I am against scanning everything in order to protect. Because every method
an ESP needs to do to "fix" these bad unsubscribes can just as easily be
spoofed by bad actors (e.g. redirect url to non-malicious content for first
10 minutes). And not all ESPs are even aware of this scanning process (if
they are even that capable*).
The bottom line is that spamfilters cannot pretend to be humans (and act
accordingly). It will be only a short moment until the malicious payload
will be behind the "unsubscribe button" instead of the "unsubscribe page".
What is next, spamfilters pushing the button? This is not the technical
innovation we are looking for. It does not improve the signal to noise
ratio by much.
Just looking at recipients who would be behind the engagement-filter
doesn't do the trick either. You counter the ESPs methods *and *it can only
work if the filter will actually unsubscribe too.
Maybe it is a shifting definition of spamtrap (a content verifying
* not trying to badmouth others here ;-)
On 3 March 2018 at 00:53, Dave Warren <d...@thedave.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-03-01 16:26, David Carriger wrote:
>> Yes, I'm still seeing this. So, an open question:
>> As an ESP, how am I supposed to tell my users to practice good list
>> hygiene and remove unengaged recipients from their lists when my data is
>> being tainted by Google/Microsoft/etc triggering all of my engagement
>> mechanisms (open tracking pixel, tracked links, etc)? These show up as
>> their /most/ engaged recipients.
>> Obviously there are things that can be done on my end (look for all URIs
>> in the email being triggered with a short time frame from IP ranges that we
>> know do this behavior and don't count those as engagement), so I'll tread
>> down that path with our developers. Still, I find it frustrating, and
>> wonder how other people are dealing with this issue.
> I don't know if this has already been discussed, but what's the
> User-Agent? Any clues there?
> mailop mailing list
My opinion is mine.
mailop mailing list