> if the email isn't opened, or there is no show of interest over the course of > the past 3 - 6 months ... It's mailing malpractice
Hi Michael, I believe you're working in a different department than the one in charge of Outlook.com filtering, so I don't make a direct link between your statement and how Outlook.com filters are working. BUT. I couldn't agree* with a filtering system that assumes that this or that email is spam because it's unread, and I would consider that decreasing the overall reputation of the sender's domain/IP based on this sole criteria is malpractice. There's definitely that part where ISPs are receiving and hosting a lot of emails that are unwanted and unread. That's literally money for nothing, and this is a real problem for all receivers. But there are also those emails that we receive and never read, but that we want to keep anyway. Bank statements. Order confirmation. That newsletter about woodworking tips. Or that one about dreamy holidays that I'd check for the next vacation, or the next one, or the next one ... Messages delivered (or automatically moved at a later time) in junk folder will be automatically deleted after X days, so those would be lost. I don't think there's today a way to spot the "interest" an user has for an email other than by checking if he opened it or not; but not opening an email doesn't mean we're not interested in it. So impacting the reputation solely based on this criteria seems clumsy, unless maybe if done really really well (and that unfortunately usually isn't the case). In the meantime, it doesn't mean that bulk marketing senders shouldn't exclude inactives. They should, they must do it. Their job is to create and maintain a relationship between their brand and their public. If the public isn't reacting anymore, then it's time to say goodbye. * I'm well aware that my opinion doesn't matter much in the end, and yet I'm here on Friday evening ~epilogue~ In a much more practical approach, there's also the other way: if people open, they probably are interested. Unless they were just browsing through their emails and the next one got automatically "opened" before being quickly deleted. I guess the TTL after opening is another criteria. Anyway, that would mean that if the recipients of a bulk sending open, then it should increase the reputation of this IP and/or domain (excuse my innocence in this, I'm genuinely asking if there's a reason to think otherwise). So that's a nice principle, and Gmail actually enforces it pretty well; unfortunately not all other receivers do, and that makes things a lot more difficult: we (I'm an ESP) spend a considerable amount of time educating our clients on best practices and compliance. We tell them what to do, they don't believe us, they crash, we tell them how to start to fix it, they try, it works, they learned something. But when we tell them to follow the best practices (target only the active ones to make it work) and it doesn't work any better, they start questioning the whole best practices again. Cheers to all, and have a nice week-end! -- Benjamin From: mailop <mailop-boun...@mailop.org> On Behalf Of Michael Wise via mailop Sent: vendredi 16 novembre 2018 20:27 To: Michael Rathbun <m...@honet.com>; mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] Spamcop IP blacklisted And if the email isn't opened, or there is no show of interest over the course of the past 3 - 6 months ... It's mailing malpractice, and will *impact* your IP / domain reputation. 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 <mailop-boun...@mailop.org<mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org>> On Behalf Of Michael Rathbun Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 6:52 AM To: mailop@mailop.org<mailto:mailop@mailop.org> Subject: Re: [mailop] Spamcop IP blacklisted On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:04:03 +0000, Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com<mailto:la...@wordtothewise.com>> wrote: >Last time I talked to a SC employee, which admittedly was more than a few >years ago, about their trap conditioning they were using a 2+ year cycle of >actively rejecting mail to trap domains. If your users can’t figure out how to >stop mailing domains that never accept a single email over the course of 2 >years, I don’t think that’s really a trap maintainer problem. > >I’ve taken the position, and tell my clients this, that EVERY SINGLE >EMAIL that bounces is a potential spamtrap.This has been reinforced by >the commercial services selling access to spamtrap data - where the >spamtrap data is simply domains maintained by the commercial service. >If your customers are bouncing mails then your response should be “they >hit a spamtrap” not some vague “oh, well.” In addition to internal spamtraps, they have external ones, like "Nadine" (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.honet.com%2FNadine&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C0ea165c0998d482afac408d64bd43e28%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636779772291170192&sdata=RxNincGW8vaGjbFbgJb7nhTGWN%2BFVTK5U3EWh9GbVZQ%3D&reserved=0). Email to her will be forwarded to Spamcop within seconds. Happens a couple dozen times per day. (If any other blacklist ops want a feed, drop me a note). mdr -- "There are no laws here, only agreements." -- Masahiko _______________________________________________ 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&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C0ea165c0998d482afac408d64bd43e28%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636779772291170192&sdata=els3brp7MPIuzufeJHcPT5BtGa%2BosN3zDWSOyoP7AGc%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
