rathbun. And Michael is not someone who should be annoyed. I'm going off to hide again. Brian McNett Former Abuse Minion here as a historical artifact. On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 2:52 AM Michael Wise via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > It’s abuse. > > And it takes many forms. > > There are many stories like Mr. Rathbun’s … already enunciated. > > And then there’s stuff like this: > > > > http://www.honet.com/Nadine/default.htm > > > > And there are new exploits creating havoc all the time. > > > > > https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/734/subscription-bombing-coi-captcha-and-the-next-generation-of-mail-bombs > > > > Aloha, > > Michael. > > -- > > Michael J Wise > Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis > > "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." > > Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ? > > > > From: David Hofstee <opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 2:55 AM > To: Michael Wise <michael.w...@microsoft.com> > Cc: o...@iki.fi; mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist > with strange reputation issue > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Just curious and to ensure I understand correctly: > > You see email from well-behaving businesses (asking for the opt-in in a > correct way, sending good newsletters et al, having good offline reputation) > being flagged continuously as spam because people put in other peoples email > addresses? In larger numbers (i.e. not one-offs)? > > > > I've often wondered where the 0.01% to 0.02% base rate FBL complaints come > from. I've always attributed it to people being lazy/hateful, pressing the > spam button. Is this related? > > > > I've seen address quality issues where: > > - The opt-in was bad > > - The process of entering the address was complicated / manual > > - Form spam (DDoS type and other) > > - Specific customers being harassed by "people" who were mistreated IRL > > - Specific customers being harassed by criminals > > > > But not what you (seem to) describe. > > > > Much appreciated, > > > > David > > > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 17:03, Michael Wise <michael.w...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > My experience is far different from yours. > > But then, I see the bad side of it all the time. > > Comes with the job. > > > > Aloha, > > Michael. > > -- > > Michael J Wise > Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis > > "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." > > Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ? > > > > From: mailop <mailop-boun...@mailop.org> On Behalf Of David Hofstee > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 6:28 AM > To: o...@iki.fi > Cc: mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist > with strange reputation issue > > > > Hi Otto, > > > > It is not my experience that many people will fill in other people's email > address. I've seen 100's of millions of subscribers. Most did not have double > opt-in. It mostly went very well. There are cases of form-spam (see e.g. > Spamhaus a few years ago) and double opt-in prevents typo's. But there are > other methods to deal with abuse (in all of its appearances). > > > > So I'm not sure that your opinion towards double opt-in (where customers not > using it should be seen as spamming) is in line with the numbers I saw. I > understand the push from the anti-spam community (who have issues in > discriminating criminals and commercial senders having equally bad/good data > quality). But this technical solution is, imho, the wrong tool for that. As > Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have found out, feedback from users via alternate > systems is much better. But that is not yet integrated into RFCs for the rest > of us to use. > > > > I'll leave the "confirmed opt-in" vs "double opt-in" discussion as it is. > > > > Yours, > > > > > > David > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 09:02, Otto J. Makela <o...@iki.fi> wrote: > > On 2018-08-23 22:10, Jan Schapmans wrote: > > > * customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only > > implement > > it for gmail & googlemail addresses. > > This should definitely raise red flags at your end: customer doesn't > care about how good the "leads" are, as long as there are many. > This is "Millions CD" level thinking. > > BTW, a much better term is "confirmed opt-in", because that's what it is. > Most companies that want to contact you by email can get it right (send single > email with confirmation link as part of registration etc.), why should your > customer get a special pass not to do it? > > -- > /* * * Otto J. Makela <o...@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */ > /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */ > /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */ > /* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */ > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > > > > -- > > -- > > My opinion is mine. > > > > -- > > -- > > My opinion is mine. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
