> On Mar 7, 2018, at 3:40 PM, Stefano Bagnara <mai...@bago.org> wrote:
> On 8 March 2018 at 00:08, Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I don’t either, but I am not fighting language with folks.
> I'm sorry Laura. My mother language is not english and your "tone" is
> unexpected to me, so I probably used wrong translations for my
> questions.

No, you were right. My bad for being unclear and coming across harshly. 

What I’m saying is that other people decided to call these things spamtraps. I 
think they’re wrong, but am not going to fight over terminology (which is what 
I meant when I said language) and will just use their terminology even if I 
think it’s somewhat misleading.  

> No need to fight anything.. I'm just discussing in a list and trying
> to give and get back like I always do.

That was more a reference to 20+ years of history of arguing email / spam 
related definitions in various places. I had my fill of arguing about 
terminology (confirmed! Double! Confirmed! Double!) somewhere in 2004. 

>> [...]
>> I have, and know other people who have, and again, this was discussed
>> earlier this month at M3AAWG.
> I'm not in M3AAWG, but I hoped that some info that can be shared in
> the M3AAWG could be anonymized and shared here too.
> If this is not the case, then ok, I just asked. Maybe someone else
> will feel to share something.

Most of the M3AAWG sessions have statements of confidentiality associated with 
them. This was one of them. I’ve repeated some of the things I said as part of 
the panel, but won’t be repeating stuff any of my colleagues said.

But, in terms of anonymizing and sharing… that’s what I did. 

>> But, it’s kinda a big deal to call out stuff like this and while we’ve
>> called out blocking companies / blacklists in the past, I’m not in a
>> position where I think that will provide an overall benefit by making the
>> information public. It’s also not like I’m the only person who knows this.
>> In one instance with a client, they were using one of the aforementioned
>> delivery monitoring companies and saw a “pristine trap" hit. They were able
>> to identify the specific address as the company provides the full text of
>> the message. They had recent (within a few weeks) click data from that
>> address and a purchase within a few months.
> OK so if I got it right then these "delivery monitoring" spamtraps are
> not really used by anyone but the delivery monitoring service itself.
> It helps the paying ESP/ISP to identify problematic senders in their
> network and they also need spamtraps for them.. maybe they have too
> few of them so they have been a bit "easy" introducing new domains to
> have more data to monetize.

Yup. Basically. 

> In this case either they had a bug, needs to better document how they
> create spamtraps or they are "abusing" their customers trust.
> We can agree that it is hard to define what can be a spamtrap and how
> many months are needed for them to become spamtraps, but I think we
> all agree that a valid/working inbox can't become a spam trap in a
> week.

Sure, we agree. But there are folks who don’t agree with us. Some of those 
folks run spamtrap networks that feel blocklist data. I think it’s important to 
acknowledge that. At one point you could do COI and still get on a blocklist 
because you sent to a spamtrap. At one point you could do COI and mail to folks 
who’d only opened an email in the past few weeks and still get on a blocklist 
because you sent to a spamtrap. This affected real senders who weren’t 


Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
(650) 437-0741          

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog     

mailop mailing list

Reply via email to