> 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 which is 99% not spam. Our customer buy a domain name, host his website at us and use our mail service, to represent, let's say, his lawn mower business. He spend money for a web designer that builds him a very nice website. During a week he's presenting his products to a garden exposition and collect mail addresses from interested customers that ask him to send them a pricelist. He gives also gives out flyers with his website address on it. So he uses his fresh new mail addresses that we host for him to contact these customers. In the same time he receives contact requests from his website contact form for informations about a product, and also answer these mails. After a week or two some of his maybe future customers calls him saying asking if he don't want to do business because they are still waiting informations from him. So our customer gets back to us and ask what is going on. So we find out most of the missed businesses opportunities are due to mail send to outlook/Hotmail mail addresses (that used to also happen with yahoo, but not gmail). We check the logs and all mails are accepted by outlook mta's. We have then to explain that it probably went to spam box and that most people don't bother take a look at it, plus they are automatically deleted after a few days so then it appears like the mail was never delivered. 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 uses our paying professional hosting, despite we're following all recommendations/rfc and spend a lot of time on keeping our servers spam free. We fill out forms at MS to understand to raise the problem and understand why this is happening and the answer is always the same. "we can't guarantee the deliverability but you should subscribe to SNDS, JMRP etc (we did since a long time). Recipient should put the sender address in safe senders... No real information about why it happens. Putting the sender in safe senders before the first contact. Really, in 2019, when sending a mail to a new contact, you must first contact them another way to tell them to whitelist you, before sending anything ? At this point it would be better to go back to fax if we can't guarantee a mail has been delivered. Am I the only one to see here dominant position abuse that is going to kill small ISP/ESP businesses? I've read some good ideas to help improve this situation here, for example delivering to inbox but with a warning "This might be spam" instead of moving to a never read junk box. This would already be a step ahead... Regards, _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
