On 28 Apr 2019, at 10:19, Leo Gaspard via mailop wrote:
"Bill Cole" writes:
I know from doing it that limbo-free email can be done well enough
(minimal bad mail being delivered or good mail being rejected) that
paying users will come to prefer it over freemail-like service. That
service model
"Bill Cole" writes:
> I know from doing it that limbo-free email can be done well enough
> (minimal bad mail being delivered or good mail being rejected) that
> paying users will come to prefer it over freemail-like service. That
> service model lacks significant economies of scale (and arguably
iday, April 26, 2019 11:17 PM
> To: Brandon Long via mailop
> Subject: Re: [mailop] The utility of spam folders
>
> On 23 Apr 2019, at 1:17, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:47 PM Bill Cole <
> > mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.co
On 4/27/19 12:41 PM, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
A very wise individual (not me) once pointed out something
non-obvious... it takes longer to clear a good message than it typically
does to find something evil with a bad message. Good messages are much
more expensive to process. Non-obvious,
Brandon Long via mailop
Subject: Re: [mailop] The utility of spam folders
On 23 Apr 2019, at 1:17, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:47 PM Bill Cole <
> mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.com<mailto:mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.com>>
&
On 26 Apr 2019, at 23:16, Bill Cole wrote:
Spam foldering and other flavors of mail limbo may well be the only
feasible choice at Google/MS scale but most mail operators are nowhere
near that scale and should not fall into the trap of mimicking service
patterns that are ultimately rooted in
On 23 Apr 2019, at 1:17, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:47 PM Bill Cole <
mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
[...]
One fact that is very helpful to understand and yet broadly ignored
when
people look at the feasibility of processing-intensive
n 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 Paul Smith
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 1:40 AM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] The utility
ernet Exchange
>
> The Brothers WISP
>
> From: "Laura Atkins"
> To: "Mike Hammett"
> Cc: mailop@mailop.org
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 7:00:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [mailop] The utility of spam folders
>
> You’re absolutely right, there is
Ahhh its... amusing, watching this thread go on, having run a DNSbl for
a long time.
*leans back in a rocking chair on her back porch*
Pepperidge Farm 'members a time where DNSbl maintainers were crucified
for not being 'open enough' about why IPs were listed. Or not being
fast enough at
> Il 24 aprile 2019 alle 14.29 Mike Hammett ha scritto:
>
> I think a lot of the thought is that "everyone" uses Comcast, Google,
> Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. for the client side and the other side of the coin is
> Mailgun, SendGrid, Mandrill, SES, etc. The concept of there being a server
>
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:43:56 +0100, Laura Atkins
wrote:
>Ah. Youre new here. According to reports by MS employees the use of
>boilerplates is mandated by legal and nothing can be sent that is not
>pre-approved by the legal department.
Occasionally real information may leak through. When I
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Smith" < p...@pscs.co.uk >
To: mailop@mailop.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:40:29 AM
Subject: Re: [mailop] The utility of spam folders
On 24/04/2019 02:22, John Levine wrote:
>
> But the vast majority of people who would
t;
> From: "Paul Smith" mailto:p...@pscs.co.uk>>
> To: mailop@mailop.org <mailto:mailop@mailop.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:40:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [mailop] The utility of spam folders
>
> On 24/04/2019 02:22, John Levine wrote:
> >
>
Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:40:29 AM
Subject: Re: [mailop] The utility of spam folders
On 24/04/2019 02:22, John Levine wrote:
>
> But the vast majority of people who would use a system like that would
> be spammers to try to get their unwanted mail delivered. That's never
> going
> On 24 Apr 2019, at 11:21, Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On 24/04/2019 10:51, Laura Atkins wrote:
>>
>>
>> You cut the portion of the previous post I was specifically responding to.
>> Specifically this sentence:
>>
>> “[MS employees should] be able to guess if you're a probable spammer or a
>>
On 24/04/2019 10:51, Laura Atkins wrote:
You cut the portion of the previous post I was specifically responding
to. Specifically this sentence:
“[MS employees should] be able to guess if you're a probable spammer
or a legitimate sender who's been caught out, and then be helpful or
not
> On 24 Apr 2019, at 10:20, Brian Kantor wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 09:59:20AM +0100, Laura Atkins wrote:
>>
>> Have you ever handled delivery support for an ISP?
>>
>> If you haven’t I respectfully suggest that you might want to talk to a few
>> of the folks who do the work about
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 09:59:20AM +0100, Laura Atkins wrote:
>
> Have you ever handled delivery support for an ISP?
>
> If you haven’t I respectfully suggest that you might want to talk to a few of
> the folks who do the work about their actual working environment before
> making such
> On 24 Apr 2019, at 09:40, Paul Smith wrote:
>
>> Outlook has no idea who you are, and they have no way to tell you from
>> any other mailer whose mail they're not delivering.
>
> When you contact Microsoft about an IP address, THEY should be able to see
> what some recent messages from that
On 24/04/2019 02:22, John Levine wrote:
But the vast majority of people who would use a system like that would
be spammers to try to get their unwanted mail delivered. That's never
going to happen.
The thing is that Microsoft have the SDNS system already.
But for small senders it's of
In article <058514aa25614fc0923be875ddc8d...@ex1.obs.local> you write:
>It would really help to have for example an interface for mail system admins
>you can sign-up to, to diagnose
>what triggered this.
>Some program you can subscribe to, filling some agreement or I don't know what.
But the
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019, 4:27 AM Laura Atkins wrote:
>
> On 23 Apr 2019, at 06:26, Brandon Long via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> > The second is that it is impractical to ascertain whether a message is
>> > spam or not during delivery time in all cases. A decade ago, the reason
>> > was because we had
On 23 Apr 2019, at 1:26, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
and also unfortunately, enough people now think of email
as unreliable,
As they always should and always should have, at least for email
crossing administrative borders. The major root causes of unreliability
in email have evolved over
> On 23 Apr 2019, at 06:26, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> > The second is that it is impractical to ascertain whether a message is
> > spam or not during delivery time in all cases. A decade ago, the reason
> > was because we had to OCR images contained in power point presentation
> > spam,
On 23/4/2019 08:26, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
and also unfortunately, enough people now think of email
as unreliable,
I wonder why that is.
--GM
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
Fascinating discussion the last few days.
> Yes, as our spam filtering has improved, that does reduce the amount that
> user's spend in their spam
> folder, and we get less signal. No one said this was easy.
My own experience suggests that there’s possibly a sweet spot in terms of
getting
Sébastien RICCIO
SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR
P +41 840 888 888
F +41 840 888 000
M sric...@swisscenter.com
> Nobody ever said it was fair. But I would suggest that if you want to run a
> mail system, you'll have to figure out how to deal with all of the other msil
> > systems who you hope will
On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 4:03 AM Thomas Walter wrote:
> Hey Brandon,
>
> On 19.04.19 23:31, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> > For one, when you're only solution is to reject, the only way to get a
> > signal that you're rejecting the mail wrong is manual review, which is
> > impractical at best,
On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:47 PM Bill Cole <
mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2019, at 17:31, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
>
> > I just don't think this is practical.
>
> It could be, were it not for the tragic conceptual cancer of "email is
> free like beer."
>
> >
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 4:22 PM Jay Hennigan
wrote:
> On 4/19/19 2:31 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> > I just don't think this is practical.
> >
> > For one, when you're only solution is to reject, the only way to get a
> > signal that you're rejecting the mail wrong is manual review,
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:19:09 -0600, Dave Warren wrote:
>I strongly disagree here, the freemail providers have a product (your
>eyeballs) to sell to their customers (the advertisers). Their customers
>aren't particularly interested in advertising on a service without users.
Indeed. However
On 4/22/19 2:00 AM, Sébastien Riccio wrote:
>
> They also come back with the argument that they've sent the same mail from
> their "free-but-user-is-the-product" mail account and that it reached his
> customers inbox without problem.
> So then it is our fault if he loses business, because he
On 2019-04-22 08:11, Michael Rathbun wrote:
Neither you nor your customer are customers of the freemail provider.
Agreed.
The provider has close to zero economic incentive to pay attention to your needs
and desires.
I strongly disagree here, the freemail providers have a product (your
In article <14fa4dfed24c46f398666a0efddca...@ex1.obs.local> you write:
>> No, it means that Gmail sends vast amounts of mail and most of it is not
>> spam. A one message test from a
>system that sends billions of messages a day is hardly statistically
>significant.
>
>Yes okay. But I still
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 09:02:19 -0400, Bryan Blackwell
wrote:
>I'd just like to point out that there are some - perhaps not many, but some -
>of us who deliver mail where the subscriber most certainly is the customer.
>My list server at corvair.org was paid for entirely by individual
On Apr 21, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Michael Rathbun wrote:
>
> o your customers (the advertisers) pay you to have warm bodies look at their
> adverts. Folks who never log in don't look at diddly.
>
> o The vast majority of accounts that have not engaged in the past 180 days
> are abandoned, and
On 21/4/2019 22:39, Thomas Walter wrote:
And force people like me to resubscribe every 90 to 180 days, because I
don't allow tracking nonsense in emails?
Lists should send a warning "You have been inactive for 90 days, you
will be unsubscribed when you reach 180 days" message. I get those
> No, it means that Gmail sends vast amounts of mail and most of it is not
> spam. A one message test from a system that sends billions of messages a day
> is hardly statistically significant.
Yes okay. But I still don't get how it can be fair. Our systems sends quite
some volume of mails
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 22:40:57 +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
>As a "free" mail system provider, I'd disable those abandoned accounts
>and not rely on the email senders to track their recipients and stop
>sending mails.
>
>Is there anything wrong with telling the sender: "550 Mailbox abandoned
>for X
On 21.04.19 22:21, Michael Rathbun wrote:
> That's your option, certainly. However, if you run a large "free" mail
> system,
>
> o you discover that up to 80% of the mail you finally accept, filter and
> deliver (store) goes to accounts that have been abandoned. You paid to
> analyze,
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 21:39:48 +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
>And force people like me to resubscribe every 90 to 180 days, because I
>don't allow tracking nonsense in emails?
That's your option, certainly. However, if you run a large "free" mail
system,
o you discover that up to 80% of the mail
On 21.04.19 21:15, Michael Rathbun wrote:
> Check whether your "non-spam" email is sent only to accounts that have
> subscribed, opened or clicked in the last 90 to 180 days. Utterly and
> absolutely suppress EVERY record that fails that test. It is becoming more
> and more difficult simply to
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 04:52:42 +, Sébastien Riccio
wrote:
>We noticed that near 100% of the complaints are legit mails, almost none of
>them are real SPAM.
Here's another real-world perspective: I have an antique Yahoo! account that
still, after 25 inactive years, gets a wide variety of
On 21/4/2019 07:52, Sébastien Riccio wrote:
We also receive sometime a batch of complaints from the same outlook.com
recipient, for mails dated a few years ago. Like if the user was doing some
cleanup in his inbox and instead of deleting message he declares them as ..
guess it... junk!
This
In article you write:
>We noticed that near 100% of the complaints are legit mails, almost none of
>them are real SPAM.
If you don't send much spam, that's typical. On my small system,
nearly all of the spam reports are people who apparently want to leave
a discussion list about folk dancing.
In article <91d42e7a8e5a4f11a460e310ab40d...@ex1.obs.local> you write:
>How is the filter relevant here ? Doesn't that shows there are some special
>treatment/whitelisting agreement between big ESP?
No, it means that Gmail sends vast amounts of mail and most of it is
not spam. A one message
center.com
-Original Message-
From: Sébastien Riccio
Sent: dimanche, 21 avril 2019 06:53
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: RE: [mailop] The utility of spam folders
Hello,
> you are forgetting that users are stupid. As I've mentioned before I have to
> deal with abuse messages daily because >
Hello,
> you are forgetting that users are stupid. As I've mentioned before I have to
> deal with abuse messages daily because > users press "Junk"
> instead of "Delete" buttons. They don't understand the difference between
> "Junk" and "Trash" or they sort a regular mail response to junk
I managed to hit ‘spam’, on our own mail in error on yahoo. It’s easily done.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 20 Apr 2019, at 18:57, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/19 4:01 AM, Thomas Walter wrote:
>>
>> you are forgetting that users are stupid. As I've mentioned before I
>> have to deal with abuse
On 19 Apr 2019, at 17:31, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
I just don't think this is practical.
It could be, were it not for the tragic conceptual cancer of "email is
free like beer."
For one, when you're only solution is to reject, the only way to get a
signal that you're rejecting the
On 4/20/19 4:01 AM, Thomas Walter wrote:
you are forgetting that users are stupid. As I've mentioned before I
have to deal with abuse messages daily because users press "Junk"
instead of "Delete" buttons. They don't understand the difference
between "Junk" and "Trash" or they sort a regular
Hey Brandon,
On 19.04.19 23:31, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> For one, when you're only solution is to reject, the only way to get a
> signal that you're rejecting the mail wrong is manual review, which is
> impractical at best, and difficult to correlate with the opinion of the
> actual
On 2019-04-19 6:11 p.m., Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
On 19 Apr 2019, at 16:21, Jay Hennigan wrote:
This feedback is only really available for webmail, so you don't
need a separate spam folder.
There's also some signaling when using IMAP. Moving email to the spam
folder (or using
On 19 Apr 2019, at 16:21, Jay Hennigan wrote:
This feedback is only really available for webmail, so you don't need
a separate spam folder.
There's also some signaling when using IMAP. Moving email to the spam
folder (or using the \Spam flag) can be considered equivalent to
pressing the
On 4/19/19 2:31 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
I just don't think this is practical.
For one, when you're only solution is to reject, the only way to get a
signal that you're rejecting the mail wrong is manual review, which is
impractical at best, and difficult to correlate with the
I just don't think this is practical.
For one, when you're only solution is to reject, the only way to get a
signal that you're rejecting the mail wrong is manual review, which is
impractical at best, and difficult to correlate with the opinion of the
actual receiver. The spam/not spam signal
57 matches
Mail list logo
