Hi Marco, I am curious what false positives you encountered.
We suggest to classify bounces using multiple features, the text, the enhanced status code, and the status code. If the bounce is clearly an invalid address, then remove it after the first bounce. For example when the text contains “mailbox” or a synonym, and “unknown” or a synonym. Bounces which are ambiguous, or with inconsistent features should be treated as soft bounce. Maarten Postmastery On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 17:27, Marco Franceschetti via mailop < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > We at contactlab are considering a change in the deactivation of hard > bounces. > Currently, we suppress not existing mailboxes at the first hit. > > We are aware of a small percentage of false positives. > > Recent admissions criteria for Certified Senders states: > "The CSA sender must take email addresses from mailing lists, if, after > sending to this address, > the mailbox is identified as non-existent; at the latest, however, this > must occur after three hard > bounces". > > We are evaluating to remove not existing mailboxes from the lists of our > clients after the second hit instead of the first one. > > Do you have any considerations, suggestions about this? > > Marco > > > Marco Franceschetti > Head of Deliverability | ContactLab > [email protected] > Via Natale Battaglia, 12 | Milano > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Via+Natale+Battaglia,+12+%7C+Milano&entry=gmail&source=g> > contactlab.com/it > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > [email protected] > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
