This is somewhat refreshing. It's like we're starting to have the guts to
say out loud "The king is not wearing socks!".
It is a start.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:28 PM Michael Rathbun wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 23:48:29 +0100, Chris Woods
> wrote:
>
> >This is an interesting topic - it's one I'm affected by.
>
> I see these things from multiple angles, having been on the Office 365 spam
> analyst team for 2.5 years before taking a position doing deliverability
> consulting and policy enforcement operations at a different organization.
>
> In the case of Office 365, it is very sound advice to have any
> disadvantaged
> recipients you can involve raise the issue with Microsoft. The central
> factors are fundamentally economic.
>
> For the freemail services, neither the sender nor the recipient is the
> customer of the provider. The advertisers are the customers of the
> provider.
> Both senders (possible attractants) and recipients (AKA The Product) are at
> the mercy of the dynamic that drives the provider to work to prevent
> delivery
> of spam without enough civilian casualties that recipient account
> engagement
> drops. Other than that, it's a matter of the personal attitudes of those
> running the spam filtering how much interest the provider will have in
> fixing
> anomalies that drop legitimate email.
>
> In the case of Office 365, the paying customers are the recipients. The
> loudest noise they make is "TOO MUCH SPAM". However, there is also
> incentive
> to handle "I'm not receiving email I want (and may have paid for) that I am
> paying you to deliver" which is not present in most other environments.
>
> mdr
> --
>Sometimes half-ass is exactly the right amount of ass.
>-- Wonderella
>
>
> ___
> 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
