Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
Hello Andy, Why would those not be subject to this? We can 'block' most on customer level. And this is done like that also. This seems to be an argument in favour of identifying the customer id in the headers, not for requiring COI. Which is indeed rational since it makes it more likely that a disgruntled admin will block only the ESP's client, not the whole ESP. Yes... but... Not only related to headers. Many of senders have beautifull click trackers and they are pretty easy to use as pointers. And sure some have shared use but likely this means its time for those ESP's to change that concept that they designed a decade ago... (Shameless plug) Have a look at the CT bit that SURBL implemented some months ago. https://www.surbl.org/lists#ct Bye, Raymond ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
Hello, On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:29:30PM +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn via mailop wrote: > > > Most organisations will reconsider after beeing blocked a few times due to > > > non COI > > > But not the likes of SendGrid, Mailgun, Mailjet, ? which also makes > > making the argument much more difficult since > > > > a) the prospective client can always go to the above and send to > > their contact lists obtained by dubious methods so why even have > > the conversation with you? > > > > b) your management knows (a) so how will you ever get permission to > > even take this stand? > > Why would those not be subject to this? We can 'block' most on customer > level. And this is done like that also. This seems to be an argument in favour of identifying the customer id in the headers, not for requiring COI. Which is indeed rational since it makes it more likely that a disgruntled admin will block only the ESP's client, not the whole ESP. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
Hi! Most organisations will reconsider after beeing blocked a few times due to non COI But not the likes of SendGrid, Mailgun, Mailjet, ? which also makes making the argument much more difficult since a) the prospective client can always go to the above and send to their contact lists obtained by dubious methods so why even have the conversation with you? b) your management knows (a) so how will you ever get permission to even take this stand? Why would those not be subject to this? We can 'block' most on customer level. And this is done like that also. COI is right and proper, no argument from me, but the willingness of bad actors to ignore what is right and proper makes it very hard for anyone in the same industry to do what is right and proper. Some will learn it the hard way... Bye, Raymond ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
Am 28.11.2023 um 15:15:51 Uhr schrieb Andy Smith via mailop: > COI is right and proper, no argument from me, but the willingness of > bad actors to ignore what is right and proper makes it very hard for > anyone in the same industry to do what is right and proper. Such companies will land on blacklists, which is something I really like. I put sendgrid in my mailbox filter rules (postmaster inbox at work, I am NOT the admin of the crappy Cisco ESA relay there) because they refuse to stop sending me spam (Hayneedle) to the postmaster address. abuse contact doesn't care. Making money by letting customers send unsolicited mail isn't something that is good for legitimate advertisers. CEO must know that. There are some ISPs that love to host spammers, but the result is that normal customers can't use them. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
In message , Byron Lunz via mailop writes >We've required confirmed-opt-in for years. But a few months ago, I noticed >that our servers were sending out hundreds of 'confirmation required' >messages every day. They were going to obviously-bogus addresses, likely >submitted to our submission forms by bots. Without opt-in, all those bogus >addresses would be on our lists, inflating subscriber count, increasing >bounces, lowering server reputation, etc. As it was, even just the hundreds >of confirmation messages were beginning to impact server reputation, to the >point that I added simple 'captcha' tests which require a human response, >just to eliminate the bogus confirmation messages. you should be doing that anyway to prevent "list bombing" attacks (where you, and many others, send emails to a victim (who has been impersonated by a robot) to swamp their mailbox so as to hide transactional email that would reveal an active fraud) the likely reason for sign-ups from clearly mass-registered addresses is that the bots wish to have valid email coming in to their inboxes to persuade machine-learning models that the account is valid and not mass- registered for nefarious purposes > Even after THAT, I find >that maybe 25-50% of the folks who ask to subscribe never respond to the >confirmation email. the ML models may have got their first and removed the account -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
Hello, On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 03:53:10PM +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn via mailop wrote: > > Bill wrote: > > If sending lots of mail to weakly engaged corespondents is your core > > business, COI is not likely to be worthwhile in cold hard cash vs. what > > I call "good faith single opt-in" […] > Most organisations will reconsider after beeing blocked a few times due to > non COI But not the likes of SendGrid, Mailgun, Mailjet, … which also makes making the argument much more difficult since a) the prospective client can always go to the above and send to their contact lists obtained by dubious methods so why even have the conversation with you? b) your management knows (a) so how will you ever get permission to even take this stand? COI is right and proper, no argument from me, but the willingness of bad actors to ignore what is right and proper makes it very hard for anyone in the same industry to do what is right and proper. The argument only works when you as the ESP are a small company and there's enough other business, so as a tiny general purpose hosting company we don't want our IPs on blocklists of any kind and can afford to contractually require COI. A small ESP on the other hand, wants to grow up to be SendGrid so unless ideologically predisposed I'm not sure they will value COI to the point that they'll send clients to SendGrid over the lack of it. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
Hi! Hell, even if you are dishonest and make the costs of deliverability problems higher than they are it can still be challenging to make COI look more profitable. I really wish this weren?t true and I?ve been trying to make it true for years. But, sometimes reality bites. If sending lots of mail to weakly engaged corespondents is your core business, COI is not likely to be worthwhile in cold hard cash vs. what I call "good faith single opt-in" where it is credible that subscribers are predominantly legit, by whatever means that is achieved. Unless a bulk-sending entity is engaged in nearly pure spam using sketchy tactics, the risks of blocking costing a lot is low. OTOH, if bulk mail is an auxiliary service to more valuable (per message) email, the cost of being blocked can be the whole business. The more you handle typical conversational email, the less you can tolerate practices that lead to blocking. Most organisations will reconsider after beeing blocked a few times due to non COI ... and believe me we see this almost on a daily base with the SURBL porject. After we explain some will listen differently then when they get this explained when it didnt happen (yet) ... And we also see the results pretty fast usually. Trap wise. ... Bye, Raymond ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
On 2023-11-28 at 08:39:13 UTC-0500 (Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:39:13 +) Laura Atkins via mailop is rumored to have said: Hell, even if you are dishonest and make the costs of deliverability problems higher than they are it can still be challenging to make COI look more profitable. I really wish this weren’t true and I’ve been trying to make it true for years. But, sometimes reality bites. Yep. If sending lots of mail to weakly engaged corespondents is your core business, COI is not likely to be worthwhile in cold hard cash vs. what I call "good faith single opt-in" where it is credible that subscribers are predominantly legit, by whatever means that is achieved. Unless a bulk-sending entity is engaged in nearly pure spam using sketchy tactics, the risks of blocking costing a lot is low. OTOH, if bulk mail is an auxiliary service to more valuable (per message) email, the cost of being blocked can be the whole business. The more you handle typical conversational email, the less you can tolerate practices that lead to blocking. -- 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
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
> On 27 Nov 2023, at 20:09, Greg Brooks via mailop wrote: > > Maybe it's just like this in my world but: Everyone understands money. > > Can you make a compelling case about the hard-dollar expenses and time that > bungled IP rep and/or impacted deliverability costs? Or the math behind high > deliverability to an engaged, opt-in list vs. iffy deliverability to a > firehose list? > > Mind you, the math might not be compelling -- it's possible that there really > is higher ROI in that firehose list, or that management is utterly unwilling > to consider the sunk costs of I.T. time. But if it were my issue? Money math > is how I'd try to tackle it. I’ve been trying for 20 years to make the money work better for COI. The challenge is that all too many companies are wildly successful and make tons of money without COI. I’ve even had big clients (tens of millions of emails a day) tell me that their executive team would not even consider COI - too much friction for their users. Now, it wasn’t just marketing - these were emails related to activity on line. Now, I do try and “sneak” COI in and create tiers of subscribers and such. But, if it were actually more profitable I think you’d discover more companies would be doing it. Coming at it from a money approach… if you’re actually honest about the costs - even when you add in the ‘hidden’ IT costs and the costs of recovering from a significant deliverability problem the numbers don’t support COI. I know this is wildly unpopular - which I why I tend to stay out of these discussions. But my experience is that if you are even slightly honest about the numbers then COI doesn’t work for most companies. Hell, even if you are dishonest and make the costs of deliverability problems higher than they are it can still be challenging to make COI look more profitable. I really wish this weren’t true and I’ve been trying to make it true for years. But, sometimes reality bites. laura > > Greg > > --- > Greg Brooks > Better Cities Project > > > > On 2023-11-27 11:04, Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop wrote: >>> Am 27.11.2023 um 10:42:58 Uhr schrieb Randolf Richardson, Postmaster >>> via mailop: >>> > Many marketing people seem to be terrified of the idea of >>> > users having to confirm their consent when subscribing to a mailing >>> > list (e.g., by following a unique link in an eMail message to >>> > complete the process). The marketers almost always say "it will be >>> > too complicated for the average user," and want to eliminate the >>> > confirmation step altogether (which is not an ethical approach from >>> > my perspective). >>> Tell them that not doing opt-in will make them spammers and that the >>> servers of your company will be listed in blacklists, so you cannot >>> reach anybody until that listing is expired. >> We already do this, and we refuse to host any eMail lists that are >> not confirming consent properly because of the ethics considerations, >> and for the very reason that you just covered. >>> Without a confirmation, everybody can simply subscribe any address and >>> that will be abused. >> I agree. What I'm trying to do is convince non-technical management >> to side with taking care to respect consent instead of siding with >> the marketing people who obviously don't care. In a way, this is a >> struggle between technical people who care about consent vs. >> marketing people who just want to advertise and use damage-control >> methods to clean up the mess (the marketers also seem to refuse to >> care about the ethics or the blacklists, and have the attitude that >> everyone's replaceable as long as they get what they want). >>> Even the confirmation messages can already be used for mass mailing if >>> an abuser submits the form many times for many addresses. >> Yes. There are ways to mitigate at least some of that, but these >> techniques are beyond the scope of what I'm asking for -- I'm trying >> to find ways to persuade management that the technical measures are >> necessary and must take precedence over what the marketers want. >> (Thanks for your prompt reply.) >> Postmaster - postmas...@inter-corporate.com >> Randolf Richardson - rand...@inter-corporate.com >> Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc. >> Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada >> https://www.inter-corporate.com/ >> ___ >> mailop mailing list >> mailop@mailop.org >> https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop -- The Delivery Expert Laura Atkins Word to the Wise la...@wordtothewise.com Delivery hints and commentary: http://wordtothewise.com/blog ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
Thanks Byron, for sharing your experience. I believe this is not an uncommon experience for mailing list operators, and the bots are, to put it mildly, a major nuisance indeed. I suspect that some of the bots may be trying to detect patterns in the confirmation codes that cmoe back through the eMail addresses that they actually do monitor, most likely with the intention of faking subscription confirmations with future subscribers that they nefariously add to the list. > We've required confirmed-opt-in for years. But a few months ago, I noticed > that our servers were sending out hundreds of 'confirmation required' > messages every day. They were going to obviously-bogus addresses, likely > submitted to our submission forms by bots. Without opt-in, all those bogus > addresses would be on our lists, inflating subscriber count, increasing > bounces, lowering server reputation, etc. As it was, even just the hundreds > of confirmation messages were beginning to impact server reputation, to the > point that I added simple 'captcha' tests which require a human response, > just to eliminate the bogus confirmation messages. Even after THAT, I find > that maybe 25-50% of the folks who ask to subscribe never respond to the > confirmation email. > > A list of 100 validated and interested folks is worth far more than a list > of 1000 "average users". > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:46AM Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop < > mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > > What have you found to be some of the best approaches to convince > > clients that the confirmed opt-in process is necessary for operating > > eMail lists? (The ethical aspects are pretty straight-forward.) > > > > Many marketing people seem to be terrified of the idea of users > > having to confirm their consent when subscribing to a mailing list > > (e.g., by following a unique link in an eMail message to complete the > > process). The marketers almost always say "it will be too > > complicated for the average user," and want to eliminate the > > confirmation step altogether (which is not an ethical approach from > > my perspective). > > > > Presenting legal aspects is quite convenient here in Canada > > (because > > of our anti-spam laws), and preventing inclusion in blacklists is > > another helpful motivator, but I'd prefer to find a ways that get > > mailing list operators to want to ensure that "every eMail recipient > > consented" without the begrudging "we do this because we have to" > > perspective. > > > > Thank you for your thoughts and ideas. > > > > Postmaster - postmas...@inter-corporate.com > > Randolf Richardson - rand...@inter-corporate.com > > Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc. > > Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada > > https://www.inter-corporate.com/ > > > > > > ___ > > mailop mailing list > > mailop@mailop.org > > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > > > Postmaster - postmas...@inter-corporate.com Randolf Richardson - rand...@inter-corporate.com Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada https://www.inter-corporate.com/ ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
We've required confirmed-opt-in for years. But a few months ago, I noticed that our servers were sending out hundreds of 'confirmation required' messages every day. They were going to obviously-bogus addresses, likely submitted to our submission forms by bots. Without opt-in, all those bogus addresses would be on our lists, inflating subscriber count, increasing bounces, lowering server reputation, etc. As it was, even just the hundreds of confirmation messages were beginning to impact server reputation, to the point that I added simple 'captcha' tests which require a human response, just to eliminate the bogus confirmation messages. Even after THAT, I find that maybe 25-50% of the folks who ask to subscribe never respond to the confirmation email. A list of 100 validated and interested folks is worth far more than a list of 1000 "average users". On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:46 AM Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > What have you found to be some of the best approaches to convince > clients that the confirmed opt-in process is necessary for operating > eMail lists? (The ethical aspects are pretty straight-forward.) > > Many marketing people seem to be terrified of the idea of users > having to confirm their consent when subscribing to a mailing list > (e.g., by following a unique link in an eMail message to complete the > process). The marketers almost always say "it will be too > complicated for the average user," and want to eliminate the > confirmation step altogether (which is not an ethical approach from > my perspective). > > Presenting legal aspects is quite convenient here in Canada > (because > of our anti-spam laws), and preventing inclusion in blacklists is > another helpful motivator, but I'd prefer to find a ways that get > mailing list operators to want to ensure that "every eMail recipient > consented" without the begrudging "we do this because we have to" > perspective. > > Thank you for your thoughts and ideas. > > Postmaster - postmas...@inter-corporate.com > Randolf Richardson - rand...@inter-corporate.com > Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc. > Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada > https://www.inter-corporate.com/ > > > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
On 2023-11-27 at 13:42:58 UTC-0500 (Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:42:58 -0800) Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop is rumored to have said: What have you found to be some of the best approaches to convince clients that the confirmed opt-in process is necessary for operating eMail lists? (The ethical aspects are pretty straight-forward.) Specifying it explicitly in service contracts and making absolutely sure that the customer is aware that failing to confirm opt-ins will result in immediate permanent service termination, and they may receive any data associated with their account shipped to them on physical media by request. That is obviously only possible with full management support. We've had exactly one misunderstanding of this in the past 15 years. As you say, the ethical aspects are clear and we have the luxury of being able to screen customers well. I expect this is only feasible for similar operations where mailing list hosting is not a free-standing offering, but only something we offer to our mailbox customers. -- 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
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
Wasnt' there an article on how engagement rates for confirmed double opt-in vs unconfirmed were a LOT higher.. a few years back? I think if you can point to the higher engagement rates, that even with lower total subscribers you are more effective in your email marketing. Anyone have a link to that article, or was this something hidden at M3AAWG? -- Michael -- On 2023-11-27 11:04, Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop wrote: Am 27.11.2023 um 10:42:58 Uhr schrieb Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop: Many marketing people seem to be terrified of the idea of users having to confirm their consent when subscribing to a mailing list (e.g., by following a unique link in an eMail message to complete the process). The marketers almost always say "it will be too complicated for the average user," and want to eliminate the confirmation step altogether (which is not an ethical approach from my perspective). Tell them that not doing opt-in will make them spammers and that the servers of your company will be listed in blacklists, so you cannot reach anybody until that listing is expired. We already do this, and we refuse to host any eMail lists that are not confirming consent properly because of the ethics considerations, and for the very reason that you just covered. Without a confirmation, everybody can simply subscribe any address and that will be abused. I agree. What I'm trying to do is convince non-technical management to side with taking care to respect consent instead of siding with the marketing people who obviously don't care. In a way, this is a struggle between technical people who care about consent vs. marketing people who just want to advertise and use damage-control methods to clean up the mess (the marketers also seem to refuse to care about the ethics or the blacklists, and have the attitude that everyone's replaceable as long as they get what they want). Even the confirmation messages can already be used for mass mailing if an abuser submits the form many times for many addresses. Yes. There are ways to mitigate at least some of that, but these techniques are beyond the scope of what I'm asking for -- I'm trying to find ways to persuade management that the technical measures are necessary and must take precedence over what the marketers want. (Thanks for your prompt reply.) Postmaster - postmas...@inter-corporate.com Randolf Richardson - rand...@inter-corporate.com Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada https://www.inter-corporate.com/ ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop -- "Catch the Magic of Linux..." Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
After the years of harassment I’ve endured by being subscribed to hundreds of thousands of mailing lists that are not double opt in, I’d say just casually toss my email into their mailing list and watch me convince them by way of harassment. I’m so far beyond asking nicely, my sanity wasn’t in short supply but it’s long gone. On 2023-11-27 12:42, Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop wrote: What have you found to be some of the best approaches to convince clients that the confirmed opt-in process is necessary for operating eMail lists? (The ethical aspects are pretty straight-forward.) Many marketing people seem to be terrified of the idea of users having to confirm their consent when subscribing to a mailing list (e.g., by following a unique link in an eMail message to complete the process). The marketers almost always say "it will be too complicated for the average user," and want to eliminate the confirmation step altogether (which is not an ethical approach from my perspective). Presenting legal aspects is quite convenient here in Canada (because of our anti-spam laws), and preventing inclusion in blacklists is another helpful motivator, but I'd prefer to find a ways that get mailing list operators to want to ensure that "every eMail recipient consented" without the begrudging "we do this because we have to" perspective. Thank you for your thoughts and ideas. Postmaster - postmas...@inter-corporate.com Randolf Richardson - rand...@inter-corporate.com Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada https://www.inter-corporate.com/ ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
Am 27.11.2023 um 11:04:33 Uhr schrieb Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop: > > Without a confirmation, everybody can simply subscribe any address > > and that will be abused. > > I agree. What I'm trying to do is convince non-technical > management to side with taking care to respect consent instead of > siding with the marketing people who obviously don't care. Tell them about the abuse and ask them if they like that other can subscribe them to hundreds of mailing lists that they are not interested in. Don't they like it? Tell them that confirmation is a way to prohibit that. > In a way, this is a struggle between technical people who care about > consent vs. marketing people who just want to advertise and use > damage-control methods to clean up the mess (the marketers also seem > to refuse to care about the ethics or the blacklists, and have the > attitude that everyone's replaceable as long as they get what they > want). Tell them that annoying advertisement doesn't make people buy products. Much better advertising is to only advertise to the people interested. They need to understand that sending mails to people who don't like to receive them doesn't make them buy something - instead they blacklist you servers and other customers that are interested in your mail don't receive it anymore. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
> Am 27.11.2023 um 10:42:58 Uhr schrieb Randolf Richardson, Postmaster > via mailop: > > > Many marketing people seem to be terrified of the idea of > > users having to confirm their consent when subscribing to a mailing > > list (e.g., by following a unique link in an eMail message to > > complete the process). The marketers almost always say "it will be > > too complicated for the average user," and want to eliminate the > > confirmation step altogether (which is not an ethical approach from > > my perspective). > > Tell them that not doing opt-in will make them spammers and that the > servers of your company will be listed in blacklists, so you cannot > reach anybody until that listing is expired. We already do this, and we refuse to host any eMail lists that are not confirming consent properly because of the ethics considerations, and for the very reason that you just covered. > Without a confirmation, everybody can simply subscribe any address and > that will be abused. I agree. What I'm trying to do is convince non-technical management to side with taking care to respect consent instead of siding with the marketing people who obviously don't care. In a way, this is a struggle between technical people who care about consent vs. marketing people who just want to advertise and use damage-control methods to clean up the mess (the marketers also seem to refuse to care about the ethics or the blacklists, and have the attitude that everyone's replaceable as long as they get what they want). > Even the confirmation messages can already be used for mass mailing if > an abuser submits the form many times for many addresses. Yes. There are ways to mitigate at least some of that, but these techniques are beyond the scope of what I'm asking for -- I'm trying to find ways to persuade management that the technical measures are necessary and must take precedence over what the marketers want. (Thanks for your prompt reply.) Postmaster - postmas...@inter-corporate.com Randolf Richardson - rand...@inter-corporate.com Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada https://www.inter-corporate.com/ ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
Am 27.11.2023 um 10:42:58 Uhr schrieb Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop: > Many marketing people seem to be terrified of the idea of > users having to confirm their consent when subscribing to a mailing > list (e.g., by following a unique link in an eMail message to > complete the process). The marketers almost always say "it will be > too complicated for the average user," and want to eliminate the > confirmation step altogether (which is not an ethical approach from > my perspective). Tell them that not doing opt-in will make them spammers and that the servers of your company will be listed in blacklists, so you cannot reach anybody until that listing is expired. Without a confirmation, everybody can simply subscribe any address and that will be abused. Even the confirmation messages can already be used for mass mailing if an abuser submits the form many times for many addresses. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Convincing clients of the importance of eMail recipient consent for mailing list subscriptions
What have you found to be some of the best approaches to convince clients that the confirmed opt-in process is necessary for operating eMail lists? (The ethical aspects are pretty straight-forward.) Many marketing people seem to be terrified of the idea of users having to confirm their consent when subscribing to a mailing list (e.g., by following a unique link in an eMail message to complete the process). The marketers almost always say "it will be too complicated for the average user," and want to eliminate the confirmation step altogether (which is not an ethical approach from my perspective). Presenting legal aspects is quite convenient here in Canada (because of our anti-spam laws), and preventing inclusion in blacklists is another helpful motivator, but I'd prefer to find a ways that get mailing list operators to want to ensure that "every eMail recipient consented" without the begrudging "we do this because we have to" perspective. Thank you for your thoughts and ideas. Postmaster - postmas...@inter-corporate.com Randolf Richardson - rand...@inter-corporate.com Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada https://www.inter-corporate.com/ ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
