On 20 Feb 2018, at 16:48, David Jones wrote:
It doesn't seem like a good idea for whitelists to list these senders
just because most of the email is ham.
I can see no evidence for that in a quick check of my personal mail. In
10 years:
68 messages
50 spam (all reported)
6 replies to spam reports
2 OoO Autoreplies to mailing messages with vacation info for guys I
didn't know.
8 messages to single-sender (webite-specific) addresses
2 messages from Namecheap themselves (privateemail.com ) trying to
arrange an automatic monitoring rig for when their space lands on my
(extremely irrelevant...) blacklist or a FBL for when I get spam from
them. This raises the question: if a company whose business model is
dependent on snowshoe spammers and domain squatters sends email asking
for unpaid help in evading recognition of their essential evil, is it
spam?
In the previous decade: 64 messages, 56 spams, 8 ham (all from 3
websites to tagged addresses.)
Of course, my personal email isn't representative. I reject a
substantial fraction of the mail from the networks where those domains
have servers, and for a complex of reasons I have extremely high
confidence in those rejections being pure spam. So, the above is less
spammy than if I tagged and delivered.
What's special about such sources isn't that they're mostly ham or even
significantly less spammy than a random sample of mail, it's that they
have a lot of tiny customers who barely use email and occasional waves
of transient spammers. It makes them hard to pigeonhole either way.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Currently Seeking Steady Work: https://linkedin.com/in/billcole
