On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Luke S. Crawford <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:17:47AM -0800, Steven Kurylo wrote: > >> Could third party email providers be of such low quality, that they >> should rejected across the board? I've seen no evidence for this. > > My point is just that the "quality" most third party email providers > select for is deliverability; They seem to know little about avoiding > being percieved as spammish (or maybe, more to the point, they > seem to be staffed with people who have definitions of spamish that > are rather different from the definitions you are likely to hear from > your more technical customers.) >
I haven't dealt with a company that had a questionable definition of spammish. If people marked our mail as spam, our deliverability would go down. Its a serious issue we pay attention to. I review every single spam complaint we get. But then, I only deal with double opt-in. I'm sure there are providers who don't really care, and let you send anything and mostly ignore spam complaints as long as you pay them. We used one provider who forced customers to double opt-in through their system, unless you signed a statement saying it had already been done. I consider spammish to be getting emails you didn't sign up for; whether you signed up for nothing, or signed up for certain content/frequency and end up with something completely different. Along with a few other things, like being able to opt out, being deceptive, etc. I consider the mail server the content creator uses to be irrelevant, if the mail server follows best practices. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
