Re: [mailop] mailop Digest, Vol 7, Issue 28
Len Shneyder is a great guy and part of the old guard. I trust he hasn't moved to the darkside. I am sure he is doing as much as he can but there isn't much help out there for those of us responsible for keeping bad actors off our systems. RBLs: You've hit too many traps or exceeded some threshold - we're adding you. ESPs: We remove all unsubs, have signed up for FBLs from everyone that offers them, track bounces/complaint/abuse rates, perform spot checks daily, take every abuse complaint and research it, but I have 10K customers with new ones signing up for our service every day! Can you give me more information that will help us identify the bad actor without revealing the trap addresses or complainant? RBLs: No - You're spammers and we'll call you out on mail-ops by name - Good luck. The biggest headache I have - trying to track down bad actors or customers that are good, just doing it wrong. Want an ESPs to reduce spam? Help them! (in real-time preferably so they can shut down current queues) - Damon > Subject: Re: [mailop] Sendgrid is giving others anti-abuse/security > advice? Wow! > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > How is this post related to a current specific operational concern? > I'm not seeing how it's on topic. > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:52 AM Rob McEwen via mailop > wrote: > > > > These questions! WOW! IS THIS FOR REAL? Don't get me wrong, I like Len > > Shneyder and I think he's a good person TRYING to do the right thing - but > > - considering what is coming FROM SendGrid in recent years, is this the > > right time to be giving OTHERS anti-abuse/security advice? Just... wow! I > > think they should instead consider trying to "lead by example". The world > > would certainly become a MUCH better place! > > https://martechseries.com/mts-insights/tech-bytes/len-shneyder-twilio-sendgrid/ > > > > -- > > Rob McEwen, invaluement ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] mailop Digest, Vol 7, Issue 28
mailops folks, I reread my hastily and poorly thought out post and I am realizing that I let my frustrations get the best of me - I would like to apologize to my very good friend Rob McEwen. I was not trying to call him out specifically. In fact, I believe invaluement is likely in the Top 5 (closer to #1) of the best things out there right now... and he is so very responsive and open to suggestions and ways to make it better. I have a long-time background as postmaster with hundreds of thousands of users that I tried to protect from UCE/Spam. Since, I have moved to the sender side and am trying to make sure that my customers are legitimate and follow best-practices. So I am all too familiar with the struggles on both sides. I especially feel bad for Brandon, Lili and Michael as they have both sides to try to maintain. I remember before the Melissa virus, before Timex spam, sitting at my desk on a conference call with hundreds of my peers around the world waiting for 2000-1-1 00:00:00:001 ... from the ASRG, MAAWG (How many were there at first .. what 10 of us?), SPF, DKIM, to DMARC ... and thanks to the hard work of Hadmut, Paul, the John's, Bill, Dave, Al, Jim, Jay, Frank, Ben, Rob and many others I hope I can still call friends, we have come a very LONG way... but somewhere in there trust was broken and we stopped working together as close as we used to ISPs/MSPs/ESPs... maybe we can come up with a way to do that again. - Damon ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] No one is "too big" anymore
I have found that Clickbank is unwittingly(?) causing an issue with their abandon cart process. One just needs to fill in the email address or just click a link that has the address auto-filled- That's it. Don't have to hit submit or anything. That address is added to the abandoned cart funnel. As far as I can tell, there are zero anti-abuse functions in this process. -Damon ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] mailop Digest, Vol 142, Issue 35
Back in the day of the IETF ASRG, I think we said it’s spam if the user calls it spam. In other words - it’s in the eye of the beholder. For legal purposes UBE, and later UCE, were defined with the legal speak. Regards, Damon Sauer On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM wrote: > Send mailop mailing list submissions to > mailop@mailop.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > mailop-requ...@mailop.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > mailop-ow...@mailop.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of mailop digest..." > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Michael Rathbun) >2. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) >3. Re: Weird blocking by outlook.com (S3150) (Michael Peddemors) >4. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Michael Rathbun) >5. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Jay Hennigan) >6. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Jay Hennigan) >7. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Al Iverson) >8. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Michael Wise) > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Michael Rathbun > To: Andrew C Aitchison > Cc: "mailop@mailop.org" > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:15:51 -0500 > Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:40:55 +0100 (BST), Andrew C Aitchison via mailop > wrote: > > >You can't use engagement like that. > > Everyday experience with a large number of volume mailer clients says > that, in > the general case, you not only can, you must. There have been public > statements by staff at major providers to this effect. They have noticed > that > a major cost is imposed by accepting, scanning and storing email for > abandoned > or inactive accounts. They tend to put systems in place to reduce those > costs. > > >I consider the weekly/monthly email from a clothes store that gives me > >a discount for being on their email list to be SPAM. > > Spam being unsolicited broadcast email, I would say that if you agree to > receive it, it cannot be spam. This definition has held up well over the > twenty-five years I've been involved in the industry. > > >I consider the annual email from my old school HAM. > >I read this but never reply, and it doesn't have cookies or other > phone-home > >features, so the list maintainers can only process unsubscribe requests > >and bounces to keep the list clean. > > An edge case, to be sure. I am on some lists that are extremely > intermittent. > They are also guaranteed to be made up of real people who asked for the > email. > Bounce and unsubscribe processing, and the occasional review of deferrals > for > "account over quota" should keep the mailer out of trouble. > > >There is an email marketeers "rule" about frequent mail shots to keep > >engagement up. I see this as a good definition of the junk mail sender. > > In such cases, the recipients may decide to revoke their permission. If > mailing continues after unsubscribe, then the sender is a spammer, possibly > due solely to incompetence. > > mdr > -- > "There are no laws here, only agreements." > -- Masahiko > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." > To: Michael Rathbun via mailop > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:06:40 -0600 > Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score > > > Spam being unsolicited broadcast email, I would say that if you agree to > > receive it, it cannot be spam. This definition has held up well over the > > twenty-five years I've been involved in the industry. > > Indeed, and it was formalized in item (2) in the Vixie/Mitchell defintion > of spam, which was promulgated ~20 years ago: > > “An electronic message is “spam” IF: (1) the recipient’s personal identity > and context are > irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other > potential recipients; > AND (2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and > still-revocable > permission for it to be sent; AND (3) the transmission and reception of > the message > appears to the recipient to give a disproportionate benefit to the sender.” > > Interesting sidenote: While this definition was originally posted on the > MAPS website, lo those ~20 years ago, I note that it is now posted on > thousands of sites. > > Anne > > --- > > Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law > Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose > CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy > SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification > Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) > Legislative Consultant > GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Com
[mailop] Best Re-engagement Email
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. Anyone have any really good examples of ubiquitous re-engagement email content and/or would like to share some insight/direction? Regards, Damon ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] mailop Digest, Vol 143, Issue 30
I pinged several legitimate email marketing directors I know with list sizes totalling well north of a billion (combined) and surprisingly they all agreed that reengagement/win-back (or whatever semantics you wish to use) is not a thing. They all agreed to stop sending them and promised to try to limit their lists to a maximum of 4 non-engager's each and no bounces. In reality though... I like text only but that runs afoul of 'everything has to be measured'. I generally ask that they exclude marketing in the messages and the only CTA is to stay on the list.. or unsubscribe now vs. just falling off the list when the campaign is finished. I deal only with legitimate companies so I am unable to comment on how a spammer might do it. My campaign thoughts have been for this type of campaign... the above + light email (above the page only), html version of text, logo w/ optional sig line image & tracker only for images, 2 emails a week (wed/sat) for 4 weeks (personally I would only do one email a week but this was a happy medium for most marketing departments I have dealt with). If no engagement after the campaign is over - drop them. Regards, Damon > > Re-engagement is not a thing It's something marketers would like to > happen but it simply does not work well! > > I saw plenty of panicked customers who did not understand GDPR try and > re-permission entire lists where they may not have had to and their lists > got decimated. > > > On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 20:36, Damon via mailop wrote: > >> 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. >> >> Anyone have any really good examples of ubiquitous re-engagement email >> content and/or would like to share some insight/direction? >> >> Regards, >> Damon >> ___ >> mailop mailing list >> mailop@mailop.org >> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >> > > > -- > > [image: Instiller Logo] <https://www.instiller.co.uk> > Dave Holmes > Technical Director > > d...@instiller.co.uk > T 0333 939 0013 | M 07966 013 309 > 1 Park Farm Barns | Packington Lane | Stonebridge | CV7 7TL > > > Instiller is a trademark of Instiller Limited, registered in England > 5053657. > > This email contains proprietary information, some of which may be legally > privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. > If an addressing or transmission in error has misdirected this email, > please notify the author by replying to this email. > If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, > distribute, copy, print or rely on this email. > ___ > 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
[mailop] Yahoo Canned Response Loop
@Lili Please see incident 03573293 I can't get past the canned responses no matter how many times I escalate -Damon ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] mailop Digest, Vol 152, Issue 78
I wish we could go back to the old days where a postmaster could just send an email or pick up the phone. You know who I am! I'm trying my best to kill abusers of my system - not help them! But, alas, I understand there aren't 20 of us anymore. :) Regards, Damon On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 5:15 PM wrote: > > Send mailop mailing list submissions to > mailop@mailop.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > mailop-requ...@mailop.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > mailop-ow...@mailop.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of mailop digest..." > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Microsoft Block list (S3150) > (Hans-Martin Mosner) >2. Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Microsoft Block list (S3150) (Scott Mutter) >3. Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Microsoft Block list (S3150) > (Luis E. =?utf-8?q?Mu=C3=B1oz?=) >4. Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Microsoft Block list (S3150) (Richard W) > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Hans-Martin Mosner > To: mailop@mailop.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 21:57:40 +0200 > Subject: Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Microsoft Block list (S3150) > Am 29.06.20 um 21:30 schrieb Michael Wise via mailop: > > > > A *VERY* strong economic argument. > > > > I know. I'm mainly venting my frustration, knowing too well that my activity > won't flip a single bit in Redmond. > > Hoping that some organization would do the right thing because it's the right > thing to do has become pretty futile (not saying that there ever was much > hope...) > > Cheers, > Hans-Martin > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Scott Mutter > To: mailop@mailop.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:11:18 -0500 > Subject: Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Microsoft Block list (S3150) > Maybe the answer is that not enough other mail server administrators are > shining a light on just how poorly Microsoft (and any other big named > provider) does in regards to incidents like this. > > In my particular case at the moment, Microsoft is blocking one of our mail > server IPs. > > Microsoft has not provided any evidence that anything bad has ever come from > this IP address. (Which the pros/cons of disclosing this have already been > discussed) > > The IP is not listed on any other public spam blacklist. > > The IP has a Senderscore of 99 - which I think still means something? > > All-in-all I'm just not seeing why Microsoft is blocking the IP. Show me > some proof and I'll believe you. > > Outside of that, what am I suppose to do to resolve whatever that issue might > be? Since you won't tell me what the issue is. I guess you just want us to > lie on the ticket replies and say "We've resolved these issues" even though I > didn't do anything. This is how the problem just keeps snowballing into > larger and larger problems. > > Now is the IP blocked because of a larger class-C, class-B, or some subnet > block? That'd be nice to know. But even if it is, if you're not seeing any > activity from the specific IP address I'm referring to, why can't you just > whitelist that IP from the subnet block? > > It's impossible to get a hold of anyone using Microsoft website contact form > links that knows a lick about how their own mail servers work. If you tell > them that you're IP is blocked they try to figure out why you can't access > http://outlook.com > > All the while, our users see us as being the bad guys. They don't believe > that Microsoft/Hotmail/Outlook can be a bad guy because they're too big. I > would be half a good mind to tell our users to sign up for this Mailops > mailing list, just so they can read all of the horror stories that happen > with Microsoft/Hotmail/Outlook mail server blocks. > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:57 PM Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop > wrote: >> >> Am 29.06.20 um 21:30 schrieb Michael Wise via mailop: >> >> >> >> A *VERY* strong economic argument. >> >> >> >> I know. I'm mainly venting my frustration, knowing too well that my activity >> won't flip a single bit in Redmond. >> >> Hoping that some organization would do the right thing because it's the >> right thing to do has become pretty futile (not saying that there ever was >> much hope...) >> >> Cheers, >> Hans-Martin >> >> ___ >> mailop mailing list >> mailop@mailop.org >> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: "Luis E. Muñoz" > To: Scott Mutter > Cc: mailop@mailop.org > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:10:16 -0700 > Subject: Re: [mailop] [EXTERNAL] Re: Microsoft Block list (S3150) > > On 29 Jun 2020, at 14:11, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote: > > Microsoft has not provided any evidence t
Re: [mailop] Is forwarding to Gmail basically dead?
> BIMI is a marketing protocol, for promoting brand logos. What anti-abuse > benefit do you believe accrues with its use, and how exactly do you believe > it will achieve that? > > d/ But Dave - It only costs $1300USD per domain and $500USD for each additional domain for the cert, not including all the other costs for the aforementioned anti-abuse benefits. What a deal!.. or do I mean steal. I do believe attaching anti-spam/anti-phish benefits to the promotion of BIMI was a poor choice. It's pure marketing imho. As an email receiver, programmatically I can't verify the mark, so this is left to the human reader to attempt to do so. I don't have any issues with it being used as an extension of branding. -Damon ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
