On 2022-07-22 at 12:45:18 UTC-0400 (Fri, 22 Jul 2022 12:45:18 -0400)
Luis E. Muñoz via mailop <mailop@lem.click>
is rumored to have said:
On 22 Jul 2022, at 11:49, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
This would allow the ESP to quickly "fail" the API request to send
to that email address. There are other metrics that could be tied
into those addresses and used to provide a more expedite response to
the caller, which incidentally would also help deter abuse.
In many, many cases the issue is that other customers are mailing to
the same address - and just because an address bounces for X sender
doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be mailed for Y sender. One clear
example is when senders push individual user blocks out to the SMTP
transaction.
I question your assertion that "bounces for X sender doesn’t mean
that it shouldn’t be mailed for Y sender". If recipient R has a
history of blocking many senders, continuing to send from other
senders is not worth it in the long run for the ESP. Just as receivers
reject with errors such as "this account is receiving email at a rate
that...", the ESP could respond to its client with "this receiver has
a history of bounces / rejections / complaints that is incompatible
with our policies...".
If only we had a framework for error codes in SMTP that carry useful
semantics...
Forcing a COI at that stage would revert this status and return to the
status quo. Implementation in small steps. But this require the ESPs
to willingly step out of the box to want to make things better.
The economic incentives are likely not there, unfortunately.
There it is.
ESPs don't make money by not sending spam.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
