This is also news to me. Wow. I also wondered why Yahoo recipients seemed so picky but I didn't draw the right conclusion (that recipients are the same everywhere and something was wrong with the MS metrics).
My question would be: If Microsoft does not want all complaining recipients removed / listwashed, which I can understand, why not provide anonymous feedback on bad senders? Provide similar info like Google is providing (with the Feedback-ID or sender domain). Why then provide FBL at all? A second question is: What does the 0.3% spam rate limit, as described in the SNDS FAQ, mean. Given this information that is. Should we multiply our FBL rates with a number (6?) to get that 0.3%? Yours, David On 30 October 2017 at 01:26, Benjamin BILLON via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Although we try to rationalize as much as possible, I believe most ESPs > are aware that each ISP is different (if some ESPs aren't aware of that > they should look at the SMTP replies), there's not one single universal > metric. There are plenty of metrics, and of course different for ISP. But > when one of the metrics is totally off chart, or not interpreted as it's > supposed to do, well, that's never good. Metrics aren't truth, they're just > indicators that we then have to interpret, so when Michael says something > which is not what the JMRP page itself says, that changes something. > Probably if it wasn't an ISP as big as Hotmail it wouldn't be such an issue. > > > > -- > <https://www.splio.com> > Benjamin > > 2017-10-30 5:22 GMT+08:00 Bill Cole <mailop-20160228@billmail. > scconsult.com>: > >> On 28 Oct 2017, at 12:03 (-0400), Benjamin BILLON via mailop wrote: >> >> Mhh I'm not sure to follow how it's related. Your freemail accounts are >>> then absolutely not reactive, ok. >>> >> >> None of my addresses are "reactive" to HTML in bulk email. Even when I've >> affirmatively subscribed to a list or putatively given a sender implicit >> permission to market at me at a real address, the only URLs in commercial >> email I've ever used are unsub links that I've sanity-checked. >> >> So if the sender was doing things good >>> enough, he shouldn't be sending to those at the first place (I guess you >>> don't subscribe your spamtraps to newsletters just for fun or watching >>> the >>> world burn), >>> >> >> Right. The only way a sender has any of those addresses is ultimately >> from mailbox provider breaches, dictionary attacks, and typos in >> unconfirmed subscriptions. >> >> and if he was doing things even better, those would stop >>> receiving emails at some points anyway as they'll be considered >>> "inactives", and therefore not targetable anymore. Which is a policy that >>> senders (not all, definitely not all of them as of today) enforce because >>> reputation systems take recipients' reactivity into account, not because >>> the consent is withdrawn or some other direct request from the recipient. >>> >> >> I don't believe I've ever experienced a legitimate sender doing that: >> seems extreme and a bit unwise. I suppose whether a sender does that is >> largely dependent on the characteristics of the recipients. The last time I >> was involved on the sending side of supposedly "tracked" campaigns we had >> solid evidence that more users reacted "out of band" (jumps in normal >> logins correlated to campaigns) than supposedly "opened" messages based on >> image retrieval. >> >> What does that have to do with JMRP, and how having even less reliable >>> metrics is a good thing? >>> >> >> I'm just noting that what ESPs call "metrics" are fundamentally different >> across different mailbox providers and audiences. Microsoft JMRP numbers >> are only directly comparable to Microsoft JMRP numbers, NOT to similar >> feedback from other providers. That should not be news to you. It's not >> good or bad, it just IS. A faith in ANY feedback metrics being >> quantitatively accurate reflections of what happened with a piece of email >> after delivery (beyond simplistic objective facts like URL retrieval) is at >> odds with reality. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Bill Cole >> b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org >> (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) >> Currently Seeking Steady Work: https://linkedin.com/in/billcole >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- -- My opinion is mine.
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
