Flip flopping means it is being flagged sometimes, and other times not. That is the behavior change I was referring to.
-wes On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:32 PM Ben Koenig <[email protected]> wrote: > What do you mean by "flip flop" I take it to mean that the behavior has > changed. > > Removing the footer didnt affect anything on my end. It also didnt change > anything for Tomas since he mentioned early on that he wasnt seeing the > problem. > > How is flipping it back on going to change things if turning it off did > nothing? > > -Ben > > Sent from ProtonMail mobile > > -------- Original Message -------- > On Jun 3, 2021, 6:20 PM, wes wrote: > > > I suppose the only thing missing might be due to your decision to exclude > > organizational gmail users. that is, of course, your call to make for > > yourself, but I disagree with the reasoning behind it. > > > > if we include them, then we see flip-flopping. which means we still don't > > have a clear picture of a specific cause. we could hypothesize that this > > indicates the spam score is very near gmail's flag threshold, so maybe > > removing the footer brought it down slightly. using an MTA that isn't on > a > > blacklist might bring it down by a larger amount. what we need to do is > put > > the footer back and see how that affects it. > > > > either way, we only have a few data points, so certainly not enough to > draw > > any conclusions. > > > > -wes > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:11 PM Tomas Kuchta < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> I was giving feedback that it might resolve itself + I was being smart > >> about it. > >> > >> Yes, I feel that the discussion is not moving productively anywhere and > we > >> are not learning. But .... I am not participating, nor feel > >> offended/upset/etc.... I do not really mind. > >> > >> Tomas > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, 20:32 wes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > I think this is an ongoing topic and probably doesn't need to be > closed. > >> > however you are welcome to use gmail's mute feature if you would like > to > >> > stop seeing it. > >> > > >> > the footer was removed last week or so, as a test at tom's request. > since > >> > then, I have seen emails from him flagged as spam, and also not > flagged. > >> > > >> > decisions to flag or not are based on a scoring system. each > indicator of > >> > email legitimacy is given a numerical value, and the scores from each > >> > factor found in a given email are added together. the email service > >> > provider sets a threshold of how high a score has to be to flag the > >> email. > >> > different providers will have different factors they consider, and set > >> > their own threshold. > >> > > >> > using linode to send emails is definitely a problem, even if you don't > >> see > >> > it. > >> > > >> > -wes > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:22 PM TomasK <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > FYI > >> > > > >> > > This email has landed in my gmail inbox, not spam - perhaps it is > time > >> > > to retire this super long thread - before enough people mark is as > spam > >> > > - LOL. > >> > > > >> > > Maybe gmail-machines (yes it is Matrix reference) pays attention to > >> > > human replies and re-classifies ... > >> > > > >> > > Tomas > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, 2021-06-03 at 14:11 -0700, Tom wrote: > >> > > > > Hello, > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks for reaching out to inform us about this blocklisting. We > >> > > > understand and share your concern regarding the recent listing of > our > >> > > > ASN with UCEPROTECT's Level 3 service. After researching the > details > >> > > > of > >> > > > the listing, we have determined that the Level 3 service offered > by > >> > > > UCEPROTECT is not reputable, and we will not be paying for > delisting > >> > > > from their service. > >> > > > > >> > > > If you discovered this listing as a result of researching a > bounced > >> > > > email, can you please tell us the name of the mail provider which > >> > > > rejected your mail? We have found that customers reaching out > >> > > > regarding > >> > > > this listing are really being rejected by internal RBLs of mail > >> > > > providers, but are reaching out because the UCEPROTECT listing is > the > >> > > > only public service where they were able to find their IP address > >> > > > listed. We can usually request delisting with most providers if > >> > > > you're > >> > > > able to provide us the following information: > >> > > > > >> > > > A copy of the 550 bounce code from the mail server > >> > > > The domain name sending mail > >> > > > Confirmation that SPF has been configured for the domain sending > >> > > > mail > >> > > > > >> > > > We understand the importance of email deliverability and how it > >> > > > impacts > >> > > > our customers, which is why all Linode accounts created after > >> > > > November > >> > > > 2019 are incapable of sending any email by default: > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> https://www.linode.com/blog/linode/a-new-policy-to-help-fight-spa > >> > > > m/ > >> > > > > >> > > > Thank you in advance for providing the requested information. > We’re > >> > > > happy to work towards getting your Linode’s IP address removed > from > >> > > > any > >> > > > blocklists that may be causing deliverability issues for your > mail. > >> > > > Please let us know if you have any questions, or if you need > anything > >> > > > else. > >> > > > >> > > >>
