>
> My sense is that ESPs engage ISIPP thinking they are getting an advocate and
> ambassador to mailbox providers when in fact they get a teacher/evangelist
> for sender best practices.
ITYM 'schooled in best practices. ;-) ;-)
Anne P. Mitchell,
Attorney at Law
CEO/President,
SuretyMail
On 26 Dec 2017, at 9:46 (-0500), Sebastian Arcus wrote:
So you will excuse me if I take any whitelist which helps marketing
emailing lists "improve deliverability" with a very big dollop of
salt.
Of course. I don't give significant ham weight to any of the default
IADB rules other than
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote:
What do you call *verified* opt-in (what the marketers call "double opt-in"),
where the recipient needs to comfirm that they gave permission for contact via that email
address before receiving any content, in order to avoid unwanted
>
> What do you call *verified* opt-in (what the marketers call "double opt-in"),
> where the recipient needs to comfirm that they gave permission for contact
> via that email address before receiving any content, in order to avoid
> unwanted third-party subscriptions?
Confirmed opt-in,
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote:
Where we say "opt-in" we mean exactly that - single opt-in; if someone
didn't ask for the email not only would we call that "opt-out", but we
would not certify that sender's email.
What do you call *verified* opt-in (what the marketers call
>
> 'magically' re-subscribe after a while, or simply get around rules by
> creating a new list and re-subscribing everybody who unsubscribed.
Just so you know, that behavior is specifically made illegal by CAN-SPAM. And
Sebastian, I see that you are in the UK, which already has tighter
Bill, thank you for this excellent explanation, and for the kind words!
For those of you who don't know us, or me, I came out of MAPS; I was in-house
counsel for MAPS during the first rash of lawsuits against MAPS brought by
spammers. To say that I am rabidly anti-spam would be an
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2017-12-26 18:49:
have you never been subscribed to spammers' blacklist without your
permission?
On 26.12.17 19:01, Benny Pedersen wrote:
hopefully apache.org does know how to handle spam
you did not narrow your sentence on apache mailing lists, perhaps you
Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2017-12-26 18:49:
have you never been subscribed to spammers' blacklist without your
permission?
hopefully apache.org does know how to handle spam
RW skrev den 2017-12-26 18:05:
I didn't receive any posts in "IADB whitelist" thread from the OP
because they all failed DMARC with a reject policy. I found the posts
on gmane.
On 26.12.17 18:21, Benny Pedersen wrote:
stop reject maillists no matter if dmarc fails
have you never been
RW skrev den 2017-12-26 18:05:
I didn't receive any posts in "IADB whitelist" thread from the OP
because they all failed DMARC with a reject policy. I found the posts
on gmane.
stop reject maillists no matter if dmarc fails
Posting to mailing lists with a domain using a strict DMARC policy
I didn't receive any posts in "IADB whitelist" thread from the OP
because they all failed DMARC with a reject policy. I found the posts
on gmane.
Posting to mailing lists with a domain using a strict DMARC policy is
inherently risky because you are losing the redundancy of an aligned SPF
pass
On 25/12/17 23:57, Bill Cole wrote:
On 25 Dec 2017, at 3:28 (-0500), Sebastian Arcus wrote:
Also, any idea why are there 6 different rules associated with this
particular whitelist?
IADB has many independent return codes that each have distinct meaning.
See
13 matches
Mail list logo
