On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 03:11:58PM -0800, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:27 PM Gregory Heytings via mailop < > > > sender in addressbook is definitely a whitelisting signal, as is > > > replying to a message the user sent or on the same thread. They used to > > > be much stronger whitelisting signals than they are now, but were abused > > > by spammers, so it's not a guarantee. > > > > > > > I stand corrected on those points. I'm not inside Google (alas ;-)), so > > the only thing I could do is by experimenting things, and from my > > experiments I concluded that these things do not make a significant > > difference. Obviously you know better than me what actually happens. > > > > Still, this does not solve the OP problem: how to make sure that > > "first-time" emails arrive in the inbox of his (or his wife's) recipients. > > I still believe that this is what happens with legitimate emails sent by a > > correctly configured server.
That's sad big provider take bot nets as excuse in their behavior and discriminates smaller ones ... like shooting everyone entering the saloon except coming in companion with some well known city's inhabitant. Aren't there enough metrics a botnet IP gets spotted early enough and is loaded up with bad reputation? > There is no way to guarantee that a first-time email arrives in the inbox. Why not? > If there was, the spammers would all use it. That lays in the nature of the e-mail system, that a spammer can abuse it like it is. > The best you can do is "attach" your email to some existing source of > reputation. Turning this around by using a reputation scheme starting with a bad reputation ... Currently this is a system fighting spammers (and legit senders) by obscurity - as we all know, a "very successful" method in security. Here comes an analogy in mind fore treatment that has a recognition rate of 99 % - one might think that's great, but on the other hand, the false recognition rate could be real bad, say 50 %, which puts every second with no cancer under suspicion of having cancer with all the badness following. Many "treatment wonders" in medicine fails in such way. Despite all good (and mostly free) things big providers do for the community, I have concerns on how the dominance grows in taking the attitude they currently showing. Talking against it will raise known statements - expecting it again and saw it here already - kind of that the free users has nothing to say, because they are not paying anything and the community is told that the paying customers wanted all this (which is not proveable). [..] > The most common thing is to use the smtp-relay server provided by your > hosting > provider. They won't be perfect, but they're probably better than the IP > space > of their hosting. Always read these vague speculations on IP reputation. Why not giving the IP range owner the access to check their reputation? Or let them provide a surety to raise or correct the reputation? [..] > This was for a classroom, however, so there's a very clear mechanism by > which > an out-of-band communication can occur to look into the spam label and fix > it... Not a thing you can rely on ... works just in this case. > presumably also obvious by the fact that the person knew it went to spam > for everyone > at Gmail. Gmail has good chances to become the sole originator of the saying "I sent you an email, you will find it the spam folder". (take it as selected thoughts with some sarcastic impetus) Johann _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
