Tricky; we have a similar case, but not specifically B2B. The sender is complaining that a bunch of addresses flagged as hard are in fact not bouncing when they test them. The samples they provided is mostly Outlook.com, and a bit of Gmail. So they're most probably complaining that what we flagged hard bounces are now Outlook.com's spamtraps. (I can't really tell about Gmail though). We could tell more by a) checking the spamtrap count on SNDS (but do we really want to?) and b) checking if there's any reaction from these addresses (but spamtraps can also "react" if they want to).
Sure, mistakes happen, both on the receiver's and on the sender's side. But for us the balance benefit/risk isn't worth it. Senders complaining about a few false-positive hard bounces probably should be spending their time and energy on data collection and practices instead. So we have to de-hard a few addresses every few years, when one ISP messes up. We can live with that. -- Benjamin From: mailop <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Marco Franceschetti via mailop Sent: lundi 4 mars 2019 10:16 To: Maarten Oelering <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces Hi Maarten By one specific customer, whose lists are more b2b oriented to be honest, we enountered a false positive rate of abount 7%. This customer regularly sends to us small lists of addresses to be reactivated – and I must say, these do not bounce. So, I think a further investigation on this matter is worth. Sure, we use text, enhanced status code and status code to classify the bounces in our bounce rule management process. It the rules don’t match, we classify the bounce as “unknown” and we examinate the unknown bounce regularly to do some fine tuning. Kind regards Marco From: Maarten Oelering <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: mercoledì 27 febbraio 2019 22:02 To: Marco Franceschetti <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<http://contactlab.com/it> _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[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
