> On Sep 6, 2019, at 8:01 AM, Ewald Kessler | Webpower via mailop
> wrote:
>
> Not short, but certainly sweet:
>
> I don't care what method people devise to make sure that people don't get
> added to a mailing list without their consent, so long as it actually works.
> I don't care if they
dress ownership
> confirmation". Or "validation?" That's probably worth another fight.
>
>
>
> --
> *Benjamin*
>
>
>
> *From:* mailop *On Behalf Of *Tom Bartel via
> mailop
> *Sent:* lundi 26 août 2019 21:17
> *To:* Ralf Hildebrandt
> *Cc:* mailop
ion". Or
"validation?" That's probably worth another fight.
--
Benjamin
From: mailop On Behalf Of Tom Bartel via mailop
Sent: lundi 26 août 2019 21:17
To: Ralf Hildebrandt
Cc: mailop
Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score
I work at Return Path and I can't seem t
I work at Return Path and I can't seem to find any references to double-opt
in on Sender Score site. LMK if you have a specific reference. I agree
with Matt V. though that DOI/COI interchangeable, though I prefer COI.
Tom
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:37 PM Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop <
: lundi 26 août 2019 10:49
À : mailop
Objet : Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score
This might also be an issue of different wordings used in different parts of
the world. I started working in the email space 10+ years ago for the eco
Association in Germany. In every document, in every
This might also be an issue of different wordings used in different parts of
the world. I started working in the email space 10+ years ago for the eco
Association in Germany. In every document, in every personal conversation I
had, always the term DOI was used. Not only by marketeers, also by
>
> Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of
> language
> to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to
> be
> concerning
As do I. I guess my argument is that this isn't what is happening when some
email marketer says "double opt in" or
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 08:14:16 -0700, Luke via mailop wrote:
>I did intend to send it to the whole list.
>
>"Spamspeak" makes it sound so clandestine. So Orwellian. Like there is some
>> subversive element on the list trying to turn the tides and normalize spam.
>> Sounds spooky. Sounds
I did intend to send it to the whole list.
"Spamspeak" makes it sound so clandestine. So Orwellian. Like there is some
> subversive element on the list trying to turn the tides and normalize spam.
> Sounds spooky. Sounds provocative. Let's run with this.
> *Rolls eyes*
But yes, I was poking fun
On 8/23/2019 4:03 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
But if you want some REAL "spamspeak" you wouldn't believe how often
I've heard marketers recently talk about their "cold email campaigns"
with no shame. I then did an informal survey to a couple of
high-quality marketing discussion forums - to see
> On 23 Aug 2019, at 18:35, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop
> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
>>
>>> In '1984' there's Newspeak. Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak. Clarity in
>>> discussion is to be
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:43 PM Al Iverson via mailop
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop
> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
> >
> > > In '1984' there's Newspeak. Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak.
> Clarity in
> > > discussion
* Jay Hennigan via mailop :
> Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing
> appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead of
> "confirmed opt-in".
I'll rather use the term "confirmed opt-in" then :)
Also, it makes more sense, since the recipient
Michael Rathbun via mailop
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 9:19 AM
To: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
Cc: Michael Rathbun via mailop
Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:06:40 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop"
mailto:mailop@mailop.org
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop
wrote:
>
> On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
>
> > In '1984' there's Newspeak. Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak. Clarity in
> > discussion is to be avoided at any (reasonable) cost.
>
> Spamspeak is alive and well on
On 8/22/19 23:40, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
You can't use engagement like that.
I consider the weekly/monthly email from a clothes store that gives me
a discount for being on their email list to be SPAM.
If you willingly gave then your email address for that purpose, it is by
no
On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
In '1984' there's Newspeak. Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak. Clarity in
discussion is to be avoided at any (reasonable) cost.
Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing
appearance of the spammer term "double
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:06:40 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop"
wrote:
>> Spam being unsolicited broadcast email, I would say that if you agree to
>> receive it, it cannot be spam. This definition has held up well over the
>> twenty-five years I've been involved in the industry.
>
> Spam being unsolicited broadcast email, I would say that if you agree to
> receive it, it cannot be spam. This definition has held up well over the
> twenty-five years I've been involved in the industry.
Indeed, and it was formalized in item (2) in the Vixie/Mitchell defintion of
spam, which
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:40:55 +0100 (BST), Andrew C Aitchison via mailop
wrote:
>You can't use engagement like that.
Everyday experience with a large number of volume mailer clients says that, in
the general case, you not only can, you must. There have been public
statements by staff at major
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
In our experience, if you mail to addresses that haven't engaged (subscribe,
open, click) in the previous 90 to 180 days, there is a growing tendency for
your IPs/domains to be classified as spammaceous and dealt with appropriately.
You
* Michael Wise via mailop :
>
>
> You'd be surprised at the blank stares I've gotten in certain venues when I
> bring up Bounce Processing.
Oh. But indeed, our local morons here at the hospital keep sending out
their (opted in) mail to addresses long dead. Alas, no bounce
processing.
--
Ralf
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:39:31 +0100, Laura Atkins via mailop
wrote:
>Not sure I understand this point of view. I think everyone should be rejecting
>after DATA, if only to stop the abuse of the email address validation
>services.
For defined spam traps here, we accept the message (although we
p
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 1:40 AM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score
On 22 Aug 2019, at 08:53, Mathieu Bourdin via mailop
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:
*** Shouldn't spam traps reject all mails after the END-OF-DATA? ***
If they did
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 6:50 AM Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop
> wrote:
>>
>> * Mathieu Bourdin :
>> > Hi again,
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > First, a precision: my reply is missing 2 lines wich, for short,
>> > were saying: "but usually you don't get listed on the first sending to
>> > a trap,
>>
>> Yes,
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 6:50 AM Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop
wrote:
>
> * Mathieu Bourdin :
> > Hi again,
> >
> >
>
> > First, a precision: my reply is missing 2 lines wich, for short,
> > were saying: "but usually you don't get listed on the first sending to
> > a trap,
>
> Yes, because that
* Mathieu Bourdin :
> Hi again,
>
>
> First, a precision: my reply is missing 2 lines wich, for short,
> were saying: "but usually you don't get listed on the first sending to
> a trap,
Yes, because that would instantaneously blacklist all servers sending
double-opt-in
mails
> it's more an
> On 22 Aug 2019, at 08:53, Mathieu Bourdin via mailop
> wrote:
>
>> *** Shouldn't spam traps reject all mails after the END-OF-DATA? ***
>
> If they did, they would be easily identifiable, and thus would have no value.
Not sure I understand this point of view. I think everyone should be
lop@mailop.org
Objet : Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score
* Michael Wise via mailop :
>
>
> Sometimes ... pristine ... isn't.
Thought so.
> Presuppose y'all are doing bounce processing?
Yes.
This raises a question regaring spam traps:
*** Shouldn't spam traps r
* Michael Wise via mailop :
>
>
> Sometimes ... pristine ... isn't.
Thought so.
> Presuppose y'all are doing bounce processing?
Yes.
This raises a question regaring spam traps:
*** Shouldn't spam traps reject all mails after the END-OF-DATA? ***
1) That way the spam trap addresses would
30 matches
Mail list logo
