Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Michael Wise via mailop]

Yeah... it is in the best interests of your OTHER customers to make them an 
EX-customer.

Aloha,
Michael.
--
Michael J Wise
Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
"Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
Got the Junk Mail Reporting 
Tool ?



-Original Message-
From: mailop  On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2018 5:19 AM
To: Jan Schapmans ; mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist 
with strange reputation issue



Is it hard to remove them from your service for non compliance with your terms 
of use policy as well?



On 03/09/18, 5:44 PM, "mailop on behalf of Jan Schapmans" 
mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20jan.schapm...@selligent.com>>
 wrote:



- customer is doing some bad practices and it's hard to make them change :-)











___

mailop mailing list

mailop@mailop.org

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchilli.nosignal.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmailopdata=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C320713c0fd474f14448708d611986470%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636715743569110434sdata=hd4TuQAG2JwxLnZIj9umVKPIZAF3eyqUQM9cBIn63bk%3Dreserved=0
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Is it hard to remove them from your service for non compliance with your terms 
of use policy as well?

On 03/09/18, 5:44 PM, "mailop on behalf of Jan Schapmans" 
 wrote:

- customer is doing some bad practices and it's hard to make them change :-)





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

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Jan Schapmans]

Hi all,

as I've started this threat I wanted to give you all an update on what we've 
learned but in fact what we probably all knew.

- customer is doing some bad practices and it's hard to make them change :-)
- check & double-check FBL's, unsubscribe & list-unsubscribe functionality
- if unsubscribe process seems to be too complex and a lot of users stop before 
actually unsubscribing, just identify the users by click & unsubscribe them
- Start Gmail warmup with low volume & highest engaged users
- do not send duplicates (we now only send the latest requested valuation  - We 
found out some users are receiving up to 20 emails with almost the same content)
- increase volume gradually & slowly
- increase volume with high engaged users
- keep track of complaint rate and only when low, increase volume
- keep track of view rate & click rate and only when high, increase volume
- Gmail: reputation can be tight to small content blocks (a phone number, a 
link, ...) test test & test to see the impact.
- Gmail: number of accounts are limited by your mobile phone number :-)

thx all for contributing, much appreciated! 

Jan Schapmans


-Original Message-
From: mailop  On Behalf Of Michael Rathbun
Sent: 31 August 2018 15:17
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist 
with strange reputation issue

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:00:10 -0400, Vick Khera  wrote:

>I think this falls in the "known trouble makers" category that some 
>address validation vendors report as "do not send". I used to keep a 
>list of anti-spam folks as part of my traps against new customer list 
>imports, and shockingly it did trigger from time to time and never 
>being legitimate opt-in.

In this case, "known trouble maker" is a vanishingly tiny possibility for a 
number of reasons.  Because of the change in the economic model Harris/Nielsen 
uses, their primary worry is fraudulent sign-ups by persons who can get a 
monetary gain by putting in a fake address.  

When I first attempted to sign up, I used a seed address in a wild-card domain. 
 The anti-fraud system will not permit signups from wild-card domains.
So, I used a non-wild-card domain.  However, apparently the IP had been flagged 
as a likely fraud source, and no sign-ups were accepted therefrom.

I explained the issue during one of our regular conference calls, and they 
manually added the seed account for some mailings.  Nobody that works there now 
was around when the "Nadine" narratives were posted, and just about every 
subscription policy they had way back then has been discarded and replaced with 
strict focus on confirmed voluntary subscription.

mdr
--
  If you have a system set up where a single person can cause an
  extinction level event, it's time to re-examine that system.
  -- Florence  (Freefall)


___
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] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Michael Rathbun]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:00:10 -0400, Vick Khera  wrote:

>I think this falls in the "known trouble makers" category that some address
>validation vendors report as "do not send". I used to keep a list of
>anti-spam folks as part of my traps against new customer list imports, and
>shockingly it did trigger from time to time and never being legitimate
>opt-in.

In this case, "known trouble maker" is a vanishingly tiny possibility for a
number of reasons.  Because of the change in the economic model Harris/Nielsen
uses, their primary worry is fraudulent sign-ups by persons who can get a
monetary gain by putting in a fake address.  

When I first attempted to sign up, I used a seed address in a wild-card
domain.  The anti-fraud system will not permit signups from wild-card domains.
So, I used a non-wild-card domain.  However, apparently the IP had been
flagged as a likely fraud source, and no sign-ups were accepted therefrom.

I explained the issue during one of our regular conference calls, and they
manually added the seed account for some mailings.  Nobody that works there
now was around when the "Nadine" narratives were posted, and just about every
subscription policy they had way back then has been discarded and replaced
with strict focus on confirmed voluntary subscription.

mdr
-- 
  If you have a system set up where a single person can cause an
  extinction level event, it's time to re-examine that system.
  -- Florence  (Freefall)


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

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Vick Khera]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:13 PM Michael Rathbun  wrote:

>
> What's satisfying is that Harris Polls (now part of Nielsen), one of the
> earliest villains in the narrative, is now a client of mine, with
> subscription
> policies so restrictive that I wasn't able manually to subscribe a seed
> account -- their fraud detector detected me and locked me out.  I had to
> make
> a phone call to get sample traffic.  Some days, the magic works.
>
>
I think this falls in the "known trouble makers" category that some address
validation vendors report as "do not send". I used to keep a list of
anti-spam folks as part of my traps against new customer list imports, and
shockingly it did trigger from time to time and never being legitimate
opt-in.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Alberto Miscia via mailop]

>
>
> We should sit down over cold frosty beverages next time we’re in the same
> town. (SF next feb? Budapest next June?)


Count me in.
Back in June I heard "somewhere in Munich" a very good approach that
deserved a further discussion but I was just a bit shy on time and I didn't
make it.
I think that everyone has its own secret recipe that works, to an extent,
but sharing benefits and drawbacks would really boost its effectiveness,
especially next to a frosty beverage.


Alberto | MailUp


On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Laura Atkins 
wrote:

>
> On Aug 29, 2018, at 12:10 PM, Michael Wise via mailop 
> wrote:
>
>
> Agreed.
> There are other ways of checking list sanity when a new customer presents
> it to you.
> But many of the most promising ways to my mind are actively frowned upon.
>
>
> We should sit down over cold frosty beverages next time we’re in the same
> town. (SF next feb? Budapest next June?)
>
> 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
>
>
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[David Hofstee]

Hi Anne:
>> Companies should not ask for an email address unless they take good care
of it and convince the recipient of that. That is how they should protect
themselves.
>(cough)GDPR(cough)
Yes... It would be nice if everyone sticks to the law.

Hi Laura:
> There is an entire segment of the legitimate email industry that provides
list cleaning services for a fee to anyone with cash
I know. They make my work more difficult.

> A naive scanning like you suggest wasn’t sufficient for the spammers of
16 years ago. It’s certainly not going to catch anything actual spammer
today
I'm just giving a simple example, obviously. Complex examples are harder to
explain. But I still have customers with such addresses. Most of my
customers that misbehave in some way are not actively seeking to break the
law. They are just very unknowledgeable. Very.

> You use the data you’ve got to try and find bad behavior. Bounces are a
data point and *sometimes* can lead you down the path of a problem sender
Well, similar conclusions can be made by open, click and unsubscribe
analysis.


Hi Michael:
>
https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/734/subscription-bombing-coi-captcha-and-the-next-generation-of-mail-bombs
Yes. We've had some discussions in this group, behind the scene, to provide
pointers on how to detect/mitigate that. I would call that "form spam". One
of the problems with that specific type of abuse is that doube opt-in would
not have solved the issue (as the inbox would have still been flooded with
opt-in messages). Which basically proves my point that double opt-in is not
the tool to fix that issue.

The nadine story is interesting.

>> … for signs of lack of opt-in …
> IMHO, you have that the wrong way around.
You are right there. My data setup has not yet allowed me to work it like
that.

> But many of the most promising ways to my mind are actively frowned upon.
> Like noticing bounces from OTHER lists are in the new set.
I would call that "address intelligence" which combined with "domain
intelligence" gets you pretty far. As long as I just use it to vet my
customer list, it should be ok. It is one thing that list cleaning services
cannot fix.

Yours,


David

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 01:55, Michael Wise 
wrote:

>
>
> Sounds like the beginning of ePending.
>
> And I have a crawly feeling about this, because it reminds me of an
> experience we had with someone who wanted a dedicated /24 for their own
> use, but all the rDNS was in like groups of 12 domains at a time, but all
> sending the same traffic.
>
> AOL sent us LOTS of complaints, but finally we had a SpamCop complaint
> that we could start a conversation with, and …
>
>
>
> “ I need to know the history of this email address, how did it sign up…
>
>- I asked my boss and he said yup, that street address in Las Vegas
>exists …
>
> “ But it doesn’t belong to the owner of this email address, who says that
> they have never lived in Las Vegas. Ever.
>
>- …
>
>
>
> /me calls the NOC, “Brad, pull the ethernet for X.
>
>- Done.
>
>
>
> Aloha,
>
> Michael.
>
> --
>
> *Michael J Wise*
> Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
>
> "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
>
> Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool
>  ?
>
>
>
> *From:* mailop  *On Behalf Of *Laura Atkins
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:00 AM
> *To:* David Hofstee 
> *Cc:* mailop 
> *Subject:* Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to
> assist with strange reputation issue
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2018, at 2:35 AM, David Hofstee 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Without confirmed opt-in, you're at the mercy of what random junk people
> happen to stick in there
>
> True, but then the real problem is that the opt-in is invalid. As an ESP
> you should evaluate these lists beforehand *and* monitor for signs of a
> lack of opt-in (e.g. high complaint rates by FBL or unsubscribes). Having
> these typo's are often good indicators for me to start looking further
> beforehand. E.g. a...@hotmail.com is the perfect example of people not
> wanting to provide their real email address.
>
>
>
> There is an entire segment of the legitimate email industry that provides
> list cleaning services for a fee to anyone with cash. A significant portion
> of the time a non-opt-in list will pass all of the tests (and dozens more)
> that you mention above.There’s also vast amounts of work and products in
> the spammer end of the email industry that folks like me never see, but are
> also designed to prevent ESPs from identifying spammers.
>
>
>
> Back in 2002, I was investigating a list of addresses. The question was
> are these addresses opt in? I had a sample of addresses from the list,
> don’t remember how many. Included in the data was signup IPs, home
> addresses, phone numbers and zip codes. I ran buckets of tests. I did
> reverse lookups, I mapped IPs to locations, I did everything I could think
> of to identify if this address list was opt-in. The 

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Karen Balle]

I'd be happy to share a frosty cold beverage and some of my (un)fortunate
insight into the spammy side of list composition data analysis.  There are
benefits to being known for cleaning up certain types of spam.

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:28 PM Laura Atkins 
wrote:

>
> On Aug 29, 2018, at 12:10 PM, Michael Wise via mailop 
> wrote:
>
>
> Agreed.
> There are other ways of checking list sanity when a new customer presents
> it to you.
> But many of the most promising ways to my mind are actively frowned upon.
>
>
> We should sit down over cold frosty beverages next time we’re in the same
> town. (SF next feb? Budapest next June?)
>
> 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
>


-- 
Love is strong yet delicate.
It can be broken.
To truly love is to understand this.
To be in love is to respect this.
~ Stephen Packer ~
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Michael Rathbun]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:28:32 -0700, Laura Atkins 
wrote:

>We should sit down over cold frosty beverages next time we’re in the same 
>town. (SF next feb? Budapest next June?)

Ooh, I'd love to be in on that one.  Not bloody likely, alas.

mdr
-- 
"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] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Michael Rathbun]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 18:13:46 +, Michael Wise via mailop
 wrote:

>
>It’s abuse.
>And it takes many forms.
>There are many stories like Mr. Rathbun’s … already enunciated.
>And then there’s stuff like this:
>
>  http://www.honet.com/Nadine/default.htm

Thanks for jogging my memory.  I've updated the total received from 90K to
400K.

What's satisfying is that Harris Polls (now part of Nielsen), one of the
earliest villains in the narrative, is now a client of mine, with subscription
policies so restrictive that I wasn't able manually to subscribe a seed 
account -- their fraud detector detected me and locked me out.  I had to make
a phone call to get sample traffic.  Some days, the magic works.

mdr
-- 
The Duckage Is Feep.
   -- Vaul Pixie


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

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Benjamin BILLON]

(not Brooklyn? I'd gladly share a frosty beverage too)

--
Benjamin

From: mailop  On Behalf Of Laura Atkins
Sent: Wednesday, 29 August, 2018 22:29
To: Michael Wise 
Cc: mailop 
Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist 
with strange reputation issue


On Aug 29, 2018, at 12:10 PM, Michael Wise via mailop 
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:


Agreed.
There are other ways of checking list sanity when a new customer presents it to 
you.
But many of the most promising ways to my mind are actively frowned upon.

We should sit down over cold frosty beverages next time we’re in the same town. 
(SF next feb? Budapest next June?)

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] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Laura Atkins]

> On Aug 29, 2018, at 12:10 PM, Michael Wise via mailop  
> wrote:
> 
>  
> Agreed.
> There are other ways of checking list sanity when a new customer presents it 
> to you.
> But many of the most promising ways to my mind are actively frowned upon.

We should sit down over cold frosty beverages next time we’re in the same town. 
(SF next feb? Budapest next June?)

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] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Laura Atkins]

You use the data you’ve got to try and find bad behavior. Bounces are a data 
point and *sometimes* can lead you down the path of a problem sender. Less and 
less, that’s for sure, but it’s still a valid point. 

laura 


> On Aug 29, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Michael Wise via mailop  
> wrote:
> 
>  
> Monitor … yes, most definitely. Especially for bounces indicating that the 
> addressee is no longer valid, or that you’ve been blocked for whatever reason.
>  
> … for signs of lack of opt-in …
>  
> IMHO, you have that the wrong way around.
>  
> Aloha,
> Michael.
> --
> Michael J Wise
> Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
> "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
> Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool 
>  ?
>  
> From: mailop mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org>> 
> On Behalf Of David Hofstee
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 2:36 AM
> To: Brandon Long mailto:bl...@google.com>>
> Cc: mailop mailto:mailop@mailop.org>>; Laura Atkins 
> mailto:la...@wordtothewise.com>>
> Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist 
> with strange reputation issue
>  
> > Without confirmed opt-in, you're at the mercy of what random junk people 
> > happen to stick in there
> True, but then the real problem is that the opt-in is invalid. As an ESP you 
> should evaluate these lists beforehand and monitor for signs of a lack of 
> opt-in (e.g. high complaint rates by FBL or unsubscribes). Having these 
> typo's are often good indicators for me to start looking further beforehand. 
> E.g. a...@hotmail.com  is the perfect example of 
> people not wanting to provide their real email address.
>  
> A double-optin only confirms there was a relationship with some sender at 
> some point in time. It avoids typo's. However, it does not state with who the 
> opt-in was, when it was provided, for what content, for what frequency, under 
> what circumstances and for how long that is valid. It is not watertight at 
> all. 
>  
> Yours,
>  
>  
> David 
>  
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Brandon Long  > wrote:
> I would also point out that seeing differences between mailbox providers in 
> this instance is not really a surprise.  It may have more to do with which 
> random address people use in these situations.  They may be choosing Gmail 
> more than Yahoo for whatever reason, or the address they're choosing at Gmail 
> may exist and be used, and hence getting spam markings.
>  
> Without confirmed opt-in, you're at the mercy of what random junk people 
> happen to stick in there, and there's no guarantee that that junk is equally 
> distributed.
>  
> And as Laura points out, it also depends on what they are getting from the 
> form.  Some forms may get low to zero junk, others are probably mostly 
> untrusted.
>  
> Brandon
>  
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 2:28 PM Laura Atkins  > wrote:
> The difference here is that people may want the quote but not want the 
> associated email that comes from the company. So they will fill in a “fake” 
> email address, and one that happens to deliver to some random person.
>  
> Not all subscription forms are alike, and not all subscription forms have the 
> same risk of wrong addresses. For companies that have a high risk of folks 
> giving a fake address, like quote sites or download sites or even whitepaper 
> sites, the site owners need to take steps to protect themselves. 
>  
> laura 
>  
>  
> On Aug 28, 2018, at 6:27 AM, David Hofstee  > wrote:
>  
> Hi Otto,
>  
> It is not my experience that many people will fill in other people's email 
> address. I've seen 100's of millions of subscribers. Most did not have double 
> opt-in. It mostly went very well. There are cases of form-spam (see e.g. 
> Spamhaus a few years ago) and double opt-in prevents typo's. But there are 
> other methods to deal with abuse (in all of its appearances).
>  
> So I'm not sure that your opinion towards double opt-in (where customers not 
> using it should be seen as spamming) is in line with the numbers I saw. I 
> understand the push from the anti-spam community (who have issues in 
> discriminating criminals and commercial senders having equally bad/good data 
> quality). But this technical solution is, imho, the wrong tool for that. As 
> Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have found out, feedback from users via alternate 
> systems is much better. But that is not yet integrated into RFCs for the rest 
> of us to use. 
>  
> I'll leave the "confirmed opt-in" vs "double opt-in" discussion as it is.
>  
> Yours,
>  
>  
> David 
>  
>  
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 09:02, Otto J. Makela  > wrote:
> On 2018-08-23 22:10, Jan Schapmans wrote:
> 
> >   * customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only 
> > implement
> > it for gmail & googlemail addresses.
> 
> This should definitely raise 

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Michael Wise via mailop]

Monitor … yes, most definitely. Especially for bounces indicating that the 
addressee is no longer valid, or that you’ve been blocked for whatever reason.

… for signs of lack of opt-in …

IMHO, you have that the wrong way around.

Aloha,
Michael.
--
Michael J Wise
Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
"Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
Got the Junk Mail Reporting 
Tool ?

From: mailop  On Behalf Of David Hofstee
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 2:36 AM
To: Brandon Long 
Cc: mailop ; Laura Atkins 
Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist 
with strange reputation issue

> Without confirmed opt-in, you're at the mercy of what random junk people 
> happen to stick in there
True, but then the real problem is that the opt-in is invalid. As an ESP you 
should evaluate these lists beforehand and monitor for signs of a lack of 
opt-in (e.g. high complaint rates by FBL or unsubscribes). Having these typo's 
are often good indicators for me to start looking further beforehand. E.g. 
a...@hotmail.com is the perfect example of people not 
wanting to provide their real email address.

A double-optin only confirms there was a relationship with some sender at some 
point in time. It avoids typo's. However, it does not state with who the opt-in 
was, when it was provided, for what content, for what frequency, under what 
circumstances and for how long that is valid. It is not watertight at all.

Yours,


David

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Brandon Long 
mailto:bl...@google.com>> wrote:
I would also point out that seeing differences between mailbox providers in 
this instance is not really a surprise.  It may have more to do with which 
random address people use in these situations.  They may be choosing Gmail more 
than Yahoo for whatever reason, or the address they're choosing at Gmail may 
exist and be used, and hence getting spam markings.

Without confirmed opt-in, you're at the mercy of what random junk people happen 
to stick in there, and there's no guarantee that that junk is equally 
distributed.

And as Laura points out, it also depends on what they are getting from the 
form.  Some forms may get low to zero junk, others are probably mostly 
untrusted.

Brandon

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 2:28 PM Laura Atkins 
mailto:la...@wordtothewise.com>> wrote:
The difference here is that people may want the quote but not want the 
associated email that comes from the company. So they will fill in a “fake” 
email address, and one that happens to deliver to some random person.

Not all subscription forms are alike, and not all subscription forms have the 
same risk of wrong addresses. For companies that have a high risk of folks 
giving a fake address, like quote sites or download sites or even whitepaper 
sites, the site owners need to take steps to protect themselves.

laura


On Aug 28, 2018, at 6:27 AM, David Hofstee 
mailto:opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Otto,

It is not my experience that many people will fill in other people's email 
address. I've seen 100's of millions of subscribers. Most did not have double 
opt-in. It mostly went very well. There are cases of form-spam (see e.g. 
Spamhaus a few years ago) and double opt-in prevents typo's. But there are 
other methods to deal with abuse (in all of its appearances).

So I'm not sure that your opinion towards double opt-in (where customers not 
using it should be seen as spamming) is in line with the numbers I saw. I 
understand the push from the anti-spam community (who have issues in 
discriminating criminals and commercial senders having equally bad/good data 
quality). But this technical solution is, imho, the wrong tool for that. As 
Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have found out, feedback from users via alternate 
systems is much better. But that is not yet integrated into RFCs for the rest 
of us to use.

I'll leave the "confirmed opt-in" vs "double opt-in" discussion as it is.

Yours,


David


On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 09:02, Otto J. Makela mailto:o...@iki.fi>> 
wrote:
On 2018-08-23 22:10, Jan Schapmans wrote:

>   * customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only implement
> it for gmail & googlemail addresses.

This should definitely raise red flags at your end: customer doesn't
care about how good the "leads" are, as long as there are many.
This is "Millions CD" level thinking.

BTW, a much better term is "confirmed opt-in", because that's what it is.
Most companies that want to contact you by email can get it right (send single
email with confirmation link as part of registration etc.), why should your
customer get a special pass not to do it?

--
   /* * * Otto J. Makela mailto:o...@iki.fi>> * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
 /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27,  FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Laura Atkins]

> On Aug 29, 2018, at 2:35 AM, David Hofstee  
> wrote:
> 
> > Without confirmed opt-in, you're at the mercy of what random junk people 
> > happen to stick in there
> True, but then the real problem is that the opt-in is invalid. As an ESP you 
> should evaluate these lists beforehand and monitor for signs of a lack of 
> opt-in (e.g. high complaint rates by FBL or unsubscribes). Having these 
> typo's are often good indicators for me to start looking further beforehand. 
> E.g. a...@hotmail.com  is the perfect example of 
> people not wanting to provide their real email address.

There is an entire segment of the legitimate email industry that provides list 
cleaning services for a fee to anyone with cash. A significant portion of the 
time a non-opt-in list will pass all of the tests (and dozens more) that you 
mention above.There’s also vast amounts of work and products in the spammer end 
of the email industry that folks like me never see, but are also designed to 
prevent ESPs from identifying spammers. 

Back in 2002, I was investigating a list of addresses. The question was are 
these addresses opt in? I had a sample of addresses from the list, don’t 
remember how many. Included in the data was signup IPs, home addresses, phone 
numbers and zip codes. I ran buckets of tests. I did reverse lookups, I mapped 
IPs to locations, I did everything I could think of to identify if this address 
list was opt-in. The data was clean. Very clean. Zip codes matched IP 
locations. rDNS was accurate between the signup IP and the address signed up. 

At the time there were no such things as FBLs, so I had no complaint levels. I 
didn’t have access to unsubscribe data. But nothing about the data I had 
looked, in any way, like it was collected in any way other than an opt-in 
fashion. I would have even believed it was double opt-in. 

Until. I ran one final test. I searched for a local part I use at some freemail 
providers. And my address was on the list, with a totally fake name, IP address 
somewhere in Texas and matching zip code and phone data. 

The only way I was able to identify that list was a problem was because one of 
my own addresses was on there. Had they grabbed a different subset of the list, 
I would have never been able to ID the list as problematic. Had I not thought 
to look for my own addresses, I would have never caught the problem. 

That was 16+ years ago. The ability of spammers to create plausible looking 
data has only increased. The services I mentioned above, the ones that are used 
by the legitimate folks? They will test your list for deliverability before you 
send your first mail. They’ll clean off the typos. They’ll clean off (some of) 
the spamtraps. They’ll remove anything that will give an ESP insight into the 
list. There’s one service that has purchased every email address list they can 
find, and sells that to ESPs so they can detect purchased lists. The services 
on the spammer end of the industry? They’re even better and more dodgy. They 
include shared lists of address that complain, or shared lists of addresses 
that regularly open. The whole business 

A naive scanning like you suggest wasn’t sufficient for the spammers of 16 
years ago. It’s certainly not going to catch anything actual spammer today. 

> A double-optin only confirms there was a relationship with some sender at 
> some point in time. It avoids typo's. However, it does not state with who the 
> opt-in was, when it was provided, for what content, for what frequency, under 
> what circumstances and for how long that is valid. It is not watertight at 
> all.

Exactly. Which is why there are other / better ways to manage a subscription 
process and address collection process. Mapping out the "attack tree” (it’s not 
really attack, but more vulnerability tree) lets the address collector manage 
the threats to their list in a way that limits the friction for recipients that 
want to receive their mail while providing the right friction to ward off fake 
addresses in their mailing lists. 

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] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[David Hofstee]

> For companies that have a high risk of folks giving a fake address, like
quote sites or download sites or even whitepaper sites, the site owners
need to take steps to protect themselves.
No. Recipients are not stupid. They only give fake addresses if they see
that the company is asking their email address for the wrong reasons.
Unless that is fixed, you will keep trouble.

Companies should not ask for an email address unless they take good care of
it and convince the recipient of that. That is how they should protect
themselves.

Yours,


David

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 23:14, Laura Atkins  wrote:

> The difference here is that people may want the quote but not want the
> associated email that comes from the company. So they will fill in a “fake”
> email address, and one that happens to deliver to some random person.
>
> Not all subscription forms are alike, and not all subscription forms have
> the same risk of wrong addresses. For companies that have a high risk of
> folks giving a fake address, like quote sites or download sites or even
> whitepaper sites, the site owners need to take steps to protect themselves.
>
> laura
>
>
> On Aug 28, 2018, at 6:27 AM, David Hofstee 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Otto,
>
> It is not my experience that many people will fill in other people's email
> address. I've seen 100's of millions of subscribers. Most did not have
> double opt-in. It mostly went very well. There are cases of form-spam (see
> e.g. Spamhaus a few years ago) and double opt-in prevents typo's. But there
> are other methods to deal with abuse (in all of its appearances).
>
> So I'm not sure that your opinion towards double opt-in (where customers
> not using it should be seen as spamming) is in line with the numbers I saw.
> I understand the push from the anti-spam community (who have issues in
> discriminating criminals and commercial senders having equally bad/good
> data quality). But this technical solution is, imho, the wrong tool for
> that. As Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have found out, feedback from users
> via alternate systems is much better. But that is not yet integrated into
> RFCs for the rest of us to use.
>
> I'll leave the "confirmed opt-in" vs "double opt-in" discussion as it is.
>
> Yours,
>
>
> David
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 09:02, Otto J. Makela  wrote:
>
>> On 2018-08-23 22:10, Jan Schapmans wrote:
>>
>> >   * customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only
>> implement
>> > it for gmail & googlemail addresses.
>>
>> This should definitely raise red flags at your end: customer doesn't
>> care about how good the "leads" are, as long as there are many.
>> This is "Millions CD" level thinking.
>>
>> BTW, a much better term is "confirmed opt-in", because that's what it is.
>> Most companies that want to contact you by email can get it right (send
>> single
>> email with confirmation link as part of registration etc.), why should
>> your
>> customer get a special pass not to do it?
>>
>> --
>>/* * * Otto J. Makela  * * * * * * * * * */
>>   /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
>>  /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27,  FI-00100 Helsinki */
>> /* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */
>>
>> ___
>> mailop mailing list
>> mailop@mailop.org
>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> My opinion is mine.
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[David Hofstee]

> Without confirmed opt-in, you're at the mercy of what random junk people
happen to stick in there
True, but then the real problem is that the opt-in is invalid. As an ESP
you should evaluate these lists beforehand *and* monitor for signs of a
lack of opt-in (e.g. high complaint rates by FBL or unsubscribes). Having
these typo's are often good indicators for me to start looking further
beforehand. E.g. a...@hotmail.com is the perfect example of people not
wanting to provide their real email address.

A double-optin only confirms there was a relationship with some sender at
some point in time. It avoids typo's. However, it does not state with who
the opt-in was, when it was provided, for what content, for what frequency,
under what circumstances and for how long that is valid. It is not
watertight at all.

Yours,


David

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Brandon Long  wrote:

> I would also point out that seeing differences between mailbox providers
> in this instance is not really a surprise.  It may have more to do with
> which random address people use in these situations.  They may be choosing
> Gmail more than Yahoo for whatever reason, or the address they're choosing
> at Gmail may exist and be used, and hence getting spam markings.
>
> Without confirmed opt-in, you're at the mercy of what random junk people
> happen to stick in there, and there's no guarantee that that junk is
> equally distributed.
>
> And as Laura points out, it also depends on what they are getting from the
> form.  Some forms may get low to zero junk, others are probably mostly
> untrusted.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 2:28 PM Laura Atkins 
> wrote:
>
>> The difference here is that people may want the quote but not want the
>> associated email that comes from the company. So they will fill in a “fake”
>> email address, and one that happens to deliver to some random person.
>>
>> Not all subscription forms are alike, and not all subscription forms have
>> the same risk of wrong addresses. For companies that have a high risk of
>> folks giving a fake address, like quote sites or download sites or even
>> whitepaper sites, the site owners need to take steps to protect themselves.
>>
>> laura
>>
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2018, at 6:27 AM, David Hofstee 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Otto,
>>
>> It is not my experience that many people will fill in other people's
>> email address. I've seen 100's of millions of subscribers. Most did not
>> have double opt-in. It mostly went very well. There are cases of form-spam
>> (see e.g. Spamhaus a few years ago) and double opt-in prevents typo's. But
>> there are other methods to deal with abuse (in all of its appearances).
>>
>> So I'm not sure that your opinion towards double opt-in (where customers
>> not using it should be seen as spamming) is in line with the numbers I saw.
>> I understand the push from the anti-spam community (who have issues in
>> discriminating criminals and commercial senders having equally bad/good
>> data quality). But this technical solution is, imho, the wrong tool for
>> that. As Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have found out, feedback from users
>> via alternate systems is much better. But that is not yet integrated into
>> RFCs for the rest of us to use.
>>
>> I'll leave the "confirmed opt-in" vs "double opt-in" discussion as it is.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 09:02, Otto J. Makela  wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-08-23 22:10, Jan Schapmans wrote:
>>>
>>> >   * customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only
>>> implement
>>> > it for gmail & googlemail addresses.
>>>
>>> This should definitely raise red flags at your end: customer doesn't
>>> care about how good the "leads" are, as long as there are many.
>>> This is "Millions CD" level thinking.
>>>
>>> BTW, a much better term is "confirmed opt-in", because that's what it is.
>>> Most companies that want to contact you by email can get it right (send
>>> single
>>> email with confirmation link as part of registration etc.), why should
>>> your
>>> customer get a special pass not to do it?
>>>
>>> --
>>>/* * * Otto J. Makela  * * * * * * * * * */
>>>   /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
>>>  /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27,  FI-00100 Helsinki */
>>> /* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */
>>>
>>> ___
>>> mailop mailing list
>>> mailop@mailop.org
>>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> My opinion is mine.
>> ___
>> mailop mailing list
>> mailop@mailop.org
>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Philip Paeps]

On 2018-08-29 05:41:33 (+0200), John Levine wrote:

In article <23nbod1hoj7v3puc1clpfrm4rtjuf6s...@honet.com> you write:
I would also point out that seeing differences between mailbox 
providers in this instance is not really a surprise.


You would be amazed, or maybe not, how many people with names similar 
to mine wrongly believe that my gmail account is their account.


I receive a lot of email for other people named Philip at philip@ 
addresses in several domains.


One particular philip@ address, at one of the largest ISPs in Belgium, 
is actually quite interesting.  The ISP has a fairly reasonable spam 
filter so most of the email it receives is not actually spam.  It mostly 
receives bills, legal advice and medical information for about a dozen 
other people named Philip.


I can't turn it into a spamtrap (because it's not spam).  I've been 
tempted to set up an auto-responder but I'm concerned about backscatter.


Apropos the original post: I get *a lot* of email to that address 
offering to buy my car.  I don't own a car.


It is definitely true that if your client demands an address as a 
condition of getting access to something, you should assume that the 
addresses are junk, because they will be.  That is the case even if 
the something is delivered to the address they provide.


Even if you're going to use the email for purposes other than marketing 
(say, sending bills, legal advice or medical information), you should 
still confirm the address.


I've certainly entered my share of example.com addresses on captive 
portals and quote sites and the like.


I like using guerillamail.com (and others) for this.

Especially since some captive portals have started only giving ten 
minutes of internet access until you click a link they send by email.


Philip

--
Philip Paeps
Senior Reality Engineer
Ministry of Information
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[John Levine]

In article <23nbod1hoj7v3puc1clpfrm4rtjuf6s...@honet.com> you write:
>>I would also point out that seeing differences between mailbox providers in
>>this instance is not really a surprise.

You would be amazed, or maybe not, how many people with names similar
to mine wrongly believe that my gmail account is their account.

It is definitely true that if your client demands an address as a
condition of getting access to something, you should assume that the
addresses are junk, because they will be.  That is the case even if
the something is delivered to the address they provide.

I've certainly entered my share of example.com addresses on captive
portals and quote sites and the like.

R's,
John

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

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Michael Rathbun]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 15:24:07 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop
 wrote:

>I would also point out that seeing differences between mailbox providers in
>this instance is not really a surprise.  It may have more to do with which
>random address people use in these situations.  They may be choosing Gmail
>more than Yahoo for whatever reason, or the address they're choosing at
>Gmail may exist and be used, and hence getting spam markings.

Any number of people with my initials still decide that @yahoo.com are a handy "junk" value to give when asked for an email
address.  Thus has it been for nearly 24 years now.

Then there was the "MDR Jet Ski Company" that stiffed all their paid
reservations before blowing town, but left me as the contact address on their
web site...

mdr


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

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Brandon Long via mailop]

I would also point out that seeing differences between mailbox providers in
this instance is not really a surprise.  It may have more to do with which
random address people use in these situations.  They may be choosing Gmail
more than Yahoo for whatever reason, or the address they're choosing at
Gmail may exist and be used, and hence getting spam markings.

Without confirmed opt-in, you're at the mercy of what random junk people
happen to stick in there, and there's no guarantee that that junk is
equally distributed.

And as Laura points out, it also depends on what they are getting from the
form.  Some forms may get low to zero junk, others are probably mostly
untrusted.

Brandon

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 2:28 PM Laura Atkins 
wrote:

> The difference here is that people may want the quote but not want the
> associated email that comes from the company. So they will fill in a “fake”
> email address, and one that happens to deliver to some random person.
>
> Not all subscription forms are alike, and not all subscription forms have
> the same risk of wrong addresses. For companies that have a high risk of
> folks giving a fake address, like quote sites or download sites or even
> whitepaper sites, the site owners need to take steps to protect themselves.
>
> laura
>
>
> On Aug 28, 2018, at 6:27 AM, David Hofstee 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Otto,
>
> It is not my experience that many people will fill in other people's email
> address. I've seen 100's of millions of subscribers. Most did not have
> double opt-in. It mostly went very well. There are cases of form-spam (see
> e.g. Spamhaus a few years ago) and double opt-in prevents typo's. But there
> are other methods to deal with abuse (in all of its appearances).
>
> So I'm not sure that your opinion towards double opt-in (where customers
> not using it should be seen as spamming) is in line with the numbers I saw.
> I understand the push from the anti-spam community (who have issues in
> discriminating criminals and commercial senders having equally bad/good
> data quality). But this technical solution is, imho, the wrong tool for
> that. As Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have found out, feedback from users
> via alternate systems is much better. But that is not yet integrated into
> RFCs for the rest of us to use.
>
> I'll leave the "confirmed opt-in" vs "double opt-in" discussion as it is.
>
> Yours,
>
>
> David
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 09:02, Otto J. Makela  wrote:
>
>> On 2018-08-23 22:10, Jan Schapmans wrote:
>>
>> >   * customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only
>> implement
>> > it for gmail & googlemail addresses.
>>
>> This should definitely raise red flags at your end: customer doesn't
>> care about how good the "leads" are, as long as there are many.
>> This is "Millions CD" level thinking.
>>
>> BTW, a much better term is "confirmed opt-in", because that's what it is.
>> Most companies that want to contact you by email can get it right (send
>> single
>> email with confirmation link as part of registration etc.), why should
>> your
>> customer get a special pass not to do it?
>>
>> --
>>/* * * Otto J. Makela  * * * * * * * * * */
>>   /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
>>  /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27,  FI-00100 Helsinki */
>> /* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */
>>
>> ___
>> mailop mailing list
>> mailop@mailop.org
>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> My opinion is mine.
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>
>
> --
> 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
>
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Laura Atkins]

The difference here is that people may want the quote but not want the 
associated email that comes from the company. So they will fill in a “fake” 
email address, and one that happens to deliver to some random person.

Not all subscription forms are alike, and not all subscription forms have the 
same risk of wrong addresses. For companies that have a high risk of folks 
giving a fake address, like quote sites or download sites or even whitepaper 
sites, the site owners need to take steps to protect themselves. 

laura 


> On Aug 28, 2018, at 6:27 AM, David Hofstee  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Otto,
> 
> It is not my experience that many people will fill in other people's email 
> address. I've seen 100's of millions of subscribers. Most did not have double 
> opt-in. It mostly went very well. There are cases of form-spam (see e.g. 
> Spamhaus a few years ago) and double opt-in prevents typo's. But there are 
> other methods to deal with abuse (in all of its appearances).
> 
> So I'm not sure that your opinion towards double opt-in (where customers not 
> using it should be seen as spamming) is in line with the numbers I saw. I 
> understand the push from the anti-spam community (who have issues in 
> discriminating criminals and commercial senders having equally bad/good data 
> quality). But this technical solution is, imho, the wrong tool for that. As 
> Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have found out, feedback from users via alternate 
> systems is much better. But that is not yet integrated into RFCs for the rest 
> of us to use.
> 
> I'll leave the "confirmed opt-in" vs "double opt-in" discussion as it is.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 09:02, Otto J. Makela  > wrote:
> On 2018-08-23 22:10, Jan Schapmans wrote:
> 
> >   * customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only 
> > implement
> > it for gmail & googlemail addresses.
> 
> This should definitely raise red flags at your end: customer doesn't
> care about how good the "leads" are, as long as there are many.
> This is "Millions CD" level thinking.
> 
> BTW, a much better term is "confirmed opt-in", because that's what it is.
> Most companies that want to contact you by email can get it right (send single
> email with confirmation link as part of registration etc.), why should your
> customer get a special pass not to do it?
> 
> -- 
>/* * * Otto J. Makela mailto:o...@iki.fi>> * * * * * * * * * 
> */
>   /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
>  /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27,  FI-00100 Helsinki */
> /* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */
> 
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org 
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> My opinion is mine.
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

-- 
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] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Michael Wise via mailop]

My experience is far different from yours.
But then, I see the bad side of it all the time.
Comes with the job.

Aloha,
Michael.
--
Michael J Wise
Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
"Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
Got the Junk Mail Reporting 
Tool ?

From: mailop  On Behalf Of David Hofstee
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 6:28 AM
To: o...@iki.fi
Cc: mailop 
Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist 
with strange reputation issue

Hi Otto,

It is not my experience that many people will fill in other people's email 
address. I've seen 100's of millions of subscribers. Most did not have double 
opt-in. It mostly went very well. There are cases of form-spam (see e.g. 
Spamhaus a few years ago) and double opt-in prevents typo's. But there are 
other methods to deal with abuse (in all of its appearances).

So I'm not sure that your opinion towards double opt-in (where customers not 
using it should be seen as spamming) is in line with the numbers I saw. I 
understand the push from the anti-spam community (who have issues in 
discriminating criminals and commercial senders having equally bad/good data 
quality). But this technical solution is, imho, the wrong tool for that. As 
Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have found out, feedback from users via alternate 
systems is much better. But that is not yet integrated into RFCs for the rest 
of us to use.

I'll leave the "confirmed opt-in" vs "double opt-in" discussion as it is.

Yours,


David


On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 09:02, Otto J. Makela mailto:o...@iki.fi>> 
wrote:
On 2018-08-23 22:10, Jan Schapmans wrote:

>   * customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only implement
> it for gmail & googlemail addresses.

This should definitely raise red flags at your end: customer doesn't
care about how good the "leads" are, as long as there are many.
This is "Millions CD" level thinking.

BTW, a much better term is "confirmed opt-in", because that's what it is.
Most companies that want to contact you by email can get it right (send single
email with confirmation link as part of registration etc.), why should your
customer get a special pass not to do it?

--
   /* * * Otto J. Makela mailto:o...@iki.fi>> * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
 /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27,  FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */

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


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

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Michael Wise via mailop]

Please let us know the customer's IP address and domain name so that we may 
proactively block them...

Not completely joking.

Aloha,
Michael.
--
Michael J Wise
Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis
"Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
Got the Junk Mail Reporting 
Tool ?



-Original Message-
From: mailop  On Behalf Of Otto J. Makela
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 11:47 PM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist 
with strange reputation issue



On 2018-08-23 22:10, Jan Schapmans wrote:



>   * customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only implement

> it for gmail & googlemail addresses.



This should definitely raise red flags at your end: customer doesn't care about 
how good the "leads" are, as long as there are many.

This is "Millions CD" level thinking.



BTW, a much better term is "confirmed opt-in", because that's what it is.

Most companies that want to contact you by email can get it right (send single 
email with confirmation link as part of registration etc.), why should your 
customer get a special pass not to do it?



--

   /* * * Otto J. Makela mailto:o...@iki.fi>> * * * * * * * * * */

  /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */

/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27,  FI-00100 Helsinki */

/* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */



___

mailop mailing list

mailop@mailop.org

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchilli.nosignal.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmailopdata=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7Cc8d9344992d444e365d108d60cb41019%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636710364841735383sdata=XJhKDpjs4%2FkG5C4ct4HnoBi7H%2BPauu%2FwtXr3lKgY6cA%3Dreserved=0
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[David Hofstee]

Hi Otto,

It is not my experience that many people will fill in other people's email
address. I've seen 100's of millions of subscribers. Most did not have
double opt-in. It mostly went very well. There are cases of form-spam (see
e.g. Spamhaus a few years ago) and double opt-in prevents typo's. But there
are other methods to deal with abuse (in all of its appearances).

So I'm not sure that your opinion towards double opt-in (where customers
not using it should be seen as spamming) is in line with the numbers I saw.
I understand the push from the anti-spam community (who have issues in
discriminating criminals and commercial senders having equally bad/good
data quality). But this technical solution is, imho, the wrong tool for
that. As Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have found out, feedback from users
via alternate systems is much better. But that is not yet integrated into
RFCs for the rest of us to use.

I'll leave the "confirmed opt-in" vs "double opt-in" discussion as it is.

Yours,


David


On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 09:02, Otto J. Makela  wrote:

> On 2018-08-23 22:10, Jan Schapmans wrote:
>
> >   * customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only
> implement
> > it for gmail & googlemail addresses.
>
> This should definitely raise red flags at your end: customer doesn't
> care about how good the "leads" are, as long as there are many.
> This is "Millions CD" level thinking.
>
> BTW, a much better term is "confirmed opt-in", because that's what it is.
> Most companies that want to contact you by email can get it right (send
> single
> email with confirmation link as part of registration etc.), why should your
> customer get a special pass not to do it?
>
> --
>/* * * Otto J. Makela  * * * * * * * * * */
>   /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
>  /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27,  FI-00100 Helsinki */
> /* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */
>
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>


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

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Otto J. Makela]

On 2018-08-23 22:10, Jan Schapmans wrote:

>   * customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only implement
> it for gmail & googlemail addresses.

This should definitely raise red flags at your end: customer doesn't
care about how good the "leads" are, as long as there are many.
This is "Millions CD" level thinking.

BTW, a much better term is "confirmed opt-in", because that's what it is.
Most companies that want to contact you by email can get it right (send single
email with confirmation link as part of registration etc.), why should your
customer get a special pass not to do it?

-- 
   /* * * Otto J. Makela  * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
 /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27,  FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */

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

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[David Hofstee]

should have addressed it to Jan...

David H

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 at 10:07, David Hofstee 
wrote:

> Hi David C,
>
> I've had my dealings with these quote sites... It may apply to you. The
> actions you take seem to target email address validity, but Google cites
> complaints as the issue. None of your answers seem to target the problem of
> "do recipients want the email" effectively imho.
>
> My question would be: Why would the customer ask for an email address if
> the recipient only wants the quote?
> Answer: Because the customer doesn't want to "lose" the recipient.
>
> Question: Does the recipient want anything more than the quote?
> Answer: Likely (s)he does not.
>
> You can:
> - Test this by measuring how many temporary email addresses are in the
> list (e.g. @mailinator.com). If that percentage is relatively high,
> recipients do not trust and/or want to have a relationship with the sender.
> Otherwise they would provide their real email address.
> - Measure this by adding a "complaint" option in the unsubscribe form (so
> you can measure how many recipients didn't want the mails). Be sure to add
> a "free field" so people can explain why. Getting complaints and "the
> story" behind such issues is what deliverability is about... The
> unsubscribe form is by far the most useful tool to understand what
> recipients are thinking.
>
> Bottom line is that unless the recipient wants and expects every email,
> providing him/her with real value, the spam button will be hit... In this
> business case, getting data from the recipient to entice him/her into
> further contact is maybe seen as "aggressive" and people get to vote with
> the spam button.
>
> Yours,
>
>
> David H.
>
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 at 21:26, Jan Schapmans 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>
>>
>> thank  you very much for your answer.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you are fully right stating that only changing the sending domain
>> and/or IP addresses won’t help.
>>
>> That’s just why we continue trying other things at the same time
>>
>>- only targeting recent engaged (open/click) users from the last 10
>>days
>>- making sure all clicks on unsubscribe link are processed as an
>>unsubscribe (without the users completely processing the unsubscribe flow)
>>- deduplicate all send outs (we’ve noticed some users are more than
>>once in the system because they’ve filed multiple requests)
>>
>>
>>
>> Only thing missing in their best practices, if we are not missing
>> anything, is that they don’t do double optin. To get them to implement
>> double optin, we are pushing to do this only for Gmail.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are:
>>
>>- using DMARC with reject policy
>>- all emails singed with DKIM
>>- Google postmaster ip reputation BAD, domain reputation BAD &
>>complaint rate ok and of course very low at the end because of no inbox
>>placement.  In the feedback loop there is no mentioning of any identifier
>>you can see below we were in a happy place first, and slowly it got
>>worse & worse
>>- list is acquired by a webform where users request a valuation of
>>their car
>>- customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only
>>implement it for gmail & googlemail addresses.
>>(do you think gmail is also monitoring other domains? google apps?)
>>- spam message says (sorry for the Dutch)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> kr,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David Carriger 
>> *Sent:* 22 August 2018 22:13
>> *To:* Jan Schapmans ; mailop@mailop.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist
>> with strange reputation issue
>>
>>
>>
>> Changing the sending domain and the IP addresses won't help at all if you
>> haven't solved the underlying issue, you're just kicking the deliverability
>> can down the road. Is the domain using DMARC to prevent spoofing, and
>> what's the policy? Are all emails signed with DKIM? What does Google
>> Postmaster Tools show for IP reputation, domain reputation, and complaint
>> rates? How is the customer acquiring their list? Are they using double
>> opt-in? When an email goes to the spam folder, does Gmail show a banner
>> saying why it was sent to spam? If so, what's the banner say?
>>
>> Gmail is very good at spam filtering, so your best bet is to assume
>> there's a problem with the sender's practices and work backwards from there.
>> --
>>
>> *From:* mailop  on behalf of Jan Schapmans <
>> jan.schapm...@selligent.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 22, 2018 8:25:46 AM
>> *To:* mailop@mailop.org
>> *Subject:* [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to
>> assist with strange reputation issue
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Gmail,
>>
>>
>>
>> we are having for a UK customer an inboxing problem with Gmail and only
>> Gmail. Over a month ago we’ve changed their ip addresses, changed their
>> sending domains, started warming up again, all was good until a few week
>> ago: the reputation of ip’s & 

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Vittorio Bertola]

> Il 23 agosto 2018 alle 21.10 Jan Schapmans  ha 
> scritto: 
> 
> Only thing missing in their best practices, if we are not missing anything, 
> is that they don’t do double optin. To get them to implement double optin, we 
> are pushing to do this only for Gmail.

Oh well, just a minor thing... :-O

IMHO anyone in Europe - or having significant numbers of European users - not 
using double opt-in on each and every subscription is looking for serious 
trouble, as it will be impossible for you to demonstrate that you acquired 
explicit and unequivocal consent, as required by the GDPR, when adding the 
user's email address to your list. Anyone can just drop by and type any email 
address, which, by chance, is going to be someone else's email address that you 
are going to start spamming. It just takes a few of these people to start 
complaining and you're going not just to be blacklisted, but to get hefty fines 
by the relevant DPA.
 
Regards,
-- 

Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

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

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Stefano Bagnara]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 at 21:14, Jan Schapmans  wrote:
>
> list is acquired by a webform where users request a valuation of their car
> customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only implement it 
> for gmail & googlemail addresses.
> (do you think gmail is also monitoring other domains? google apps?)

So, what does it happen when the user fill in the webform?
You simply put the email in the DB and use it later? Or what else?

But yes, doing "non confirmed" opt-in today is risky, and you just
discovered some of them: just report back to the customer and let him
decide if he still wants single opt-in even if this means "junk
folder".

And yes, GSuite domains all counts in the reputation for Google, so if
you have inboxing issues to Gmail you most likely can see them on
GSuite domains too. There are a lot of business domains there, today
and if you want to treat them differently from other you'll have to
start collecting the MX for each domain and add rules for MXes.

Stefano

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

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Philip Paeps]

On 2018-08-23 19:10:50 (+), Jan Schapmans wrote:
Only thing missing in their best practices, if we are not missing 
anything, is that they don't do double optin. To get them to implement 
double optin, we are pushing to do this only for Gmail.


So your customer is a spammer.

Unless you confirm opt-in, you have no way of knowing that your email is 
wanted.  If it's not wanted, it's spam.


* Google postmaster ip reputation BAD, domain reputation BAD & 
complaint rate ok and of course very low at the end because of no 
inbox placement.  In the feedback loop there is no mentioning of any 
identifier


you can see below we were in a happy place first, and slowly it got 
worse & worse


The system is working well.

* list is acquired by a webform where users request a valuation of 
their car


People can input any address they like in this form.  Unless you confirm 
opt-in, you have no way of knowing if that address wants your email.  


Any email you send to an address that hasn't requested it is spam.


 * customer doesn't want to do double optin


Get rid of the customer.

Philip

--
Philip Paeps
Senior Reality Engineer
Ministry of Information

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

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[Laura Atkins]

Oh. It’s a quote site. They have to do something, anything, to confirm that the 
email addresses input in the form belong to the person who is submitting the 
form. At its simplest, you mail them the value of their car. If you’re 
requiring an email address but just popping the value up on the website, then 
their data is garbage. The vast majority of consumers are going to give you 
fake addresses and so you sender is sending “organic” spam. I call it “webform 
harvesting.” 

The data is the problem, every other thing you’re doing is window dressing. 
Yes, all those things are good to do (especially the unsubscribe processing, 
WTF?). But until you clean up the data going into the system you’re not going 
to fix your gmail problem. 

I’ve worked on this type of setup with a number of clients. There are things 
that will work, but it’s not at the level of do these 4 obvious things some 
random person tells you to do on a mailing list. There is some serious, 
strategic work that needs to be done to figure out how they can clean the 
inputs. (and, no, really, just using one of the hygiene companies isn’t going 
to solve this.) 

laura 


> On Aug 23, 2018, at 12:10 PM, Jan Schapmans  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
>  
> thank  you very much for your answer.
>  
> I think you are fully right stating that only changing the sending domain 
> and/or IP addresses won’t help.
> That’s just why we continue trying other things at the same time
> only targeting recent engaged (open/click) users from the last 10 days
> making sure all clicks on unsubscribe link are processed as an unsubscribe 
> (without the users completely processing the unsubscribe flow)
> deduplicate all send outs (we’ve noticed some users are more than once in the 
> system because they’ve filed multiple requests)
>  
> Only thing missing in their best practices, if we are not missing anything, 
> is that they don’t do double optin. To get them to implement double optin, we 
> are pushing to do this only for Gmail.
>  
> We are:
> using DMARC with reject policy
> all emails singed with DKIM
> Google postmaster ip reputation BAD, domain reputation BAD & complaint rate 
> ok and of course very low at the end because of no inbox placement.  In the 
> feedback loop there is no mentioning of any identifier
> you can see below we were in a happy place first, and slowly it got worse & 
> worse
> 
> list is acquired by a webform where users request a valuation of their car
> customer doesn’t want to do double optin, we are pushing to only implement it 
> for gmail & googlemail addresses.
> (do you think gmail is also monitoring other domains? google apps?)
> spam message says (sorry for the Dutch)
> 
>  
>  
> kr,
>  
> Jan
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: David Carriger  > 
> Sent: 22 August 2018 22:13
> To: Jan Schapmans  >; mailop@mailop.org 
> 
> Subject: Re: Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with 
> strange reputation issue
>  
> Changing the sending domain and the IP addresses won't help at all if you 
> haven't solved the underlying issue, you're just kicking the deliverability 
> can down the road. Is the domain using DMARC to prevent spoofing, and what's 
> the policy? Are all emails signed with DKIM? What does Google Postmaster 
> Tools show for IP reputation, domain reputation, and complaint rates? How is 
> the customer acquiring their list? Are they using double opt-in? When an 
> email goes to the spam folder, does Gmail show a banner saying why it was 
> sent to spam? If so, what's the banner say?
> 
> Gmail is very good at spam filtering, so your best bet is to assume there's a 
> problem with the sender's practices and work backwards from there.
> 
> From: mailop mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org>> 
> on behalf of Jan Schapmans  >
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 8:25:46 AM
> To: mailop@mailop.org 
> Subject: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist 
> with strange reputation issue
>  
> Dear Gmail,
>  
> we are having for a UK customer an inboxing problem with Gmail and only 
> Gmail. Over a month ago we’ve changed their ip addresses, changed their 
> sending domains, started warming up again, all was good until a few week ago: 
> the reputation of ip’s & domains are suffering again and open rates dropped 
> again.
> 
>  
> We now
> send them from a subdomain from our own corporate domain
> target only the most recent engaged Gmail users (last 10 days)
> exclude anybody who is only just clicking on the unsubscribe link (even 
> without fully completing the unsubscribe process)
> monitor the complaints (list-unsubscribes) and make sure they are honoured.
>  
> Seems like we are missing something, but can’t pinpoint what it is. We have 
> to admit at first there was something wrong with their setup and complaints & 
> unsubscribes weren’t 

Re: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with strange reputation issue

[David Carriger]

Changing the sending domain and the IP addresses won't help at all if you 
haven't solved the underlying issue, you're just kicking the deliverability can 
down the road. Is the domain using DMARC to prevent spoofing, and what's the 
policy? Are all emails signed with DKIM? What does Google Postmaster Tools show 
for IP reputation, domain reputation, and complaint rates? How is the customer 
acquiring their list? Are they using double opt-in? When an email goes to the 
spam folder, does Gmail show a banner saying why it was sent to spam? If so, 
what's the banner say?

Gmail is very good at spam filtering, so your best bet is to assume there's a 
problem with the sender's practices and work backwards from there.


From: mailop  on behalf of Jan Schapmans 

Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 8:25:46 AM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: [mailop] Gmail - Anybody out there from Gmail, willing to assist with 
strange reputation issue

Dear Gmail,

we are having for a UK customer an inboxing problem with Gmail and only Gmail. 
Over a month ago we’ve changed their ip addresses, changed their sending 
domains, started warming up again, all was good until a few week ago: the 
reputation of ip’s & domains are suffering again and open rates dropped again.
[cid:image001.png@01D43A3D.288C0CB0]

We now

  *   send them from a subdomain from our own corporate domain
  *   target only the most recent engaged Gmail users (last 10 days)
  *   exclude anybody who is only just clicking on the unsubscribe link (even 
without fully completing the unsubscribe process)
  *   monitor the complaints (list-unsubscribes) and make sure they are 
honoured.

Seems like we are missing something, but can’t pinpoint what it is. We have to 
admit at first there was something wrong with their setup and complaints & 
unsubscribes weren’t processed properly.  Can it be that reputation is catching 
up after a while? Even on a new warmed up subdomain?

Since last week results are somewhat better & stabilizing around 9% open rate 
but all other domains are at 20% or higher. (even Gmail was higher at some 
point)
[cid:image002.png@01D43A3D.288C0CB0]

I hope somebody from Gmail can point us to something we are missing, but I’ 
rather have them confirm we are doing ok now and rates will go up :)


Kind regards,


- - - - -
JAN SCHAPMANS
DIRECTOR DELIVERABILITY SERVICES

mobile  +32 498 93 29 65
email  jan.schapm...@selligent.com

SELLIGENT MARKETING CLOUD
CONSUMER-FIRST MARKETING
www.selligent.com


The information contained in this communication is confidential and is only for 
the use of the intended addressee. If you have received this communication in 
error, please destroy it immediately, including all attachments.




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