Hello Andy,
Why would those not be subject to this? We can 'block' most on customer
level. And this is done like that also.
This seems to be an argument in favour of identifying the customer
id in the headers, not for requiring COI. Which is indeed rational
since it makes it more likely that
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:29:30PM +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn via mailop wrote:
> > > Most organisations will reconsider after beeing blocked a few times due to
> > > non COI
>
> > But not the likes of SendGrid, Mailgun, Mailjet, ? which also makes
> > making the argument much more
Hi!
Most organisations will reconsider after beeing blocked a few times due to
non COI
But not the likes of SendGrid, Mailgun, Mailjet, ? which also makes
making the argument much more difficult since
a) the prospective client can always go to the above and send to
their contact lists
Am 28.11.2023 um 15:15:51 Uhr schrieb Andy Smith via mailop:
> COI is right and proper, no argument from me, but the willingness of
> bad actors to ignore what is right and proper makes it very hard for
> anyone in the same industry to do what is right and proper.
Such companies will land on
In message , Byron Lunz via mailop writes
>We've required confirmed-opt-in for years. But a few months ago, I noticed
>that our servers were sending out hundreds of 'confirmation required'
>messages every day. They were going to obviously-bogus addresses, likely
>submitted to our submission
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 03:53:10PM +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn via mailop wrote:
> > Bill wrote:
> > If sending lots of mail to weakly engaged corespondents is your core
> > business, COI is not likely to be worthwhile in cold hard cash vs. what
> > I call "good faith single opt-in"
[…]
>
Hi!
Hell, even if you are dishonest and make the costs of deliverability
problems higher than they are it can still be challenging to make COI look
more profitable.
I really wish this weren?t true and I?ve been trying to make it true for
years. But, sometimes reality bites.
If sending
On 2023-11-28 at 08:39:13 UTC-0500 (Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:39:13 +)
Laura Atkins via mailop
is rumored to have said:
Hell, even if you are dishonest and make the costs of deliverability
problems higher than they are it can still be challenging to make COI
look more profitable.
I really
> On 27 Nov 2023, at 20:09, Greg Brooks via mailop wrote:
>
> Maybe it's just like this in my world but: Everyone understands money.
>
> Can you make a compelling case about the hard-dollar expenses and time that
> bungled IP rep and/or impacted deliverability costs? Or the math behind high
Thanks Byron, for sharing your experience. I believe this is not an
uncommon experience for mailing list operators, and the bots are, to
put it mildly, a major nuisance indeed.
I suspect that some of the bots may be trying to detect patterns in
the confirmation codes that cmoe
We've required confirmed-opt-in for years. But a few months ago, I noticed
that our servers were sending out hundreds of 'confirmation required'
messages every day. They were going to obviously-bogus addresses, likely
submitted to our submission forms by bots. Without opt-in, all those bogus
On 2023-11-27 at 13:42:58 UTC-0500 (Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:42:58 -0800)
Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop
is rumored to have said:
What have you found to be some of the best approaches to convince
clients that the confirmed opt-in process is necessary for operating
eMail lists?
Wasnt' there an article on how engagement rates for confirmed double
opt-in vs unconfirmed were a LOT higher.. a few years back?
I think if you can point to the higher engagement rates, that even with
lower total subscribers you are more effective in your email marketing.
Anyone have a link
After the years of harassment I’ve endured by being subscribed to
hundreds of thousands of mailing lists that are not double opt in, I’d
say just casually toss my email into their mailing list and watch me
convince them by way of harassment. I’m so far beyond asking nicely, my
sanity wasn’t in
Am 27.11.2023 um 11:04:33 Uhr schrieb Randolf Richardson, Postmaster
via mailop:
> > Without a confirmation, everybody can simply subscribe any address
> > and that will be abused.
>
> I agree. What I'm trying to do is convince non-technical
> management to side with taking care to
> Am 27.11.2023 um 10:42:58 Uhr schrieb Randolf Richardson, Postmaster
> via mailop:
>
> > Many marketing people seem to be terrified of the idea of
> > users having to confirm their consent when subscribing to a mailing
> > list (e.g., by following a unique link in an eMail message to
> >
Am 27.11.2023 um 10:42:58 Uhr schrieb Randolf Richardson, Postmaster
via mailop:
> Many marketing people seem to be terrified of the idea of
> users having to confirm their consent when subscribing to a mailing
> list (e.g., by following a unique link in an eMail message to
> complete the
What have you found to be some of the best approaches to convince
clients that the confirmed opt-in process is necessary for operating
eMail lists? (The ethical aspects are pretty straight-forward.)
Many marketing people seem to be terrified of the idea of users
having to
18 matches
Mail list logo
