On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 20:15, Michael Wise via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> > > Heh. > > > > A perfect example of the Turing Test, but not in the way most people think > of it… > > > > https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084970/ > > > > You really were talking to a live human after step 2, but understand that > they are **REQUIRED** by our Legal Department, in order to comply with > many, many laws in many, many jurisdictions, to reply **ONLY** and pretty > much always with Boilerplate, and to follow strict policy on mitigation. > And that’s all I can say on that matter. > Ah, I've had *exactly *the same experience trying to engage with the deliverability team on a few occasions. The responses I had from MS deliverability are in places completely interchangeable with Franck's. However my clients don't send bulk mailings, just a consistent daily volume of standard B2B stuff. No huge sender history on the new IP obviously, but in a clean range from a reputable provider and the domain has over a decade of history. I've done my best to distribute that reputation by amending the SPF record in advance of the server move and all the usual stuff one does to maintain reputation during a migration. If MS legal is compelling the deliverability team to only perform a handful of predetermined tasks and only reply with boilerplate, surely it's hindering them to the extent that they're nearly useless? I imagine many people are contacting them with more complex issues, which it sounds like they can't help with due to their restrictions. I know from experience operating across jurisdictions can be a challenge. But this is the technical matter of supporting email deliverability, not mortgage advice or contract negotiation... :-) As an operator attempting to interact with MS systems, my squeaky clean operation seems to make no difference. Deliverability support could function better for people and 'smaller' senders in these situations. I've had correspondence similar to Franck's where problems aren't solved. Ultimately, emails to tenants on MS services aren't reaching them, through no fault of the senders - a degraded quality of service for MS' paying customers. How long will customers tolerate it once they realise their provider's silently discarding or misclassifying legitimate mail? To me, that seems like a fundamental thing you shouldn't do by default. Should it be a priority for MS to ensure legit email makes it to tenants from smaller senders? I feel like the current approach needs improvement. Michael, I appreciate your responses and thanks for continuing to engage with the list. I know you probably can't respond specifically to this given contractual/legal limitations. I hope discussions are being had at MS about how the deliverability process and feedback loop can be improved. Current mechanisms don't seem to be there yet. It would also be very useful if things like the current thresholds on services like SNDS could be lowered to include lower volume senders, not just commercial emailers and high volume senders. The current minimum throughput seems quite arbitrary (despite having IPs I administer registered in SNDS, I don't see any data). I'm sure I'm not alone on this one. I hope discussion from fora like mailop gets fed back internally for consideration, improving the deliverability support will definitely benefit everyone in the long run. Yours optimistically, Chris
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
