Pete Long said:
> Great answer. I'd add that no computer code is ever free of bugs; these
> might not be immediately obvious but they're likely to be found and not
> always by the 'good guys'.
> Plus features. ;)
New features add new bugs. If you don't add new features, you reduce the
need fo
m...@dorfdsl.de said:
> Bypassing spam checking would make spammers use exactly that way to send
> spam.
Sorry I wasn't clear enough.
My "handshke to set things up" was meant to keep out spammers.
The idea was that the final receiving MTA would know that it was expecting
forwarded mail for us
I expect that there would be a protocol to handle it. I can't be the only one
who has thought of this. After a handshke to set things up, the sender adds a
forwarding header and the receiver verifies that a forwarded message is coming
from an allowed IP Address then bypasses spam checking for
Robert L Mathews said:
> I hope nobody creates MUA features that show non-BIMI logos in the same space
> as BIMI logos (or that make it difficult for users to notice the difference,
> such as a tiny padlock superimposed on it sometimes).
Superimposing something to indicate validity won't work.
Giovanni Bechis said:
> I maintain an ESP rbl that includes SalesForce bad customers,
How well does that work?
This month, I have 6 copies of the same crap:
After reviewing your company's profile, we believe that
your knowledge and experience will be beneficial to the
projects that ARAMCO i
> To receive first an email requesting you to confirm your address, only to
> next receive another email from them with the actual information? That seems
> over-engineered...
How often is it only one message? I typically get 3, often 4 sometimes even 5:
we got your order
we shipped it
it
> That's the industry standard: block after abuse. Instead, t-online.de uses
> block-and-maybe-unblock-after-contact. This is not how email is supposed to
> work.
I thought the standard was your server, your rules.
It's fine to whine and rant here, but that isn't going to change anything.
Figh
ra...@usebouncer.com said:
> - marketing teams coming to us from Marketing SaaSs, who, during customer
> onboarding, notice that the quality of email lists is low and send their
> customers to us to clean it first.
My alarm bells went off on one of your first messages when you said little
guys
Radek Kaczynski said:
> That's interesting indeed - we haven't implemented SMTP VRFY as it is very
> uncommon.
> However, I truly think that it would be great to use VRFY instead of "broken
> SMTP trick".
> I would be more than happy to pay to use it - or give back to the community
> or charity.
Is there any hard data? This seems like thesis bait. I'd expect there to be
a steady trickle of papers or reports with good data on political spam. Where
are they?
I hear lots of complaints by conservatives/Republicans that the spam filters
are biased against them. If they send more spam,
> so I typically wouldn't even wax poetic about it here on Mailop,
I think ESPs and ISPs should know better and be setting a good example.
Publicity here may encourage others not to do the same thing.
How did a guy like that get past HR?
If you were running HR, could you filter out people like t
> Professor Jonathan Mayer
A direct note may shortcut a few layers of bureaucracy.
He has both a Ph.D. in computer science and a J.D. from Stanford.
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/jonathan-mayer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Mayer
I don't know him personally, but I think
Brandon Long said:
> If you received say... a million ab...@gmail.com emails a day, how would you
> handle that?
What fraction is actually spam?
What fraction is useful?
What happened to ARF? Was it useful? Does anybody use it? (When I looked at
it, many years ago, it didn't seem to fit wh
Scott Mutter said:
> If spam is sent from one of our servers - the IP address of one of our
> servers - it's me you ultimately want to contact, not the owner of the IP
> address. If you contact the owner of the IP address - they don't have root
> access to the server - they will have to filter th
> Is there any precedent on how fresh / recent the "established business
> relationship" must be to cover sending largely superfluous email?
Sure, simple. If it is superfluous, don't send it.
> If it's been less than a year since I conducted business with the sender and
> they have an unsubsc
Michael Peddemors:
> Really wish there was a verifiable way to see that it was a 'Double Optin/
> COI' email..
Has anybody investigated that area?
I think the recipient's ISP would have to get involved with the signup and
unsubscribe process and keep track of which lists the user is signed up
> What one recipient sees as spam another recipient not only wants, theyâve
> actually gone through a COI process to confirm they want it.
Has anybody investigated getting the recipient's MTA involved in the COI and
unsubscribe dance?
The idea is that if the recipient's MTA knew that the use
> Thank you, but your reply appears to be a reiteration of what is said
> to be current practise. I don't see an answer to my question about
> considering ip addresses individually.
There are variations on that question.
Suppose you get spam from an IP Address.
Do you block the address, or cont
Damon said:
> I have asked around and got a few opposing answers. Plain text vs. HTML,
> images ok/images not-ok, Opt-out Link at top or bottom, send from
> transactional IP vs. customer's 'regular' IP, CTA incentive for re-engaging
> included or not.
You skipped the most important part. Send ma
michael.w...@microsoft.com said:
> The problem is ... trying to avoid mailbombing the abuse@ address by
> spammers.
Are spammers just stupidly sending to abuse@, deliberately trying to DoS
abuse@, or is the problem spam reporters sending to every abuse@ mailbox they
can find? (or something I h
> Hey, senders or receivers or spam filterers. Do you use abuse.net? Do you
> register client domains with abuse.net? Do you query it to see where to send
> complaints? Do you forward complaints through it?
I think they dropped the forwarding.
I query it occasionally.
For my uses, it has mostl
> Some of them do and clearly states how many months they keep a 5xx error
> before turning the domain into a spamtrap.
Is there a BCP or consensus on how long a list can sit inactive before it
should be thrown away?
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
> In my experience with the banking industry, they think of their email as
> something that their customers always want to read for sure.
I remember a story from many years ago. A bank had spammed somebody after
they had opted out. The story from the bank was that they had opted out of
marke
[Discussing Hetzner]
> Keep reminding us of that by reducing the volume of spam leaving your
> network and responding promptly to abuse notifications. :)
I sent them a spam report recently. I got a prompt auto-ack.
ab...@hetzner.de said:
> Our office hours concerning abuse enquiries are Mond
> ARC is the very-near-future solution to much of this. Get your vendors on it.
> http://arc-spec.org
I'm missing something. What keeps a bad guy from setting up shop and
claiming to be forwarding mail and claiming that SPF was valid on the crap he
is sending?
It seems to me that a critical st
mailop-requ...@mailop.org said:
> In reality I would love nothing more then to disable forwarding
> functionality from our side, but since almost every other host appears to
> offers that type of system we may potentially shoot ourselves in the foot by
> doing so.
Why can't your customers pull t
> There is currently no way to deliver spam to abuse@
Google isn't the only problem. There are lots of outfits that do content
filtering on their abuse mailbox.
It seem reasonable to reject mail from IP Addresses on black lists, but
rejecting spam reports because they look like spam seems sil
Al Iverson said:
>> best done by implementing SRS/PRVS/BATV: it creates time-limited
> Do this for years on a high traffic environment with lots of mail and lots
> of users and lots of individual bounces to track, then you'll find that
> you're fending off zillions of connection attempts, spammer
> * They like having a mail server that costs them $0/year for the last 8
> years, so they don't want to pay $200/mo to switch to Exchange online.
How much is their non-delivery problem costing them? Be sure to include
lost-time as well as charges that show up on a bill
> I guess one of those t
> At some point, perhaps the mail server infrastructure needs to manage
> sub/unsub events, and enforce them?
The technical side doesn't seem too hard, but the political side would
probably be "interesting".
What fraction of lists/traffic is currently not explicit opt-in? The case I
see is ge
> 2) emphasize how easy it is to unsubscribe, also at the TOP of the email.
I agree that people who sign up for a mailing list should unsubscribe when
they change their mind, but there are a lot of senders who add people to
lists without asking or even mentioning that the list exists.
> 1) e
31 matches
Mail list logo
