I'm working for an ESP who is member of the CSA and ECO and I'm one of the
biggest contender on the authentication requirements front, I don't think that
DMARC is an ESP responsibility, but think that an ESP should provide everything
necessary so that a Brand can use DMARC. By forcing the ESP community of CSA to
implement DMARC we would not help our customers, we would simply give them a
false feeling of having done something, that does not solves the underlying
problem.
Kind regards,
Tobias Herkula
--
optivo GmbH
Product Management (Infrastructure)
________________________________________
From: mailop <mailop-boun...@mailop.org> on behalf of David Hofstee
<opentext.dhofs...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 11:19
To: Alexander Zeh
Cc: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] About the Certified Senders Alliance
Hi Alexander,
Welcome to Mailop. A few somewhat criticising questions on the CSA:
- Complaint policy: What is the complaint policy for recipients? I tried to
find it, but could not. Is anonymity guaranteed? Also not available in the data
protection policy as found on the website. Please consider creating one.
- Oversight: Do you have a group of people that monitor compliance of senders
(and not just complaints)?
- Unsubscribing. I subscribed to a few newsletters but I seem to notice a high
"does not follow policy"-rate. Two examples (of 3 subscriptions, headers
provided below):
- Size of message: Google clips large messages. This is often where the
unsubscribe link is. I did not see an unsubscribe link in this message.
- List-Unsubscribe: Missing the required URL (requirement 2.21 of your
admission criteria, see
https://certified-senders.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CSA_Admission_Criteria.pdf
). Were these not tested at admission?
- Leadership: I think the authentication requirements in your policy are
outdated. An ESP does not even need to support DMARC-type authentication nor is
it a requirement for its customers to prove they are the real senders. Do you
agree? Do you think the CSA should lead in setting requirements on these
topics? Is the CSA able to change such requirements? Or is the CSA afraid of
the current customer base (who might protest to adding authentication)? I would
like to hear CSA's opinion on that.
Yours,
David
Example of message too large; the unsubscribe link is no longer visible in
Gmail:
X-CSA-Complaints:
whitelist-complai...@eco.de<mailto:whitelist-complai...@eco.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----msg_border_bwvxxxxx"
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 22:01:07 -0700
To: xyz
From: HSE24 TV Programm
<newslet...@angebote.hse24.de<mailto:newslet...@angebote.hse24.de>>
Reply-To: HSE24 TV Programm <serv...@hse24.de<mailto:serv...@hse24.de>>
Subject: Hui...jetzt wird's richtig stylisch
Example of List-Unsubscribe not having URL:
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 15:01:33 +0000 (GMT)
From: TUI <t...@email.tui.nl<mailto:t...@email.tui.nl>>
Reply-To: t...@email.tui.nl<mailto:t...@email.tui.nl>
To: xyz
Message-ID: <43699742.JavaMail.app@rbg62.f2is>
Subject: Welkom bij TUI
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_334583_459599753.150234563453456"
x-mid: 2369485
X-CSA-Complaints:
whitelist-complai...@eco.de<mailto:whitelist-complai...@eco.de>
x-rpcampaign: sp2375598
Feedback-ID: pod6_15062_2375598_891291414:pod6_15062:ibmsilverpop
x-job: 2375598
x-orgId: 15062
List-Unsubscribe:
<mailto:v-removed-for-an...@bounce.email.tui.nl<mailto:v-removed-for-an...@bounce.email.tui.nl>?subject=Unsubscribe>
On 1 November 2017 at 17:33, Alexander Zeh
<alexander....@eco.de<mailto:alexander....@eco.de>> wrote:
Hello everyone,
a friend informed me about a topic going on about the Certified Senders
Alliance on this mailing list. That’s why I joined it.
I work for the CSA for many years now.
First and foremost of all:
It is definitely not true that a sender can join the CSA without any vetting.
That statement bothered me a lot, because it’s a plain lie. Maybe because
important information was lost in some communication between more than two
parties, I don’t want to assume ill intent by anybody. In fact from every
sender who wants to get certified and be whitelisted only about 10% make it
through the whole process and are approved. Btw: the certification needs to be
confirmed by the certification committee in which 2 seats out of 4 are major
ISP partners.
I totally agree that if you have delivery issues it shouldn’t be the first step
to reach out any certification program to fix it. And this is not how CSA
works. If a sender has delivery issues, in 99% these problems are justified and
self made. So what the CSA does is, that in the process we find potential
issues and help senders to align with current best practices aka. the CSA
admission criteria. This whole process can take weeks and months and still
many senders don’t achieve a certification in the end, because we take that
very serious.
Anybody on this mailing list, please feel free to have a look at our criteria
and see for yourself if they are reasonable or not. As everything we do is
completely transparent, you can find them on
https://certified-senders.org/library either at the end, or you can select the
type “CSA specific” to filter.
Sorry about this rant-ish post, but we try our best to improve overall quality
of senders, so the initial post kind of annoyed me.
Anyway. I am open for discussion either here, direct with me or for example on
the next M3AAWG meeting in person.
Best
Alex
--
Best regards
Alexander Zeh
Engineering Manager
---------------------------------------------------
eco - Association of the Internet Industry
Certified Senders Alliance
Lichtstrasse 43h
50825 Cologne
Germany
phone: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 171<tel:+49%20221%20700048171>
fax: +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 111<tel:+49%20221%20700048111>
mobile: +49 (0) 171 - 657 2628<tel:+49%20171%206572628>
e-mail: alexander....@eco.de<mailto:alexander....@eco.de>
web: http://www.eco.de
---------------------------------------------------
eco - Association of the Internet Industry
CEO: Harald A. Summa
Executive board: Prof. Michael Rotert (Chairman), Oliver Süme (Deputy
Chairman), Klaus Landefeld, Felix Höger, Prof. Dr. Norbert Pohlmann
Register of Associations: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, VR 14478
Registered office: Cologne
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org<mailto:mailop@mailop.org>
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
--
--
My opinion is mine.
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
