I also think one thing that Validity may not be understanding with this move, and may lead to shooting themselves in the foot, the list of email service providers that Validity provides feedback for isn't exactly major players.
We get more feedback from Yahoo and Outlook's FBL system than we do Validity and Validity covers what? 21 different providers? There's no incentive there for me to pay for access to Validity's ARF feeds. When Validity stops sending ARF reports, I will simply no longer receive Validity ARF reports - it won't be a major loss. On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 6:24 AM Support 3Hound via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > Dear list, > I would like to understand what the community think about the new Validity > universal feedback loop service that is switching to a paid service > starting 21 September 2023. > > As Validity worked in the the last years to achieve the management of the > FBL service from all the "main" country-level and international mailbox > providers (as the "universal" word suggest), I think that this new policy > is unfair and a very bad news for the mail operators community. > > During years the FBL became a kind of "safe feature" for users that prefer > to click "junk" or "spam" and be sure they will not receive anymore. > > The "one click unsubscribe/ List-unsubscribe header" should be the right > way to do that... true! But this is not the focus, everyone know that FBL > are -de facto- used like that from users and that they are honored from > correct sender. > > FBL generates also a good data flow for the mailbox provider that may > filter the "next e-mail" from a sender that don't honor the FBL (or can't > act realtime the unsubcribe) generating a better service for the end user > and a way to identify good player and bad ones. > > Switching to a paid service bring these metrics to fails; rich spammer may > easily honor them getting a better reputation than a little correct player. > > It also means that it's needed to buy a paid service from a private > company to follows best practices, something that seems to be unfair. > > But... as any collaborating service it's based on other > peers/nodes/players so my question is: how mail players will act in this > scenario? > > For example, if every mailbox is going to reactivate his own service to > get back the control of their FBL, it will not have just a short term > impact... > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
