Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop]

* Michael Wise via mailop :
> 
> 
> Sometimes ... pristine ... isn't.

Thought so.
 
> Presuppose y'all are doing bounce processing?

Yes.


This raises a question regaring spam traps: 

*** Shouldn't spam traps reject all mails after the END-OF-DATA? ***

1) That way the spam trap addresses would eventually be removed by
   bounce processing

2) At the same time the content of the email could be examined by the
   spam trap operator.

-- 
Ralf Hildebrandt   Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin
ralf.hildebra...@charite.deCampus Benjamin Franklin
https://www.charite.de Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin
Geschäftsbereich IT, Abt. Netzwerk fon: +49-30-450.570.155

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Mathieu Bourdin via mailop]

>*** Shouldn't spam traps reject all mails after the END-OF-DATA? ***

If they did, they would be easily identifiable, and thus would have no value.
The thing with spamtraps is that they should not be in your DB in the first 
place (especially pristine ones) or should have been trimmed from your DB a 
long time ago (back when they went from a usable user address to a bouncing 
address before being reactivated as a spamtrap).



-Message d'origine-
De : mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] De la part de Ralf Hildebrandt 
via mailop
Envoyé : jeudi 22 août 2019 09:45
À : mailop@mailop.org
Objet : Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

* Michael Wise via mailop :
> 
> 
> Sometimes ... pristine ... isn't.

Thought so.
 
> Presuppose y'all are doing bounce processing?

Yes.


This raises a question regaring spam traps: 

*** Shouldn't spam traps reject all mails after the END-OF-DATA? ***

1) That way the spam trap addresses would eventually be removed by
   bounce processing

2) At the same time the content of the email could be examined by the
   spam trap operator.

-- 
Ralf Hildebrandt   Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin
ralf.hildebra...@charite.deCampus Benjamin Franklin
https://www.charite.de Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin
Geschäftsbereich IT, Abt. Netzwerk fon: +49-30-450.570.155

___
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

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Laura Atkins via mailop]

> On 22 Aug 2019, at 08:53, Mathieu Bourdin via mailop  
> wrote:
> 
>> *** Shouldn't spam traps reject all mails after the END-OF-DATA? ***
> 
> If they did, they would be easily identifiable, and thus would have no value.

Not sure I understand this point of view. I think everyone should be rejecting 
after DATA, if only to stop the abuse of the email address validation services. 

> The thing with spamtraps is that they should not be in your DB in the first 
> place (especially pristine ones) or should have been trimmed from your DB a 
> long time ago (back when they went from a usable user address to a bouncing 
> address before being reactivated as a spamtrap).


This is a very limited view and one which fails to account for the realities on 
the ground. 

The reality is spamtraps (pristine, recycled, whatever the term du jour is 
regularly end up on lists because people submit addresses as part of their 
online existence. Sometimes they give the wrong address. Sometimes that’s on 
purpose (I want your thing but don’t want mail from you) and sometimes it’s an 
accident (I don’t know my address or I fat finger something). Some of those 
wrong addresses have never been used before. Some of those wrong addresses 
belong to third parties. Some of those wrong addresses used to belong to 
someone but were abandoned some period of time ago. 

I don’t know who came up with this whole “pristine” and “recycled” spamtrap 
thing, but the terminology has not brought any clarity to discussions. 

laura 


-- 
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
la...@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741  

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog 







___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] RE: Return Path / Sender Score

[Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop]

* Mathieu Bourdin :
> Hi again,
> 
> 

> First, a precision: my reply is missing 2 lines wich, for short,
> were saying: "but usually you don't get listed on the first sending to
> a trap,

Yes, because that would instantaneously blacklist all servers sending 
double-opt-in
mails

> it's more an accumulation of emails to different traps that
> get you in trouble form what I understand of how traps work".

Hopefully.
 
> Second: yeah if the domain/address you are sending to was giving you
> "proof of life" (answers and so on) until very recently and is now
> being used as a trap that would be kinda rude (and not very useful to
> detect actual spammers), most trap owners I have spoken with usually
> say that they will bounce (hard) mails for at least 6 months straight
> on re-used addresses (and most say they do it for at least a year).

That should suffice. There's of course super low traffic announce lists
(which only send out mails every 3-6 months) which could cause mailman
not to accumulate enough bounces in a short timeperiod for delisting.

But if the spamtraps were on those low-traffic lists, we would never
notice.

-- 
Ralf Hildebrandt   Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin
ralf.hildebra...@charite.deCampus Benjamin Franklin
https://www.charite.de Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin
Geschäftsbereich IT, Abt. Netzwerk fon: +49-30-450.570.155

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] RE: Return Path / Sender Score

[Kelly Molloy via mailop]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 6:50 AM Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop
 wrote:
>
> * Mathieu Bourdin :
> > Hi again,
> >
> >
>
> > First, a precision: my reply is missing 2 lines wich, for short,
> > were saying: "but usually you don't get listed on the first sending to
> > a trap,
>
> Yes, because that would instantaneously blacklist all servers sending 
> double-opt-in
> mails

If you are a smart spamtrap operator, you would have code that
recognizes a confirmation message and flags someone to look at the
trap is volume gets unreasonable.

> > it's more an accumulation of emails to different traps that
> > get you in trouble form what I understand of how traps work".
>
> Hopefully.

IME, if you send even a single phishing/malware email, you'll get
blocked right quick.

> > Second: yeah if the domain/address you are sending to was giving you
> > "proof of life" (answers and so on) until very recently and is now
> > being used as a trap that would be kinda rude (and not very useful to
> > detect actual spammers), most trap owners I have spoken with usually
> > say that they will bounce (hard) mails for at least 6 months straight
> > on re-used addresses (and most say they do it for at least a year).

A year is IMHO best practice.

--kelly

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] RE: Return Path / Sender Score

[Michael Ellis via mailop]

> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 6:50 AM Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop
>  wrote:
>>
>> * Mathieu Bourdin :
>> > Hi again,
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > First, a precision: my reply is missing 2 lines wich, for short,
>> > were saying: "but usually you don't get listed on the first sending to
>> > a trap,
>>
>> Yes, because that would instantaneously blacklist all servers sending
>> double-opt-in
>> mails
>
> If you are a smart spamtrap operator, you would have code that
> recognizes a confirmation message and flags someone to look at the
> trap is volume gets unreasonable.
>
>> > it's more an accumulation of emails to different traps that
>> > get you in trouble form what I understand of how traps work".
>>
>> Hopefully.
>
> IME, if you send even a single phishing/malware email, you'll get
> blocked right quick.
>
>> > Second: yeah if the domain/address you are sending to was giving you
>> > "proof of life" (answers and so on) until very recently and is now
>> > being used as a trap that would be kinda rude (and not very useful to
>> > detect actual spammers), most trap owners I have spoken with usually
>> > say that they will bounce (hard) mails for at least 6 months straight
>> > on re-used addresses (and most say they do it for at least a year).
>
> A year is IMHO best practice.
>
> --kelly
>

Definitely best practice. I have several companies that email me once a
year for a particular event, like the WW2 re-enactment even in PA every
June.  Six months would not have fixed it and they would get ensnared in
the trap

Michael

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Michael Wise via mailop]

For any high volume email handlers, there’s very little information available 
at the Edge when it comes to EndOfData.
And rejecting after that is catastrophic more often than not.

And yes, it outs your trap to those who bother to look at their logs.
Which might only be the occasional email nerd, or spammers.

Aloha,
Michael.
--
Michael J Wise
Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
"Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
Got the Junk Mail Reporting 
Tool<http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=18275> ?

From: mailop  On Behalf Of Laura Atkins via mailop
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 1:40 AM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score


On 22 Aug 2019, at 08:53, Mathieu Bourdin via mailop 
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:

*** Shouldn't spam traps reject all mails after the END-OF-DATA? ***

If they did, they would be easily identifiable, and thus would have no value.

Not sure I understand this point of view. I think everyone should be rejecting 
after DATA, if only to stop the abuse of the email address validation services.


The thing with spamtraps is that they should not be in your DB in the first 
place (especially pristine ones) or should have been trimmed from your DB a 
long time ago (back when they went from a usable user address to a bouncing 
address before being reactivated as a spamtrap).

This is a very limited view and one which fails to account for the realities on 
the ground.

The reality is spamtraps (pristine, recycled, whatever the term du jour is 
regularly end up on lists because people submit addresses as part of their 
online existence. Sometimes they give the wrong address. Sometimes that’s on 
purpose (I want your thing but don’t want mail from you) and sometimes it’s an 
accident (I don’t know my address or I fat finger something). Some of those 
wrong addresses have never been used before. Some of those wrong addresses 
belong to third parties. Some of those wrong addresses used to belong to 
someone but were abandoned some period of time ago.

I don’t know who came up with this whole “pristine” and “recycled” spamtrap 
thing, but the terminology has not brought any clarity to discussions.

laura


--
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
la...@wordtothewise.com<mailto:la...@wordtothewise.com>
(650) 437-0741

Email Delivery Blog: 
https://wordtothewise.com/blog<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwordtothewise.com%2Fblog&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C0e91e4b4fb824219391108d726dcb03f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637020601665245821&sdata=oAtYTiqKtiS%2FB1iyofSJG0%2FQs5E%2FO9LiHe2tU7359Pk%3D&reserved=0>






___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Michael Rathbun via mailop]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:39:31 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop
 wrote:

>Not sure I understand this point of view. I think everyone should be rejecting 
>after DATA, if only to stop the abuse of the email address validation 
>services. 

For defined spam traps here, we accept the message (although we will 550 every
additional account after a trap is first detected) and send it to Rev. Bayes
for digestion.  The server will quaintly detach and quarantine any hostile
attachments.  Thereafter, the sending IP address is dropped [back] into the
ban list -- 1440 to 21,660 minutes, depending upon whether (or how often) we
have seen this perpetrator before.

>> The thing with spamtraps is that they should not be in your DB in the first 
>> place (especially pristine ones) or should have been trimmed from your DB a 
>> long time ago (back when they went from a usable user address to a bouncing 
>> address before being reactivated as a spamtrap).
>
>
>This is a very limited view and one which fails to account for the realities 
>on the ground. 
>
>The reality is spamtraps (pristine, recycled, whatever the term du jour is 
>regularly end up on lists because people submit addresses as part of their 
>online existence. Sometimes they give the wrong address. Sometimes that’s on 
>purpose (I want your thing but don’t want mail from you) and sometimes it’s an 
>accident (I don’t know my address or I fat finger something). Some of those 
>wrong addresses have never been used before. Some of those wrong addresses 
>belong to third parties. Some of those wrong addresses used to belong to 
>someone but were abandoned some period of time ago. 

A goodly number of the traps here began receiving spam within a few hours of
the domain honet.com being registered in 1997.  Others were made up by
somebody (the Long Family, e.g.) and others were created by some ratware
appending various characters to an otherwise valid address, and then sold on. 
Then there is the bucket full of tagged addresses stolen from (or sold by?)
some online vendors.  And, of course, the addresses scraped from
http://www.honet.com/Nadine.   On average about 220 IP addresses walk into
this propeller every day.   So sad.

There are several hundred of these trap addresses, and for ESPs I have
confidence in, the complete list is available for use in detecting bad-faith
data uploads.  The original "Nadine" address is treated differently:  it
forwards to places like SpamCop.

In our experience, if you mail to addresses that haven't engaged (subscribe,
open, click) in the previous 90 to 180 days, there is a growing tendency for
your IPs/domains to be classified as spammaceous and dealt with appropriately.


>I don’t know who came up with this whole “pristine” and “recycled” spamtrap 
>thing, but the terminology has not brought any clarity to discussions. 

In '1984' there's Newspeak.  Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak.  Clarity in
discussion is to be avoided at any (reasonable) cost.

mdr (an extremely disturbed nerd, as our old friend Sanford would have it)
-- 
"Honest folk do not wear masks when they enter a bank."
   -- Unspiek, Baron Bodissey


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop]

* Michael Wise via mailop :
> 
> 
> You'd be surprised at the blank stares I've gotten in certain venues when I 
> bring up Bounce Processing.

Oh. But indeed, our local morons here at the hospital keep sending out
their (opted in) mail to addresses long dead. Alas, no bounce
processing.

-- 
Ralf Hildebrandt   Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin
ralf.hildebra...@charite.deCampus Benjamin Franklin
https://www.charite.de Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin
Geschäftsbereich IT, Abt. Netzwerk fon: +49-30-450.570.155

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Andrew C Aitchison via mailop]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:


In our experience, if you mail to addresses that haven't engaged (subscribe,
open, click) in the previous 90 to 180 days, there is a growing tendency for
your IPs/domains to be classified as spammaceous and dealt with appropriately.


You can't use engagement like that.

I consider the weekly/monthly email from a clothes store that gives me
a discount for being on their email list to be SPAM.

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.


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.

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Michael Rathbun via mailop]

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


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop]

> 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) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Happy Resident: Boulder, Colorado
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Michael Rathbun via mailop]

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:06:40 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop"
 wrote:

>> 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. 

At airmail.net back in those antediluvian days, we did policy enforcement
based on the 'B' in UBE being "Bulk".  When I spoke to someone whom we had
terminated for sending UBE, he scoffed:  "Bulk!?  I only sent 11,000.  BULK
would be 100,000 or more."

Consequently, I looted the world of network terminology to distinguish
Unicast, Multicast, and Broadcast as basic classifications of messages, and we
then declared the 'B' in UBE to stand for Broadcast. So, you only have to send
two substantially identical messages to people who didn't give you explicit
permission for us to hose you off the deck for spamming.  This was in 1996.

mdr
-- 
   "There will be more spam."
  -- Paul Vixie


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Jay Hennigan via mailop]

On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:


In '1984' there's Newspeak.  Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak.  Clarity in
discussion is to be avoided at any (reasonable) cost.


Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing 
appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead 
of "confirmed opt-in".



--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Jay Hennigan via mailop]

On 8/22/19 23:40, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:


You can't use engagement like that.

I consider the weekly/monthly email from a clothes store that gives me
a discount for being on their email list to be SPAM.


If you willingly gave then your email address for that purpose, it is by 
no means spam. Not even close. You subscribed to their list. In 
consideration for the discount you agreed to receive their 
advertisements. Classifying this as spam is simply wrong. Spam is 
*unsolicited* bulk email. You solicited this email for your own 
financial gain.


(By the way, there's an app for that. Mailinator is your friend. If the 
sender has caught on and blocked mailinator, a freemail account you 
never open works just as well for exactly this as well as forced 
registration sites and the like.)



I consider the annual email from my old school HAM.


Did you sign up for the annual email or provide your address to the 
school expecting that they would email you? If so, not spam.


It's about consent, not content (or frequency of mailing).

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.


I very rarely open remote images and never pre-fetch DNS so the embedded 
spyware in much bulk email these days isn't a factor.



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.


It isn't even a factor. Did you agree to receive mailings of that nature 
from that sender or not? That's the only real consideration.


--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Al Iverson via mailop]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop
 wrote:
>
> On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
>
> > In '1984' there's Newspeak.  Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak.  Clarity in
> > discussion is to be avoided at any (reasonable) cost.
>
> Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing
> appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead
> of "confirmed opt-in".

It strikes me as shitty that when faced with the knowledge that
somebody has implemented confirmed opt-in, you choose to attack them
for calling it double opt-in, instead of being pleased that they've
implemented the practice.


-- 
al iverson // wombatmail // chicago
http://www.aliverson.com
http://www.spamresource.com

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Michael Wise via mailop]

/applause!

Aloha,
Michael.
--
Michael J Wise
Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
"Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
Got the Junk Mail Reporting 
Tool<http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=18275> ?



-Original Message-
From: mailop  On Behalf Of Michael Rathbun via mailop
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 9:19 AM
To: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. 
Cc: Michael Rathbun via mailop 
Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score



On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:06:40 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop"

mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:



>> 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.



At airmail.net back in those antediluvian days, we did policy enforcement based 
on the 'B' in UBE being "Bulk".  When I spoke to someone whom we had terminated 
for sending UBE, he scoffed:  "Bulk!?  I only sent 11,000.  BULK would be 
100,000 or more."



Consequently, I looted the world of network terminology to distinguish Unicast, 
Multicast, and Broadcast as basic classifications of messages, and we then 
declared the 'B' in UBE to stand for Broadcast. So, you only have to send two 
substantially identical messages to people who didn't give you explicit 
permission for us to hose you off the deck for spamming.  This was in 1996.



mdr

--

   "There will be more spam."

  -- Paul Vixie





___

mailop mailing list

mailop@mailop.org<mailto:mailop@mailop.org>

https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchilli.nosignal.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmailop&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C3eb3a8982eea4e5dad3a08d727e60615%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637021741214020517&sdata=yUIGA5YuH7BVL5wRoUJ1fXLC5w63bHKvZhGLK6hoUxw%3D&reserved=0
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop]

* Jay Hennigan via mailop :

> Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing
> appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead of
> "confirmed opt-in".

I'll rather use the term "confirmed opt-in" then :) 
Also, it makes more sense, since the recipient has to confirm the subscription.

I was just using "double opt in", since that's what senderscore et.al. use on 
their pages.

-- 
Ralf Hildebrandt   Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin
ralf.hildebra...@charite.deCampus Benjamin Franklin
https://www.charite.de Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin
Geschäftsbereich IT, Abt. Netzwerk fon: +49-30-450.570.155

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Matt Vernhout via mailop]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:43 PM Al Iverson via mailop 
wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop
>  wrote:
> >
> > On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
> >
> > > In '1984' there's Newspeak.  Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak.
> Clarity in
> > > discussion is to be avoided at any (reasonable) cost.
> >
> > Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing
> > appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead
> > of "confirmed opt-in".
>
> It strikes me as shitty that when faced with the knowledge that
> somebody has implemented confirmed opt-in, you choose to attack them
> for calling it double opt-in, instead of being pleased that they've
> implemented the practice.
>

 +1 it's the practice that's important not the name you give it.

Many marketing people use these two terms interchangeably, I'm probably
guilty of it myself over the last 20 years. They are even listed as the
same thing in the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-in_email#Confirmed_opt-in_(COI)/Double_opt-in_(DOI)
where
people will find it when searching "What is confirmed opt-in"

Many also see the term confirmed as "I sent you a note confirming that you
are now subscribed" so it's an equally bad term to hold someone too.

Pick your battles, the difference between using COI/DOI when the net result
is the one you want is not worth fighting over.

~ Matt Vernhout
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Laura Atkins via mailop]

> On 23 Aug 2019, at 18:35, Al Iverson via mailop  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop
>  wrote:
>> 
>> On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
>> 
>>> In '1984' there's Newspeak.  Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak.  Clarity in
>>> discussion is to be avoided at any (reasonable) cost.
>> 
>> Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing
>> appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead
>> of "confirmed opt-in".
> 
> It strikes me as shitty that when faced with the knowledge that
> somebody has implemented confirmed opt-in, you choose to attack them
> for calling it double opt-in, instead of being pleased that they've
> implemented the practice.


And let’s not forget, the entire anti-spammer premise of double opt-in being 
some sort of spammer speak being an attempt to make it look bad is complete and 
total fabrication. In reality the term double opt-in was coined by the company 
who patented the process as a way of demonstrating their email addresses were 
worth more. 

laura 

-- 
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
la...@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741  

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog 







___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Rob McEwen via mailop]

On 8/23/2019 1:11 PM, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote:

Spamspeak is alive and well



I think that MOST who say "double-opt-in" really mean COI. A while back, 
there was a small segment of blackhat spammers who twisted its meaning 
to be something other than COI - but I don't think that is happening 
anymore. Spamming still happens, they just don't try to argue anymore 
that their rare non-COI variation on "double-opt-in" is valid.


But if you want some REAL "spamspeak" you wouldn't believe how often 
I've heard marketers recently talk about their "cold email campaigns" 
with no shame. I then did an informal survey to a couple of high-quality 
marketing discussion forums - to see what exactly THEY think "cold email 
campaign" means - here is what happened:


https://www.linkedin.com/posts/invaluement_i-did-an-informal-poll-that-i-posted-on-two-activity-6570622686714712064-9IJH

--
Rob McEwen
https://www.invaluement.com


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Rob McEwen via mailop]

On 8/23/2019 4:03 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:


But if you want some REAL "spamspeak" you wouldn't believe how often 
I've heard marketers recently talk about their "cold email campaigns" 
with no shame. I then did an informal survey to a couple of 
high-quality marketing discussion forums - to see what exactly THEY 
think "cold email campaign" means - here is what happened:


https://www.linkedin.com/posts/invaluement_i-did-an-informal-poll-that-i-posted-on-two-activity-6570622686714712064-9IJH



Someone made fun of my comment above and said they "rolled their eyes" 
at it - in an email sent off-list to me, that I think they meant to send 
to the list. But I don't think they understood my point, due to possibly 
them not understanding the phrase "cold audiences"? (that is often used 
in modern day digital marketing)


The phrases "cold audiences" and "warm audiences" are absolutely 100% 
whitehat (and IMPORTANT!) marketing terms that refer to paid ads which 
are not spam. (just like paid TV commercials are not spam). These are 
terms that didn't become greatly known until the past several years, so 
many people outside of the marketing space are not familiar with these 
terms. Therefore, someone talking about their "cold email campaign" - is 
potentially trying to piggy back on the legitimacy of "cold audiences", 
except they're referring to mail-sending, not paid-ads. They're trying 
to ignore that distinction, and all that it implies, and make their 
spam-sending SEEM legit, since displaying paid ads to "cold audiences" 
is legit and not spamming. But that is NOT true for a "cold email 
campaign", even though they both share the word "cold". So that is why 
the phrase "cold email campaign" *is* an excellent example of "spamspeak".


--
Rob McEwen
https://www.invaluement.com
 

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Luke via mailop]

I did intend to send it to the whole list.

"Spamspeak" makes it sound so clandestine. So Orwellian. Like there is some
> subversive element on the list trying to turn the tides and normalize spam.
> Sounds spooky. Sounds provocative. Let's run with this.
> *Rolls eyes*


But yes, I was poking fun at the use of the term spamspeak. The allusion to
1984's newspeak or doublespeak is silly.

People who say "double opt in" instead of "confirmed opt in" aren't doing
so in some attempt to make the ugly truth about spam more palatable. People
who say "cold outreach" or "cold campaign" without realizing what they
actually mean is "unsolicited commercial email" or "spam" aren't trying to
manipulate the general public into thinking it is something that it isn't,
its just a different world with different jargon. Using the term Spamspeak
suggests there is some kind of intentional effort to mislead people. It is
euphemistic, sure. But not all use of euphemism is some deliberate attempt
at misleading someone.

If alluding to 1984 in the context of permission based email isn't a little
funny to you, then I apologize for my remarks.

Luke

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 11:27 PM Rob McEwen via mailop 
wrote:

> On 8/23/2019 4:03 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
>
> But if you want some REAL "spamspeak" you wouldn't believe how often I've
> heard marketers recently talk about their "cold email campaigns" with no
> shame. I then did an informal survey to a couple of high-quality marketing
> discussion forums - to see what exactly THEY think "cold email campaign"
> means - here is what happened:
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/invaluement_i-did-an-informal-poll-that-i-posted-on-two-activity-6570622686714712064-9IJH
>
>
> Someone made fun of my comment above and said they "rolled their eyes" at
> it - in an email sent off-list to me, that I think they meant to send to
> the list. But I don't think they understood my point, due to possibly them
> not understanding the phrase "cold audiences"? (that is often used in
> modern day digital marketing)
>
> The phrases "cold audiences" and "warm audiences" are absolutely 100%
> whitehat (and IMPORTANT!) marketing terms that refer to paid ads which are
> not spam. (just like paid TV commercials are not spam). These are terms
> that didn't become greatly known until the past several years, so many
> people outside of the marketing space are not familiar with these terms.
> Therefore, someone talking about their "cold email campaign" - is
> potentially trying to piggy back on the legitimacy of "cold audiences",
> except they're referring to mail-sending, not paid-ads. They're trying to
> ignore that distinction, and all that it implies, and make their
> spam-sending SEEM legit, since displaying paid ads to "cold audiences" is
> legit and not spamming. But that is NOT true for a "cold email campaign",
> even though they both share the word "cold". So that is why the phrase
> "cold email campaign" *is* an excellent example of "spamspeak".
>
> --
> Rob McEwenhttps://www.invaluement.com
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Michael Rathbun via mailop]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 08:14:16 -0700, Luke via mailop  wrote:

>I did intend to send it to the whole list.
>
>"Spamspeak" makes it sound so clandestine. So Orwellian. Like there is some
>> subversive element on the list trying to turn the tides and normalize spam.
>> Sounds spooky. Sounds provocative. Let's run with this.
>> *Rolls eyes*
>
>
>But yes, I was poking fun at the use of the term spamspeak. The allusion to
>1984's newspeak or doublespeak is silly.

I have seldom been accused of being overly serious.

>If alluding to 1984 in the context of permission based email isn't a little
>funny to you, then I apologize for my remarks.

Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of language
to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to be
concerning, however "funny" they may appear at the onset.  (I leave out of the
discussion the fact that I once had a role in a stage production of "1984"
that made me more than slightly well-acquainted with that work.)

Rob's remarks were, to my knowledge, accurate and apposite.

mdr
-- 
   Those who can make you believe absurdities 
   can make you commit atrocities.
-- Voltaire


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Luke via mailop]

>
> Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of
> language
> to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to
> be
> concerning


As do I. I guess my argument is that this isn't what is happening when some
email marketer says "double opt in" or "cold outreach."

If you're someone who hasn't spent a great deal of time thinking about the
world's spam problem or haven't really given much thought to the
consequences of *not *requiring some kind of confirmation before adding an
address to your mailing list, the term double opt in makes sense.

Should they be corrected? Sure. Should they be taught that "double opt in"
isn't actually accurate because the recipient is only opting in once. Sure.
Do they deserve to be labeled a spammer or be told they are talking like a
spammer? No. Is it some kind of concerted effort to normalize spammy
behavior? No.

I don't like the terms double opt in or cold outreach either and I don't
use them. But I don't think the term "spamspeak" and the allusion to 1984
is appropriate.

Luke




On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Michael Rathbun  wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 08:14:16 -0700, Luke via mailop 
> wrote:
>
> >I did intend to send it to the whole list.
> >
> >"Spamspeak" makes it sound so clandestine. So Orwellian. Like there is
> some
> >> subversive element on the list trying to turn the tides and normalize
> spam.
> >> Sounds spooky. Sounds provocative. Let's run with this.
> >> *Rolls eyes*
> >
> >
> >But yes, I was poking fun at the use of the term spamspeak. The allusion
> to
> >1984's newspeak or doublespeak is silly.
>
> I have seldom been accused of being overly serious.
>
> >If alluding to 1984 in the context of permission based email isn't a
> little
> >funny to you, then I apologize for my remarks.
>
> Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of
> language
> to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to
> be
> concerning, however "funny" they may appear at the onset.  (I leave out of
> the
> discussion the fact that I once had a role in a stage production of "1984"
> that made me more than slightly well-acquainted with that work.)
>
> Rob's remarks were, to my knowledge, accurate and apposite.
>
> mdr
> --
>Those who can make you believe absurdities
>can make you commit atrocities.
> -- Voltaire
>
>
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Alexander Zeh via mailop]

This might also be an issue of different wordings used in different parts of 
the world. I started working in the email space 10+ years ago for the eco 
Association in Germany. In every document, in every personal conversation I 
had, always the term DOI was used. Not only by marketeers, also by postmasters 
and lawyers.
I heard the term COI for the very first time at a M3AAWG meeting, and indeed 
thought it’s the term for „I’ll send the recipient a confirmation email that 
he’s now subscribed“.
I’m not sure how these terms are used in other european countries.

Alex

> Am 26.08.2019 um 00:06 schrieb Luke via mailop :
> 
> Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of language
> to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to be
> concerning
> 
> As do I. I guess my argument is that this isn't what is happening when some 
> email marketer says "double opt in" or "cold outreach."
> 
> If you're someone who hasn't spent a great deal of time thinking about the 
> world's spam problem or haven't really given much thought to the consequences 
> of not requiring some kind of confirmation before adding an address to your 
> mailing list, the term double opt in makes sense. 
> 
> Should they be corrected? Sure. Should they be taught that "double opt in" 
> isn't actually accurate because the recipient is only opting in once. Sure. 
> Do they deserve to be labeled a spammer or be told they are talking like a 
> spammer? No. Is it some kind of concerted effort to normalize spammy 
> behavior? No. 
> 
> I don't like the terms double opt in or cold outreach either and I don't use 
> them. But I don't think the term "spamspeak" and the allusion to 1984 is 
> appropriate.
> 
> Luke
> 
> 
>  
> 
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Michael Rathbun  > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 08:14:16 -0700, Luke via mailop  > wrote:
> 
> >I did intend to send it to the whole list.
> >
> >"Spamspeak" makes it sound so clandestine. So Orwellian. Like there is some
> >> subversive element on the list trying to turn the tides and normalize spam.
> >> Sounds spooky. Sounds provocative. Let's run with this.
> >> *Rolls eyes*
> >
> >
> >But yes, I was poking fun at the use of the term spamspeak. The allusion to
> >1984's newspeak or doublespeak is silly.
> 
> I have seldom been accused of being overly serious.
> 
> >If alluding to 1984 in the context of permission based email isn't a little
> >funny to you, then I apologize for my remarks.
> 
> Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of language
> to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to be
> concerning, however "funny" they may appear at the onset.  (I leave out of the
> discussion the fact that I once had a role in a stage production of "1984"
> that made me more than slightly well-acquainted with that work.)
> 
> Rob's remarks were, to my knowledge, accurate and apposite.
> 
> mdr
> -- 
>Those who can make you believe absurdities 
>can make you commit atrocities.
> -- Voltaire
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Mathieu Bourdin via mailop]

In France the two terms are basically interchangeable and are used to designate 
the same process (user enters his adress, site owner sends an email requesting 
to click a link to confirm ownership of the adress, user clicks and is then 
added to the mailing list).
I’ve never had a client trying to use double optin for anything else than a 
user confirmation process.
I actually was a bit confused at first like you were, and wondered what the 
difference was (answer : none).
To be completly honest : I don’t even see what the difference actually is even 
now.
Call me naive, but I haven’t seen any case of « fake » DOI/COI in 7 years 
working for an ESP (not to say that I haven’t seen a LOT of pushback against 
COI/DOI, but that’s another matter linked to client education).

Mathieu Bourdin


De : mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] De la part de Alexander Zeh via 
mailop
Envoyé : lundi 26 août 2019 10:49
À : mailop 
Objet : Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

This might also be an issue of different wordings used in different parts of 
the world. I started working in the email space 10+ years ago for the eco 
Association in Germany. In every document, in every personal conversation I 
had, always the term DOI was used. Not only by marketeers, also by postmasters 
and lawyers.
I heard the term COI for the very first time at a M3AAWG meeting, and indeed 
thought it’s the term for „I’ll send the recipient a confirmation email that 
he’s now subscribed“.
I’m not sure how these terms are used in other european countries.

Alex


Am 26.08.2019 um 00:06 schrieb Luke via mailop 
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>>:

Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of language
to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to be
concerning

As do I. I guess my argument is that this isn't what is happening when some 
email marketer says "double opt in" or "cold outreach."

If you're someone who hasn't spent a great deal of time thinking about the 
world's spam problem or haven't really given much thought to the consequences 
of not requiring some kind of confirmation before adding an address to your 
mailing list, the term double opt in makes sense.

Should they be corrected? Sure. Should they be taught that "double opt in" 
isn't actually accurate because the recipient is only opting in once. Sure. Do 
they deserve to be labeled a spammer or be told they are talking like a 
spammer? No. Is it some kind of concerted effort to normalize spammy behavior? 
No.

I don't like the terms double opt in or cold outreach either and I don't use 
them. But I don't think the term "spamspeak" and the allusion to 1984 is 
appropriate.

Luke




On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Michael Rathbun 
mailto:m...@honet.com>> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 08:14:16 -0700, Luke via mailop 
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:

>I did intend to send it to the whole list.
>
>"Spamspeak" makes it sound so clandestine. So Orwellian. Like there is some
>> subversive element on the list trying to turn the tides and normalize spam.
>> Sounds spooky. Sounds provocative. Let's run with this.
>> *Rolls eyes*
>
>
>But yes, I was poking fun at the use of the term spamspeak. The allusion to
>1984's newspeak or doublespeak is silly.

I have seldom been accused of being overly serious.

>If alluding to 1984 in the context of permission based email isn't a little
>funny to you, then I apologize for my remarks.

Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of language
to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to be
concerning, however "funny" they may appear at the onset.  (I leave out of the
discussion the fact that I once had a role in a stage production of "1984"
that made me more than slightly well-acquainted with that work.)

Rob's remarks were, to my knowledge, accurate and apposite.

mdr
--
   Those who can make you believe absurdities
   can make you commit atrocities.
-- Voltaire
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org<mailto: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

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Tom Bartel via mailop]

I work at Return Path and I can't seem to find any references to double-opt
in on Sender Score site.  LMK if you have a specific reference. I agree
with Matt V. though that DOI/COI interchangeable, though I prefer COI.

Tom

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:37 PM Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:

> * Jay Hennigan via mailop :
>
> > Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing
> > appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead of
> > "confirmed opt-in".
>
> I'll rather use the term "confirmed opt-in" then :)
> Also, it makes more sense, since the recipient has to confirm the
> subscription.
>
> I was just using "double opt in", since that's what senderscore et.al.
> use on their pages.
>
> --
> Ralf Hildebrandt   Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin
> ralf.hildebra...@charite.deCampus Benjamin Franklin
> https://www.charite.de Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin
> Geschäftsbereich IT, Abt. Netzwerk fon: +49-30-450.570.155
>
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>


-- 
Phone: 303.517.9655
Twitter: @barteltom
Instagram: https://instagram.com/bartel_photo
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Benjamin BILLON via mailop]

Is Email a democracy? If so, my vote is similar to what have been said here, I 
say COI, customers say "what?", I reply "or you know, DOI", customers say "ha 
yes, that".
I prefer COI too, but apparently I don't have a _that_ big impact on the world 
and people's mind (I guess I forgot something in my magic spell).

Another reason why people, plebeian and even some elites, would more easily say 
double opt-in instead of confirmed opt-in? That's not the opt-in part:

  *   ˈdə-bəlg
  *   kən-ˈfərmd

One is more easy to pronounce than the other.

Adding grist to the mill, we're seeing "email verification" services using the 
same mechanism as COI/DOI, but with another purpose: _confirming_ that the 
email address owner is the person who filled in the online form. So yeah, it's 
not _whatever_ opt-in, but "email address ownership confirmation". Or 
"validation?" That's probably worth another fight.

--
Benjamin

From: mailop  On Behalf Of Tom Bartel via mailop
Sent: lundi 26 août 2019 21:17
To: Ralf Hildebrandt 
Cc: mailop 
Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

I work at Return Path and I can't seem to find any references to double-opt in 
on Sender Score site.  LMK if you have a specific reference. I agree with Matt 
V. though that DOI/COI interchangeable, though I prefer COI.

Tom

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:37 PM Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop 
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:
* Jay Hennigan via mailop mailto:mailop@mailop.org>>:

> Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing
> appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead of
> "confirmed opt-in".

I'll rather use the term "confirmed opt-in" then :)
Also, it makes more sense, since the recipient has to confirm the subscription.

I was just using "double opt in", since that's what senderscore 
et.al<http://et.al>. use on their pages.

--
Ralf Hildebrandt   Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin
ralf.hildebra...@charite.de<mailto:ralf.hildebra...@charite.de>Campus 
Benjamin Franklin
https://www.charite.de Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin
Geschäftsbereich IT, Abt. Netzwerk fon: +49-30-450.570.155

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org<mailto:mailop@mailop.org>
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop


--
Phone: 303.517.9655
Twitter: @barteltom
Instagram: https://instagram.com/bartel_photo
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Ewald Kessler | Webpower via mailop]

Not short, but certainly sweet:

I don't care what method people devise to make sure that people don't get
added to a mailing list without their consent, so long as it actually
works. I don't care if they call it "sucking chest wound" so long as the
process they adopt effectively prevents abuse. Dogma and jargon should
never be more important than stopping spam.


http://www.pan-am.ca/spammyths/rants/27jul2002.html



On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 10:31, Benjamin BILLON via mailop 
wrote:

> Is Email a democracy? If so, my vote is similar to what have been said
> here, I say COI, customers say "what?", I reply "or you know, DOI",
> customers say "ha yes, that".
>
> I prefer COI too, but apparently I don't have a _*that*_ big impact on
> the world and people's mind (I guess I forgot something in my magic spell).
>
>
>
> Another reason why people, plebeian and even some elites, would more
> easily say double opt-in instead of confirmed opt-in? That's not the opt-in
> part:
>
>- ˈdə-bəlg
>- kən-ˈfərmd
>
>
>
> One is more easy to pronounce than the other.
>
>
>
> Adding grist to the mill, we're seeing "email verification" services using
> the same mechanism as COI/DOI, but with another purpose: _*confirming*_
> that the email address owner is the person who filled in the online form.
> So yeah, it's not _*whatever*_ opt-in, but "email address ownership
> confirmation". Or "validation?" That's probably worth another fight.
>
>
>
> --
> *Benjamin*
>
>
>
> *From:* mailop  *On Behalf Of *Tom Bartel via
> mailop
> *Sent:* lundi 26 août 2019 21:17
> *To:* Ralf Hildebrandt 
> *Cc:* mailop 
> *Subject:* Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score
>
>
>
> I work at Return Path and I can't seem to find any references to
> double-opt in on Sender Score site.  LMK if you have a specific reference.
> I agree with Matt V. though that DOI/COI interchangeable, though I prefer
> COI.
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:37 PM Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop <
> mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> * Jay Hennigan via mailop :
>
> > Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing
> > appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead of
> > "confirmed opt-in".
>
> I'll rather use the term "confirmed opt-in" then :)
> Also, it makes more sense, since the recipient has to confirm the
> subscription.
>
> I was just using "double opt in", since that's what senderscore et.al.
> use on their pages.
>
> --
> Ralf Hildebrandt   Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin
> ralf.hildebra...@charite.deCampus Benjamin Franklin
> https://www.charite.de Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin
> Geschäftsbereich IT, Abt. Netzwerk fon: +49-30-450.570.155
>
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Phone: 303.517.9655
>
> Twitter: @barteltom
>
> Instagram: https://instagram.com/bartel_photo
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>


-- 
Deliverability & Abuse Management, www.webpower-group.com
ewald.kess...@webpower.nl
t: +31 342 423 262
li: www.linkedin.com/in/ewaldkessler
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop]

> On Sep 6, 2019, at 8:01 AM, Ewald Kessler | Webpower via mailop 
>  wrote:
> 
> Not short, but certainly sweet:
> 
> I don't care what method people devise to make sure that people don't get 
> added to a mailing list without their consent, so long as it actually works. 
> I don't care if they call it "sucking chest wound" so long as the process 
> they adopt effectively prevents abuse. Dogma and jargon should never be more 
> important than stopping spam.

I think that 'sucking chest wound' is what usually happens after someone spams 
someone here. ;-)

Anne




___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop