On 2026-09-29 09:25, Mike Hillyer via mailop wrote:
I for one would not be blocking subscription renewal reminders, I like
to know in advance before a vendor is about to bill me for another year.
my bad, I took a shortcut and only provided partial, ambiguous
description of the use case. of course I want to know in advance before
a vendor is about to bill me for another year. This is for cancelled
subscriptions about to expire.
my general rule: unsubscribe immediately all subscriptions. the
exception to the rule is a subscription that I know I truly need and
use. The business model of the unused forgotten subscription is
annoying and today any PHB tries to jump on it. Subscribe and Save LOL!
the spam I was mentioning was an even different one. not a cancelled
subscription about to expire. a subscription that is not, and cannot be
renewed automatically.
the offender, without naming them, are a professional regulator. they
cannot automate subscription renewal because to renew I must file
declarations that I am in good standing, such as not being subject of
criminal proceedings filed against me since my last renewal; and they
must re-qualify me every 12 months before granting me licensed use of
the credential for the next 12 months (subscription period). So they
send an invitation to renew the registration; and every year they add
new useless stuff such as badges to show the credentials online. Every
year, I strategically leave renewal to late in the cycle. This year,
the last month of the renewal period they sent 30 (!) please renew
spams. And that is because the month was not one of January, March,
May, July, August, October, or December! I was very tempted not to
renew. For many reasons, including the embarrassing fact that this same
professional regulator that is supposed to certify my good ethics had
bad apples within, and at least one of its PHB (the chief marketing
officer, IIRC) has been sentenced to prison for embezzlement.
those facts speak to the sad state of an organization, and of civil
society at large, observable everywhere interests are not aligned,
including at the sender/recipient fault line of SMTP.
Yuv
Mike
Mike Hillyer
Co-Founder
US Eastern Timezone
443-472-7226
Let's Meet: https://cal.com/mike-kumomta/meet <https://cal.com/mike-
kumomta/meet>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 8:27 AM postfix--- via mailop <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
personal anecdote: some of the brands listed are more spammy than a
clingy ex.
general rule: just because <ENTITY> had a legit business interaction
with <RECIPIENT>, it does not give <ENTITY> permission to pester
<RECIPIENT>.
some of those entities have made bad hiring and this is the
consequence.
at least for now, most of those entities have kept the sewage stream
separate from the valuable/transactional emails that recipients want.
however, I have observed entities where Pointy-Haired Boss has
prevailed
over Dilbert and they have used the same SMTP client to send ham and
spam. No wonder that recipients who can turn vegeterian and these
entities sell less ham than they could if they would behave and stop
PHB's diarrhea.
My inbox, my rule. some of them:
- don't send me customer surveys. blocked
- don't send me calendar reminders. blocked.
- don't send me subscription renewal reminders. blocked.
- don't send me status updates I have not asked for. blocked.
or the general rule: opt-in, not opt-out. separately, for each and
every class of new annoying messaging that the PHB of "customer
engagement" can fart, with the default being NO.
Yuv
On 2026-09-29 03:26, ndrs via mailop wrote:
> Any comment to this?
>
>
> On Saturday, September 19th, 2026 at 5:14 AM, ndrs via mailop
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> I have decided to not accept any SMTP connections from the
Google cloud infrastructure (AS396982).
>>>
>>> I block them completely on my system. There is nothing good
inside that
>>> infrastructure.
>>>
>>> Note, that they have two AS assigned tho their cloud
infrastructure:
>>> - AS396982
>>> - AS19527
>>
>> How can you do that confidently? Some names in that AS that jump
out at me include the following list. Have you confidently
documented that no good mail comes out of that AS before blocking?
Why not block any host identified as googleusercontent.com <http://
googleusercontent.com> instead? Do you service a variety of users
who want mail from lots of different places?
>>
>> Uber Technologies, INC
>> Cogent Communications
>> Groupon, Inc.
>> Priceline.com
>> Salesforce, Inc
>> FedEx
>> U.S. Dept. of Health And Human Services
>> The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation
>> Palo Alto Networks, INC
>> S&p Global Inc.
>> US U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
>> Shopify, Inc.
>> The Home Depot Inc.
>> Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
>> US Chicago Mercantile Exchange
>> Crowdstrike
>> Mailspike
>> Nokia of America Corporation
>> Ericsson Ab
>> Honeywell International Inc.
>> US Johnson & Johnson
>> Calix, Inc.
>> Dow Networks
>> Credit Karma, Inc.
>> Sendinblue
>> Cisco Webex LLC
>> _______________________________________________
>> mailop mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop <https://
list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mailop mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop <https://list.mailop.org/
listinfo/mailop>
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop <https://list.mailop.org/
listinfo/mailop>
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
