Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud
ra...@usebouncer.com said: > - marketing teams coming to us from Marketing SaaSs, who, during customer > onboarding, notice that the quality of email lists is low and send their > customers to us to clean it first. My alarm bells went off on one of your first messages when you said little guys need to spam because otherwise they couldn't compete with the big guys. Many marketing people just don't get it when it comes to spam. They can always come up with some way to rationalize that their spam isn't spam. I wonder if it is genetic. Vernon Schryver has a wonderful list: Spam is That Which We Don't Do https://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/that-which-we-dont.html There is a wide range of spam -- from crooks and Viagra to people who don't know better. There are also lots of people who do know better, but try to push the limits a bit, or push too hard and try to talk their way out of it. There is also a wide range of email marketing consultants. Some sell lists and spamming services. Some will encourage confirmed opt-in. Some would be happy to hire somebody else to do the dirty work of cleaning their lists. --- > - if you don't want us to verify your email addresses - please let us know > and we will consider them as blocked (no need even to spend your time on > feeding the firewall or block list), That's opt-out. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud
Hello Slavko, > > > > I do not understand one thing. Why do you think, that you can use my (or > any other's) hardware for own business without approve? > > > I don't think that. Honestly, I hate that we are using YOUR resources without compensating you. As I wrote before, I'd love to pay. I initially thought about paying a quota for using VRFY. But if it would be hard to implement - I'd love to pay for the requests. The issue I had before was I did not know how to get in touch with mail server operators - I learned about this mailing group just a few days ago. Actually, today I talked to my CTO, that we should put a website on bouncer.cloud ( http://bouncer.cloud/ ) mentioning that: - we'd love to compensate mail operators for using their resources, - if you don't want us to verify your email addresses - please let us know and we will consider them as blocked (no need even to spend your time on feeding the firewall or block list), - all contact information to us. > > You are makIng money from this, how many are you willing to pay to > me/others (for our HW usage)? Or do you think, that we all are maintaining > own hardware/services for your business? > I'm sure that we would be able to figure out fair pricing. I think that volume tiered model could be the one to go. Would you have something in mind? There is one more thing that I'm really curious about regarding resources and also Atro's statement: > > "Email verification" abusing RCPT TO produces zero benefits in exchange > for nonzero resource use for the target system owners. > > Is "email verification" using more of your resources than if senders would just send messages to undeliverable email addresses? Is it the same payload or "cheeper one". So far, we haven't been using historical verifications. But we brought that with our CTO (during this conversation) that maybe we should consider that. In that case, one undeliverable email address would be verified only once, stored in an anonymized form, and this information would be used for all the customers. In that case, there is a risk of edge case that the email address will become deliverable at some point- but maybe the probability is low enough not to care about it. Kind Regards Radek __ ___ ___ ___ *Radoslaw Kaczynski* CEO of Bouncer usebouncer.com ( https://www.usebouncer.com/ ) ul. Cypriana Kamila Norwida 24/1 50-374 Wrocław, Poland Become Bouncer’s Ambassador ( https://bouncer.partnerstack.com/?group=ambassadors ) On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 23:12:02, Slavko < mailop@mailop.org > wrote: > > > > Dňa 6. septembra 2022 20:39:04 UTC používateľ Radek Kaczynski via mailop < > mailop@ mailop. org ( mailop@mailop.org ) > napísal: > > >> >> >> And as always, I really appreciate and respect your perspective and >> constructive exchange of thoughts. This conversation has stimulated me to >> reflect on our current and potentially future business model. >> >> > > > > I do not understand one thing. Why do you think, that you can use my (or > any other's) hardware for own business without approve? > > > > You are makIng money from this, how many are you willing to pay to > me/others (for our HW usage)? Or do you think, that we all are maintaining > own hardware/services for your business? > > > > regards > > > > -- > Slavko > https:/ / www. slavino. sk/ ( https://www.slavino.sk/ ) > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@ mailop. org ( mailop@mailop.org ) > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > > >___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud
Dňa 6. septembra 2022 20:39:04 UTC používateľ Radek Kaczynski via mailop napísal: >And as always, I really appreciate and respect your perspective and >constructive exchange of thoughts. >This conversation has stimulated me to reflect on our current and potentially >future business model. I do not understand one thing. Why do you think, that you can use my (or any other's) hardware for own business without approve? You are makIng money from this, how many are you willing to pay to me/others (for our HW usage)? Or do you think, that we all are maintaining own hardware/services for your business? regards -- Slavko https://www.slavino.sk/ ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud
Hi Hal, Members Interestingly, because we initially were API only, back-end as a service, the most significant portion of our revenue comes from: - Marketing SaaSs - that want to protect their infrastructure from organic but low-quality databases; and here low quality usually comes from old data or mistypes (via paper form, phone, online forms) - marketing teams coming to us from Marketing SaaSs, who, during customer onboarding, notice that the quality of email lists is low and send their customers to us to clean it first. It's quite weird, but actually doing email verification (or asking customers to do) is easier and safer for those ESPs to protect their infrastructure than managing bounces :/ I think that in "better" world they should not use email verification but simply VRFY instead. I think that a part of the problem there is the fact that the sender's reputation depends a lot on the bounce-back ratio. I know that when it was introduced, there was a very high correlation between spammer and bounce back ratio. But since then: - heavy spammers, phishers, and other cyber criminals found ways to reduce it, - people with old databases started to get a hit… and for them, it was easier to do automated list cleaning than a proper holistic one. It's usually ESPs who educate the market to clean the list… and as laziness is in the DNA of humanity - people go for email verification services. Back to our customer base… We also have some big brands that take their customers from offline to online loyalty programs. And they have noticed that the frictionless process (lack of double-opt-in) significantly increases conversion rates, but reduces data quality - thus, they use email verification for their registration forms. And here again, VRFY would be a much better solution than what we do. We also have cold-mailers and marketing agencies as customers… for which in fact, I am still having dilemmas about when to treat them as spammers. From time to time, I do have a dilemma here if we should block the customer… But I know that if they don't use us - they will go to our bigger competitors, from whom they will never hear about "Respect in the email" :( I know it kind of sounds like a producer of alcoholic beverages or cigarettes participating in the anti-addiction programs. Another problem I have is the fact that we are still super small, and our influence is very limited. I think some of our competitors would be in a much better position to educate and change the market… And maybe we will be at some point too… though I hope we can do it without crossing a line of our values. (I know that you all think that our principles are already in the grey zone, cause we are in the email verification business.) This conversation did stimulate me, however, to think about how can we do a better job in vetting out our customers and if we can change a business model. Thank you so much for that! Kind Regards Radek __ ___ ___ ___ *Radoslaw Kaczynski* CEO of Bouncer usebouncer.com ( https://www.usebouncer.com/ ) ul. Cypriana Kamila Norwida 24/1 50-374 Wrocław, Poland Become Bouncer’s Ambassador ( https://bouncer.partnerstack.com/?group=ambassadors ) On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 10:08:56, Hal Murray < halmurray+mai...@sonic.net > wrote: > > > > Radek Kaczynski said: > > >> >> >> That's interesting indeed - we haven't implemented SMTP VRFY as it is very >> uncommon. >> However, I truly think that it would be great to use VRFY instead of >> "broken SMTP trick". >> I would be more than happy to pay to use it - or give back to the >> community or charity. >> >> > > > > If you want people to take you seriously, I suggest you put your energy > into figuring out how to convince people that your customers are not > spammers. > > > > I have no idea how you could do that. > > > > -- > These are my opinions. I hate spam. > > >___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud
Hello Atro, > > Having said all of the above, I truly welcome the fact that you have shown > up here to own up and explain what it is that you are doing and where you > are coming from with this. It may not make matters any better from the > perspective of whether anybody's inclined to accept email verification > attempts, but from my perspective, somebody who shows up in a potentially > hostile environment such as this deserves some kudos just for doing it. > We've discussed this offline before and I wanted to say this in public > too. > Thank you very much for your kind words. I really believe that with transparency and vulnerability, we can be genuinely in the dialog… And as always, I really appreciate and respect your perspective and constructive exchange of thoughts. This conversation has stimulated me to reflect on our current and potentially future business model. Kind Regards Radek __ ___ ___ ___ *Radoslaw Kaczynski* CEO of Bouncer usebouncer.com ( https://www.usebouncer.com/ ) ul. Cypriana Kamila Norwida 24/1 50-374 Wrocław, Poland Become Bouncer’s Ambassador ( https://bouncer.partnerstack.com/?group=ambassadors ) On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 21:39:01, Atro Tossavainen < mailop@mailop.org > wrote: > > > > Czesc, Radek, > > >> >> >> We assume that: >> - our customer (data controller) who requested us to verify the email >> address got it in a legal way >> - our customer is obeying anti-spam policies. >> >> > > > > So do all the ESPs. But their customers send mail, and the recipients are > able to act upon it, informing the ESP of problem clients and sometimes > even getting traction. > > > > In the case of email verifiers, there is no message, and there is no email > recipient to do the same. > > > > The only people who have any visibility to the efforts of woodpeckers who > abuse SMTP (EXPN and VRFY were disabled and even removed from mail > software for a reason) are grumpy mail server admins who have much less > time than your average spam recipient for this kind of behaviour. > > > > "Email verification" abusing RCPT TO produces zero benefits in exchange > for nonzero resource use for the target system owners. > > > > I had entered " bouncer. cloud ( http://bouncer.cloud/ ) " in my list of > HELOs to reject offhand a long time before this conversation. Don't worry, > you're not alone; the list of similar players is dozens of lines long, > could probably be made shorter by replacing most of the existing rules > with entries in the regex version of the same, and additionally, some of > the HELO rejects are redundant now that the networks involved have been > entered into the firewall drop list, entities who have been kind enough to > register their own networks such as Mailinblack or Kickbox are no longer > able to make any connections to our systems at all. > > >> >> >> Thank you again for the opportunity to be here - if you are already tired >> of me - please let me know. >> >> > > > > Having said all of the above, I truly welcome the fact that you have shown > up here to own up and explain what it is that you are doing and where you > are coming from with this. It may not make matters any better from the > perspective of whether anybody's inclined to accept email verification > attempts, but from my perspective, somebody who shows up in a potentially > hostile environment such as this deserves some kudos just for doing it. > We've discussed this offline before and I wanted to say this in public > too. > > > > Pozdrawiam, A. > > > > -- > Atro Tossavainen, Founder, Partner > Koli-Lõks OÜ (reg. no. 12815457, VAT ID EE101811635) Tallinn, Estonia > tel. +372-5883-4269, http:/ / www. koliloks. eu/ ( http://www.koliloks.eu/ > ) > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@ mailop. org ( mailop@mailop.org ) > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > > >___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud
On 5 Sep 2022, at 18:07, Atro Tossavainen via mailop wrote: >> This is a bit less clear, but I'd say that is fine because you have >> every reason to believe that you are acting on behalf of the address >> owner, not some 3rd party who may not have acquired the address >> legitimately. > > This, too, can be co-opted by people who aren't your users. And then, typos. I currently count at 7 the number of persons that believe that my 10+ years old Gmail account is theirs. I routinely receive bank, telecom and government communications from citizens of 4 Latin American countries. The address verification would still work in this case—after all, it is a valid email—just not for the person filling the form / providing the data. Best regards -lem ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] [admin note] Re: SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud
Hi all Bearing in mind that Radek has somewhat stuck his head above an apparent parapet in participating here, I’d just like to remind you all to: 1. Be kind, even if you’re being critical 2. For everyone’s sake, keep the thread on topic. There is a real, identifiable, problematic issue at hand here - it doesn’t need the accompanimet of endless hypothetical statements or thought experiments. Thanks Graeme obo mod team ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud
Dnia 5.09.2022 o godz. 15:58:51 Jay Hennigan via mailop pisze: > > Of course, if you want that other person receive all information about > > the progress and results of your application, and you have no access to > > that information (unless you personally come to the office to ask about it), > > then you can use someone else's email address ;). It will cause more > > trouble to the person who filled the application than to anyone else. > > You forget that there exist bad actors who fill out such forms in order to > harass people. > > > In the scenario I'm describing it was highly improbable that someone filling > > in the form would provide all his/her personal data and other requested > > information and give someone else's email address just for fun. > > No, they'll typically provide someone else's personal data, other > information, and email address just for fun. And then they will deliver to the office all the paper documents required to process the application (which normally only the person for whom the application has been filled should possess), and they will pay the application fee in the name of that person? All this just for fun? And until these steps are done, nothing will happen to the filled-in form. The person won't even receive any mail. Nobody (except maybe the database administrator, if he decides to browse the entire database :)) will even know that person exists in the system. It will just count +1 towards "filled in the form, did not provide the documents" number in the statistics :). It won't also prevent filling the form again with the same person's data (as it is expected within the procedure that one person can apply more than one time, and these applications are treated completely independently, as if they were different persons). The procedure consists of several steps, of which filling in the form is only the first, and providing documents - the second. Then one will be contacted by the office one or more times (additional documents may be requested in the process) until the final decision is made. -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub." ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] SMTP noise from *.bouncer.cloud
Radek Kaczynski said: > That's interesting indeed - we haven't implemented SMTP VRFY as it is very > uncommon. > However, I truly think that it would be great to use VRFY instead of "broken > SMTP trick". > I would be more than happy to pay to use it - or give back to the community > or charity. If you want people to take you seriously, I suggest you put your energy into figuring out how to convince people that your customers are not spammers. I have no idea how you could do that. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
