> On 7 Sep 2022, at 13:08, Radek Kaczynski (Radek from Bouncer) via mailop > <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > > > I think that destroying all email verifiers is not going to be the solution > to the problem. > I think that: > - when spam filters block based on bounce rates > - decent senders should have to have ways of verifying email addresses.
They do, it’s called “confirmed opt-in”. This means that you’re actually confirming that the person who receives the email is the same person that gave you the email address and they do want to receive mail from you. > > Among our customers, we have for example: > - governmental institutions of Ghana - every adult joining workforce of Ghana > register their email address in the governmental system, which in order to > improve data quality - uses Bouncer, at the moment of entry, How are you confirming that the adult is the same person that receives the email? ie, what happens if someone inside Ghana gives you my email address? Is the government of Ghana going to send me PII for that person? > - big humanitarian organizations that have dirty databases of their > supporters (as captured in various error-prone situations), Again, why are you assuming that the only errors that make it into the databases are ones that make the email addresses bounce? > - governments and parliaments of European countries. > We have not been reaching out to them, we did no advertisements - they found > us (and it was not easy task, cause we suck at SEO), cause they had problems. > > Email community while fighting spam is also affecting decent senders, who > have no choice but to seek some solution. Address verification … isn’t the solution. > I believe the change is needed, and I'm afraid that destroying email > verifiers will not solve the problem - it will just create a void, with the > risk that an even worse solution will be created by some "innovative > entrepreneurs". There are a lot of people (both on and off the list) that have spent literal decades fighting email abuse. I don’t think your comment here is as insightful or awe inspiring as you think it is. > Exactly as it happened with VRFY decommissioning… it just created a void… and > I think that none of our predecessors, had in mind helping spammers. One of the reasons VRFY was decommissioned by so many receiving mail systems was because it was being used to harvest email addresses. And when it was decommissioned the spammers just moved to using partial SMTP transactions, just like you are doing. Your predecessors WERE spammers, not just people taking money from them. > I myself from time to time am contemplating what could be done to improve the > situation holistically - but I'm not as skilled and experienced in email as > you all are - have been in this "business only 5 years". Maybe, then, you might think about listening to people who’ve been doing this for 4 or 5 times as long as you have. Rather than just being a jerk and explaining to us that ‘we don’t understand’ the complexities of email, running a business or that these issues need to be addressed holistically. > I've been thinking about incorporating blockchain technology and maybe smart > contracts to make sure that the sender has the right to send to the > recipient. But designing such a model would be super complex, cause it would > have to be equal, and not available to the privileged. You might want to look up “microsoft” “anti-spam” and “hash cash”. > It's very complex… and I guess over my capabilities. But maybe some of you, > or you together will figure out some real solution to the problem. > And maybe we could, instead of putting our time, energy and talent in > fighting email verifiers, put it into creating new quality, that will solve > the problem. Wow. laura > > Kind Regards > Radek > > > > > ___________________________________________________ > > Radoslaw Kaczynski > CEO of Bouncer > usebouncer.com <https://www.usebouncer.com/> > ul. Cypriana Kamila Norwida 24/1 > 50-374 Wrocław, Poland > Become Bouncer’s Ambassador > <https://bouncer.partnerstack.com/?group=ambassadors> > > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 10:13:28, Slavko <mailop@mailop.org > <mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote: > Dňa 7. 9. o 9:44 Radek Kaczynski (Radek from Bouncer) via mailop napísal(a): > > Here I meant - if you as Mail Operator, do not want Bouncer to verify email > addresses hosted by you - please let me know and we will put a rule in our > configuration. > > Do you really think, that email operators have nothing better to work as > contact every one, who decide to use their service for own business? And for > any new domain do that again and again? Adding to local BL is much more > simple, provides the same results and -- can be automated. > > I hope, that soon or latter here will be DNSRBL with those "services", IMO > Spamhaus SBL starts with something similar recently (while not exactly > washers, it is good start). > > regards > > -- > Slavko > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org <mailto:mailop@mailop.org> > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop -- The Delivery Experts Laura Atkins Word to the Wise la...@wordtothewise.com Email Delivery Blog: http://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
