Re: [mailop] announcement about invaluement (or more like a tease?)

[Noel Butler via mailop]

On 26/08/2019 13:45, Rob McEwen via mailop wrote:

> On 8/25/2019 11:33 PM, Noel Butler via mailop wrote: 
> 
>> borders on spam
> 
> This is something that MailOp users will WANT to be in the know about. 
> 
>> apart from that, nothing to see anyway so dont bother
> 
> such... animosity... anyways, you'll see. Your words are not going to age 
> well.
> 
> -- 
> Rob McEwen
> https://www.invaluement.com
> 
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

we've all seen crap like this before, time and time again, in fact from
you as well I believe a few years back 

same ol same ol  its more about self promotion (and in some cases $elf
intere$t) than doing anything that will have a massive impact on
scale... 

-- 
Kind Regards, 

Noel Butler 

This Email, including any attachments, may contain legally 
privileged
information, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright
protected under international law. You may not disseminate, discuss, or
reveal, any part, to anyone, without the authors express written
authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments,
immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not
waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message. Only
PDF [1] and ODF [2] documents accepted, please do not send proprietary
formatted documents 

 

Links:
--
[1] http://www.adobe.com/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Return Path / Sender Score

[Tom Bartel via mailop]

Steve,

Yes there were significant cuts, which really sucked, but aa robust
Certification team remains intact and we are working diligently to provide
a quality list.  I think our team addressed this offline with Michael (or
that it's still under investigation).

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:39 AM Steve Atkins via mailop 
wrote:

>
> On 21/08/2019 09:16, Michael Hallager via mailop wrote:
> > A well known Australian electronics retailer has recently started
> > spamming me. It's plainly obvious where they - or someone who provided
> > it to them - got the email address from the WHOIS because that is the
> > only place that address is published.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I have also noticed this sender is certified by Return
> > Path, and getting 3 points off our anti-spam because of this. I have
> > contacted Return Path and their response would suggest they basically
> > don't care.
> >
> > Has anyone else had this experience with Return Path?
>
> Return Path was bought out recently by https://www.validity.com/, with
> much of the staff being fired and many offices closed.
>
> If you find that Return Path certification doesn't correlate with
> senders being a source of wanted email you should probably configure
> your spam filtering rules to match.
>
> Cheers,
>Steve
>
>
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>


-- 
Phone: 303.517.9655
Twitter: @barteltom
Instagram: https://instagram.com/bartel_photo
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Tom Bartel via mailop]

I work at Return Path and I can't seem to find any references to double-opt
in on Sender Score site.  LMK if you have a specific reference. I agree
with Matt V. though that DOI/COI interchangeable, though I prefer COI.

Tom

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:37 PM Ralf Hildebrandt via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:

> * Jay Hennigan via mailop :
>
> > Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing
> > appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead of
> > "confirmed opt-in".
>
> I'll rather use the term "confirmed opt-in" then :)
> Also, it makes more sense, since the recipient has to confirm the
> subscription.
>
> I was just using "double opt in", since that's what senderscore et.al.
> use on their pages.
>
> --
> Ralf Hildebrandt   Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin
> ralf.hildebra...@charite.deCampus Benjamin Franklin
> https://www.charite.de Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin
> Geschäftsbereich IT, Abt. Netzwerk fon: +49-30-450.570.155
>
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>


-- 
Phone: 303.517.9655
Twitter: @barteltom
Instagram: https://instagram.com/bartel_photo
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] Mittwald anybody?

[Heiko Schlittermann via mailop]

Hi,

please contact me if you're in charge of mittwald.de's mailsystem.
Thank you.

Best regards from Dresden/Germany
Viele Grüße aus Dresden
Heiko Schlittermann
--
 SCHLITTERMANN.de  internet & unix support -
 Heiko Schlittermann, Dipl.-Ing. (TU) - {fon,fax}: +49.351.802998{1,3} -
 gnupg encrypted messages are welcome --- key ID: F69376CE -
 ! key id 7CBF764A and 972EAC9F are revoked since 2015-01  -


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Mathieu Bourdin via mailop]

In France the two terms are basically interchangeable and are used to designate 
the same process (user enters his adress, site owner sends an email requesting 
to click a link to confirm ownership of the adress, user clicks and is then 
added to the mailing list).
I’ve never had a client trying to use double optin for anything else than a 
user confirmation process.
I actually was a bit confused at first like you were, and wondered what the 
difference was (answer : none).
To be completly honest : I don’t even see what the difference actually is even 
now.
Call me naive, but I haven’t seen any case of « fake » DOI/COI in 7 years 
working for an ESP (not to say that I haven’t seen a LOT of pushback against 
COI/DOI, but that’s another matter linked to client education).

Mathieu Bourdin


De : mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] De la part de Alexander Zeh via 
mailop
Envoyé : lundi 26 août 2019 10:49
À : mailop 
Objet : Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

This might also be an issue of different wordings used in different parts of 
the world. I started working in the email space 10+ years ago for the eco 
Association in Germany. In every document, in every personal conversation I 
had, always the term DOI was used. Not only by marketeers, also by postmasters 
and lawyers.
I heard the term COI for the very first time at a M3AAWG meeting, and indeed 
thought it’s the term for „I’ll send the recipient a confirmation email that 
he’s now subscribed“.
I’m not sure how these terms are used in other european countries.

Alex


Am 26.08.2019 um 00:06 schrieb Luke via mailop 
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>>:

Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of language
to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to be
concerning

As do I. I guess my argument is that this isn't what is happening when some 
email marketer says "double opt in" or "cold outreach."

If you're someone who hasn't spent a great deal of time thinking about the 
world's spam problem or haven't really given much thought to the consequences 
of not requiring some kind of confirmation before adding an address to your 
mailing list, the term double opt in makes sense.

Should they be corrected? Sure. Should they be taught that "double opt in" 
isn't actually accurate because the recipient is only opting in once. Sure. Do 
they deserve to be labeled a spammer or be told they are talking like a 
spammer? No. Is it some kind of concerted effort to normalize spammy behavior? 
No.

I don't like the terms double opt in or cold outreach either and I don't use 
them. But I don't think the term "spamspeak" and the allusion to 1984 is 
appropriate.

Luke




On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Michael Rathbun 
mailto:m...@honet.com>> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 08:14:16 -0700, Luke via mailop 
mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:

>I did intend to send it to the whole list.
>
>"Spamspeak" makes it sound so clandestine. So Orwellian. Like there is some
>> subversive element on the list trying to turn the tides and normalize spam.
>> Sounds spooky. Sounds provocative. Let's run with this.
>> *Rolls eyes*
>
>
>But yes, I was poking fun at the use of the term spamspeak. The allusion to
>1984's newspeak or doublespeak is silly.

I have seldom been accused of being overly serious.

>If alluding to 1984 in the context of permission based email isn't a little
>funny to you, then I apologize for my remarks.

Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of language
to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to be
concerning, however "funny" they may appear at the onset.  (I leave out of the
discussion the fact that I once had a role in a stage production of "1984"
that made me more than slightly well-acquainted with that work.)

Rob's remarks were, to my knowledge, accurate and apposite.

mdr
--
   Those who can make you believe absurdities
   can make you commit atrocities.
-- Voltaire
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score

[Alexander Zeh via mailop]

This might also be an issue of different wordings used in different parts of 
the world. I started working in the email space 10+ years ago for the eco 
Association in Germany. In every document, in every personal conversation I 
had, always the term DOI was used. Not only by marketeers, also by postmasters 
and lawyers.
I heard the term COI for the very first time at a M3AAWG meeting, and indeed 
thought it’s the term for „I’ll send the recipient a confirmation email that 
he’s now subscribed“.
I’m not sure how these terms are used in other european countries.

Alex

> Am 26.08.2019 um 00:06 schrieb Luke via mailop :
> 
> Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of language
> to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to be
> concerning
> 
> As do I. I guess my argument is that this isn't what is happening when some 
> email marketer says "double opt in" or "cold outreach."
> 
> If you're someone who hasn't spent a great deal of time thinking about the 
> world's spam problem or haven't really given much thought to the consequences 
> of not requiring some kind of confirmation before adding an address to your 
> mailing list, the term double opt in makes sense. 
> 
> Should they be corrected? Sure. Should they be taught that "double opt in" 
> isn't actually accurate because the recipient is only opting in once. Sure. 
> Do they deserve to be labeled a spammer or be told they are talking like a 
> spammer? No. Is it some kind of concerted effort to normalize spammy 
> behavior? No. 
> 
> I don't like the terms double opt in or cold outreach either and I don't use 
> them. But I don't think the term "spamspeak" and the allusion to 1984 is 
> appropriate.
> 
> Luke
> 
> 
>  
> 
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Michael Rathbun  > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 08:14:16 -0700, Luke via mailop  > wrote:
> 
> >I did intend to send it to the whole list.
> >
> >"Spamspeak" makes it sound so clandestine. So Orwellian. Like there is some
> >> subversive element on the list trying to turn the tides and normalize spam.
> >> Sounds spooky. Sounds provocative. Let's run with this.
> >> *Rolls eyes*
> >
> >
> >But yes, I was poking fun at the use of the term spamspeak. The allusion to
> >1984's newspeak or doublespeak is silly.
> 
> I have seldom been accused of being overly serious.
> 
> >If alluding to 1984 in the context of permission based email isn't a little
> >funny to you, then I apologize for my remarks.
> 
> Personally, I consider every effort to quietly redefine elements of language
> to suit a particular set of political, economic, or personal objectives to be
> concerning, however "funny" they may appear at the onset.  (I leave out of the
> discussion the fact that I once had a role in a stage production of "1984"
> that made me more than slightly well-acquainted with that work.)
> 
> Rob's remarks were, to my knowledge, accurate and apposite.
> 
> mdr
> -- 
>Those who can make you believe absurdities 
>can make you commit atrocities.
> -- Voltaire
> 
> ___
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop


___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop