Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 07:59:45 +0100 (BST), Andrew C Aitchison wrote: >Wont a simple text MUA like mutt or (al)pine retrieve a message >without visiting any of the links ? Certainly. I use alpine, and a Windows text MUA from the late Cretaceous (Agent), and it doesn't retrieve diddly unless I specifically instruct it to do so. And it's not that good at rendering the HTML, but then again that's not something I prize. I'm not at all sure what your point is. 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
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Michael Rathbun wrote: On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 16:10:15 +, Mihai Costea wrote: We have some tech that rescues junk senders that are frequently read, and junks inboxed senders that get no reads etc. this will make panel users differ from the larger population if for example the panel automation is reading all mails in junk or it deletes without opening all the inbox. (I expect other ?receivers? have similar user behavior systems or heuristics so worth sharing this info on this mailing list. ) I cannot respond except to state that the collector robot simply collects. If retrieving a message (without visiting any of the links) will trigger some modification to the local safe-sender list, I would consider this a serious bug at the very least. Wont a simple text MUA like mutt or (al)pine retrieve a message without visiting any of the links ? -- Andrew C. Aitchison Cambridge, UK and...@aitchison.me.uk ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 16:10:15 +, Mihai Costea wrote: >Michael, the two sample accounts you sent privately had no safesenders at all. Correct. When our team discovered extensive unsolicited modifications to the safe and blocked lists, they cleared them out -- we really need accurate data if we are to sell a product that we believe provides value to our customers. We dislike the thought of having to automate this process. I also wonder "What happens to a sender's reputation when a user deletes them from their safe-sender list?" I have screen shots taken of one of the accounts before the cleanout, of both the safe- and banned-sender lists. I will forward them to Michael on Monday. Meanwhile, you have access to the safe-sender list from my personal account to look into. Because I use that account to evaluate specific client sends, the LAST thing I would want to do is introduce an arbitrary bias to the result. >We have some tech that rescues junk senders that are frequently read, and >junks inboxed senders that get no reads etc. this will make panel users >differ from the larger population if for example the panel automation is >reading all mails in junk or it deletes without opening all the inbox. >(I expect other receivers have similar user behavior systems or heuristics >so worth sharing this info on this mailing list. ) I cannot respond except to state that the collector robot simply collects. If retrieving a message (without visiting any of the links) will trigger some modification to the local safe-sender list, I would consider this a serious bug at the very least. Then we have the fact that something has triggered the unsolicited addition of senders to the banned-sender list. This is a much more serious issue in its implications, given that Hotmail/msn/outlook open rates for a number of our customers are often less than half those reported by gmail, aol/y! and other monitored providers. And we are talking about senders with green/good GPT stats at Google and demonstrably verified opt-in lists who either comply with https:www.drh.net/AUP or die. And I'm part of the "die" option. >Years ago we had some simplistic implicit safesender and blocksender lists, >but those are dynamic now part of the filter I described. SOMETHING is making unsolicited persistent modifications to user-local lists that are (at least in theory) under the sole control of the user. I will state, under oath in a court of law, that I never have made an entry to my own account's safe list, nor in fact taken any action that I could expect to affect a sender's reputation. The robot can speak for itself. >I dont exclude the possibility of a bug but please send some sample headers >to investigate. To Michael on Monday. >Plus weve dumbed down in the area of headers and were now showing all the >inner workings so you can check wl: and abwl: in message delivery if it hit >whitelist or address book. Can you point me to documentation on this? I would love to develop a "WTF,O" app for us and our customers to use in diagnosing oddities. >On the other suggestion of skipping filtering for blocked sender mail. That >makes sense for ancient rule sets, but modern systems use filtering metadata >to feed machine learning systems. It is wise to evaluate all mail to not >introduce bias in the training data. In the end, if any rules of any era are applied, then for items sent to the inbox ALL the rules must run, unless you short-circuit the process by, perhaps, consulting some opinion source other than the rules. If it is possible to consult some BL facility before launching a rule scan, this too provides savings in infrastructure. Having maintained the "ancient" rule sets with some minor participation in the "modern" infrastructure before my departure from Microsoft, I am not entirely unaware of the factors involved. mdr -- "There are no laws here, only agreements." -- Masahiko ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
Michael, the two sample accounts you sent privately had no safesenders at all. We have some tech that rescues junk senders that are frequently read, and junks inboxed senders that get no reads etc. this will make panel users differ from the larger population if for example the panel automation is reading all mails in junk or it deletes without opening all the inbox. (I expect other “receivers” have similar user behavior systems or heuristics so worth sharing this info on this mailing list. ) Years ago we had some simplistic implicit safesender and blocksender lists, but those are dynamic now part of the filter I described. I don’t exclude the possibility of a bug but please send some sample headers to investigate. Plus we’ve dumbed down in the area of headers and we’re now showing all the inner workings so you can check wl: and abwl: in message delivery if it hit whitelist or address book. On the other suggestion of skipping filtering for blocked sender mail. That makes sense for ancient rule sets, but modern systems use filtering metadata to feed machine learning systems. It is wise to evaluate all mail to not introduce bias in the training data. > On Jun 13, 2018, at 4:11 PM, "mailop-requ...@mailop.org" > wrote: > > Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited > updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists? _______ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:46:12 +0200, Thomas Walter wrote: >Does this happen "recently"? Saw it yesterday. Haven't started work yet today. >Then it might be a result of the efail issue with people disabling HTML >and external content? Or that the MS mail services have modified their >handling of these "features" to provide better privacy? > >If it's browser based webmails, it might also be that one of the ad >blockers has added you on their lists - but that would result in all web >based systems having similar results I guess. In the accounts over which we have direct control, it results from entries being inserted into the accounts' banned-sender lists. The collector robot has no knowledge of these lists, nor any inclination to change them -- in fact to do so would oppose the system's proper function. mdr -- alt.metaphorical.dude.abides.abides.abides -- Chucky ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
Hey guys, I am not sure I understand your issues correctly, but... Am 13.06.18 um 20:47 schrieb Michael Rathbun: Based on the usual crude tracking pixel and click-tracking links, we often see open rates at hotmail/msn/etc at under half those seen elsewhere. Does this happen "recently"? Then it might be a result of the efail issue with people disabling HTML and external content? Or that the MS mail services have modified their handling of these "features" to provide better privacy? If it's browser based webmails, it might also be that one of the ad blockers has added you on their lists - but that would result in all web based systems having similar results I guess. Regards, Thomas smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
I can't see that being the explanation. Those insights would be best stored elsewhere. Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool<http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=18275> ? -Original Message- From: mailop On Behalf Of Vladimir Gabrielescu Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 1:20 PM To: Michael Rathbun Cc: mailop@mailop.org; Paul Kincaid-Smith Subject: Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists? It could be the focus inbox effect. If the user ignores your mail long enough then they don’t even see it > On Jun 13, 2018, at 8:48 PM, Michael Rathbun > mailto:m...@honet.com>> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:13:35 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith > mailto:p...@emailgrades.com>> > wrote: > >> if Microsoft's filters were aggressively moving heaps of *wanted* >> email out of the inbox, I'd expect Outlook's read rates to be lower, >> but my metrics show that read rates at Outlook are often in line with >> read rates at Gmail and Yahoo! > > ... > >> (I'm probably measuring read rates differently than you. I use IMAP's >> "message read" flag, not an open tracking pixel or click-tracking >> link.) > > I confess that I am not at all sure what you are doing, as we would > normally not have IMAP access to a recipient's mailbox. > > Based on the usual crude tracking pixel and click-tracking links, we > often see open rates at hotmail/msn/etc at under half those seen elsewhere. > > Thinking about performance objectives (having been a spam analyst for > the Office 365 platform for a couple of years, ending just when the > consolidation with the freemail service began), reflecting upon the > fact that non-spam email can be several orders of magnitude more > expensive to process and place in the inbox than spam, my thought is > that > > 1. It can be extremely economical to consult the recipient's local > rules before even beginning to filter an incoming message; if it's > subject to the local safe-sender list, mark it as safe and terminate > all filtering. At least a 10,000:1 resource saving. If it would be > nabbed by the recipient's blocked-sender list, mark it as spam and likewise > send it on its way. > > 2. Given the great desirability of completely eliminating the filter > process, devise as many ways as possible to populate each recipient's > safe and banned lists, regardless whether they would like you to do that. > > mdr > -- > "There will be more spam." > -- Paul Vixie > > > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org<mailto:mailop@mailop.org> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchill > i.nosignal.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmailop=02%7C01%7C > vgabriel%40rutgers.edu%7Cb604c2fda5bb4542ac8008d5d15e4129%7Cb92d2b234d > 35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636645125106140487=TeU79z84xyNG > tMT1O%2Fdbkdw97SnGvRRQsfxeSggYQV0%3D=0 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org<mailto:mailop@mailop.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchilli.nosignal.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmailop=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C04e6010070274748528808d5d16c0966%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636645184304943404=f7noP6rJREIsygGj2VxoaWuBjy8Pn0MVUggQPMXo7O4%3D=0 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:20:27 +, Vladimir Gabrielescu wrote: >It could be the focus inbox effect. If the user ignores your mail long enough >then they dont even see it And there would need to be a mechanism for that to happen. If the mechanism defined by the provider is "make modifications to the user's safe or banned lists without notice or permission", then a problem arises. Especially if those modifications are not based upon action taken by the user. mdr -- "There are no laws here, only agreements." -- Masahiko ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
It could be the focus inbox effect. If the user ignores your mail long enough then they don’t even see it > On Jun 13, 2018, at 8:48 PM, Michael Rathbun wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:13:35 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith > wrote: > >> if Microsoft's filters were aggressively moving heaps of *wanted* email out >> of >> the inbox, I'd expect Outlook's read rates to be lower, but my metrics show >> that read rates at Outlook are often in line with read rates at Gmail and >> Yahoo! > > ... > >> (I'm probably measuring read rates differently than you. I use IMAP's >> "message read" flag, not an open tracking pixel or click-tracking link.) > > I confess that I am not at all sure what you are doing, as we would normally > not have IMAP access to a recipient's mailbox. > > Based on the usual crude tracking pixel and click-tracking links, we often see > open rates at hotmail/msn/etc at under half those seen elsewhere. > > Thinking about performance objectives (having been a spam analyst for the > Office 365 platform for a couple of years, ending just when the consolidation > with the freemail service began), reflecting upon the fact that non-spam email > can be several orders of magnitude more expensive to process and place in the > inbox than spam, my thought is that > > 1. It can be extremely economical to consult the recipient's local rules > before even beginning to filter an incoming message; if it's subject to the > local safe-sender list, mark it as safe and terminate all filtering. At least > a 10,000:1 resource saving. If it would be nabbed by the recipient's > blocked-sender list, mark it as spam and likewise send it on its way. > > 2. Given the great desirability of completely eliminating the filter process, > devise as many ways as possible to populate each recipient's safe and banned > lists, regardless whether they would like you to do that. > > mdr > -- > "There will be more spam." > -- Paul Vixie > > > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchilli.nosignal.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmailop=02%7C01%7Cvgabriel%40rutgers.edu%7Cb604c2fda5bb4542ac8008d5d15e4129%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636645125106140487=TeU79z84xyNGtMT1O%2Fdbkdw97SnGvRRQsfxeSggYQV0%3D=0 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:44:03 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith wrote: >Yes, the vast majority of mailboxes in EmailGrades' panel are actively used >by real humans who send and receive email. (But even so, I wouldn't count >on people replying to most legitimate commercial email like promotions or >purchase receipts.) Interesting. Measuring different things, but worthwhile data nonetheless. mdr -- There's a funny thing that happens when you know the correct answer. It throws you when you get a different answer that is not wrong.-- Dr Bowman (Freefall) ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Michael Rathbun wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:46:53 +, Michael Wise < > michael.w...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > > > >Do these accounts ever *SEND* email? > >… Asking for a friend. > > Ours don't. No idea about Paul's sampling methods. > > mdr > > Yes, the vast majority of mailboxes in EmailGrades' panel are actively used by real humans who send and receive email. (But even so, I wouldn't count on people replying to most legitimate commercial email like promotions or purchase receipts.) ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
This doesn't sound right, and I'm asking around. The system knows if you've opened email from a given sender previously, and it’s not a binary value, but I'd be surprised if it stores that data in the Safe Senders list. The system also knows if you've REPLIED to that sender. Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool<http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=18275> ? -Original Message- From: mailop On Behalf Of Stefano Bagnara Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:12 PM To: mailop Subject: Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists? (sorry for the previous empty message) On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 20:50, Michael Rathbun mailto:m...@honet.com>> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:13:35 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith > mailto:p...@emailgrades.com>> > wrote: > >(I'm probably measuring read rates differently than you. I use IMAP's > >"message read" flag, not an open tracking pixel or click-tracking > >link.) > > I confess that I am not at all sure what you are doing, as we would > normally not have IMAP access to a recipient's mailbox. Same doubts here. > Based on the usual crude tracking pixel and click-tracking links, we > often see open rates at hotmail/msn/etc at under half those seen elsewhere. Same here. Based on the tracking pixel hotmail is less than half compared to gmail (gmail has the higher rates on our "sample"). > [...] > 2. Given the great desirability of completely eliminating the filter > process, devise as many ways as possible to populate each recipient's > safe and banned lists, regardless whether they would like you to do that. This would explain why "red" IPs (SNDS) can still show very high open rates and looks like mostly unrelated to engagement rates. "red" is computed on a shared filter.. but the shared filter is ignored by the recipients that are "used to read" the emails. So you still do your "open rate" simply because people that opened some times in past had an "autocreated whitelist for the sender" and they keep receiving that stuff in inbox because of their local whitelist even if the IP start getting RED. Maybe, or maybe not. Stefano ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org<mailto:mailop@mailop.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchilli.nosignal.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmailop=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C3e63ef1bb69f4b8cdc9608d5d1623ba2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636645142196350093=yv4zDRfFaVQMSYSvzdJwSIej41lHWmFJ9wutJb%2BU0Gs%3D=0 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 20:50, Michael Rathbun wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:13:35 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith > wrote: > > >if Microsoft's filters were aggressively moving heaps of *wanted* email out > >of > >the inbox, I'd expect Outlook's read rates to be lower, but my metrics show > >that read rates at Outlook are often in line with read rates at Gmail and > >Yahoo! > > ... > > >(I'm probably measuring read rates differently than you. I use IMAP's > >"message read" flag, not an open tracking pixel or click-tracking link.) > > I confess that I am not at all sure what you are doing, as we would normally > not have IMAP access to a recipient's mailbox. > > Based on the usual crude tracking pixel and click-tracking links, we often see > open rates at hotmail/msn/etc at under half those seen elsewhere. > > Thinking about performance objectives (having been a spam analyst for the > Office 365 platform for a couple of years, ending just when the consolidation > with the freemail service began), reflecting upon the fact that non-spam email > can be several orders of magnitude more expensive to process and place in the > inbox than spam, my thought is that > > 1. It can be extremely economical to consult the recipient's local rules > before even beginning to filter an incoming message; if it's subject to the > local safe-sender list, mark it as safe and terminate all filtering. At least > a 10,000:1 resource saving. If it would be nabbed by the recipient's > blocked-sender list, mark it as spam and likewise send it on its way. > > 2. Given the great desirability of completely eliminating the filter process, > devise as many ways as possible to populate each recipient's safe and banned > lists, regardless whether they would like you to do that. > > mdr > -- >"There will be more spam." > -- Paul Vixie > > > ___ > 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] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:46:53 +, Michael Wise wrote: > >Do these accounts ever *SEND* email? > Asking for a friend. Ours don't. No idea about Paul's sampling methods. mdr ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:13:35 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith wrote: >if Microsoft's filters were aggressively moving heaps of *wanted* email out of >the inbox, I'd expect Outlook's read rates to be lower, but my metrics show >that read rates at Outlook are often in line with read rates at Gmail and >Yahoo! ... >(I'm probably measuring read rates differently than you. I use IMAP's >"message read" flag, not an open tracking pixel or click-tracking link.) I confess that I am not at all sure what you are doing, as we would normally not have IMAP access to a recipient's mailbox. Based on the usual crude tracking pixel and click-tracking links, we often see open rates at hotmail/msn/etc at under half those seen elsewhere. Thinking about performance objectives (having been a spam analyst for the Office 365 platform for a couple of years, ending just when the consolidation with the freemail service began), reflecting upon the fact that non-spam email can be several orders of magnitude more expensive to process and place in the inbox than spam, my thought is that 1. It can be extremely economical to consult the recipient's local rules before even beginning to filter an incoming message; if it's subject to the local safe-sender list, mark it as safe and terminate all filtering. At least a 10,000:1 resource saving. If it would be nabbed by the recipient's blocked-sender list, mark it as spam and likewise send it on its way. 2. Given the great desirability of completely eliminating the filter process, devise as many ways as possible to populate each recipient's safe and banned lists, regardless whether they would like you to do that. mdr -- "There will be more spam." -- Paul Vixie ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
Hi MDR, Like you, we see promotional/marketing email achieve much lower inbox placement rates at Outlook compared to other ISPs like Gmail, Yahoo! and AOL. Even from responsible senders. At EmailGrades we analyze billions of data points a month using panel data for ESP-wide performance analysis and benchmarking. It's a large sample. Outlook is clearly treating email differently than Gmail, Yahoo! and AOL -- but that might not be a bad thing. My metrics suggest that Outlook has found a way to keep *read* rates in line with Gmail and Yahoo! even though Outlook moves a greater proportion of mail out of the Inbox into the spam folder. It seems they've found a way to identify mail that's less relevant to each recipient and keep it out of the recipient's inbox. Nothing's perfect, so I'm sure there's some collateral damage, but... if Microsoft's filters were aggressively moving heaps of *wanted* email out of the inbox, I'd expect Outlook's read rates to be lower, but my metrics show that read rates at Outlook are often in line with read rates at Gmail and Yahoo! Image attached -- to show how an ESP's overall read rates at Outlook are similar to read rates at Gmail and Yahoo! -- even though this same ESP's inbox placement is far lower at Outlook (55-65%) than Gmail and Yahoo! (~80%). (I'm probably measuring read rates differently than you. I use IMAP's "message read" flag, not an open tracking pixel or click-tracking link.) Cheers, Paul Kincaid-Smith On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Michael Rathbun wrote: > We have a product, GreenArrow Monitor, that is a fairly standard inbox rate > monitoring tool. Senders incorporate the Monitor seed list, our robot > collects and collates the data, users see the results, merriment may or may > not ensue. > > Recently we had occasion to investigate weirdness in Hotmail stats. We > would > expect, for any campaign, given identical messages and uniform rules, they > should all go to the inbox or all to the bulk folder. Additionally, if > there > is zero inbox delivery, the open stats should be miserable. > > What we have been seeing is fractional inbox rates (45%?) and cases where > the > reported inbox rate was zero but the unique opens were at 40%. > > What we found was that each seed account had extensive safe- and > blocked-sender lists. These differed between accounts. Since the accounts > have no human users, this is unexpected. > > Checking my own outlook.com account, used for investigating individual > client > problems, I see unsolicited entries in the safe-sender list. > > I begin to formulate a plausible hypothesis that explains why so many of my > clients see comparativey dismal open rates for their fully AUP-compliant > email > at hotmail, whilst seeing excellent response rates elsewhere. > > Anyone have insights on this? > > mdr > -- > We must not confuse statistical probability with some transcendental > and utterly compelling force. > -- Unspiek, Baron Bodissey (Life, Volume II) > > > ___ > 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
[mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists?
We have a product, GreenArrow Monitor, that is a fairly standard inbox rate monitoring tool. Senders incorporate the Monitor seed list, our robot collects and collates the data, users see the results, merriment may or may not ensue. Recently we had occasion to investigate weirdness in Hotmail stats. We would expect, for any campaign, given identical messages and uniform rules, they should all go to the inbox or all to the bulk folder. Additionally, if there is zero inbox delivery, the open stats should be miserable. What we have been seeing is fractional inbox rates (45%?) and cases where the reported inbox rate was zero but the unique opens were at 40%. What we found was that each seed account had extensive safe- and blocked-sender lists. These differed between accounts. Since the accounts have no human users, this is unexpected. Checking my own outlook.com account, used for investigating individual client problems, I see unsolicited entries in the safe-sender list. I begin to formulate a plausible hypothesis that explains why so many of my clients see comparativey dismal open rates for their fully AUP-compliant email at hotmail, whilst seeing excellent response rates elsewhere. Anyone have insights on this? mdr -- We must not confuse statistical probability with some transcendental and utterly compelling force. -- Unspiek, Baron Bodissey (Life, Volume II) ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
