On 22 Jul 2022, at 11:49, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: >> This would allow the ESP to quickly "fail" the API request to send to that >> email address. There are other metrics that could be tied into those >> addresses and used to provide a more expedite response to the caller, which >> incidentally would also help deter abuse. > > In many, many cases the issue is that other customers are mailing to the same > address - and just because an address bounces for X sender doesn’t mean that > it shouldn’t be mailed for Y sender. One clear example is when senders push > individual user blocks out to the SMTP transaction.
I question your assertion that "bounces for X sender doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be mailed for Y sender". If recipient R has a history of blocking many senders, continuing to send from other senders is not worth it in the long run for the ESP. Just as receivers reject with errors such as "this account is receiving email at a rate that...", the ESP could respond to its client with "this receiver has a history of bounces / rejections / complaints that is incompatible with our policies...". Forcing a COI at that stage would revert this status and return to the status quo. Implementation in small steps. But this require the ESPs to willingly step out of the box to want to make things better. The economic incentives are likely not there, unfortunately. > This is another “simple” solution that demonstrates a significant lack of > understanding of how bulk email is sent. It could be argued that your response demonstrates a significant resistance to change. The status quo is not cutting it for a growing number of participants while the only ones making money, are the ones selling filters and consulting. Best regards -lem _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
