On 1/13/22 5:08 PM, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote:
I'm not sure what value of Recipients is really referring to - but I think this is kind of the question that needs to be asked.
I was purposely nebulous specifically because what the exact list is doesn't matter. ;-)
Should the administrator of a sending server (the IP address) be responsible for removing addresses from a mailing list? Probably.
I feel like the SMTP administrator ~> postmaster / hostmaster probably wants to /not/ be involved, but that it behooves them to be somewhat involved, especially when the reputation of the server / IP / etc. is involved ~> at risk.
But in order for the administrator of the sending server to know about this, reports are going to have to come to the administrator of the sending server based on it's IP address.
Point of order: I don't think that the reports /must/ go /directly/ to -- whom I'm going to refer as -- the postmaster / hostmaster. But I do believe that the messages need to make it to said postmaster / hostmaster /in/ /a/ /timely/ /manner/!!! Meaning that the messages can come into a system where the messages ~> tickets are routed to the postmaster / hostmaster /in/ /a/ /timely/ /manner/.
I'm going to define a timely manner to be ≤ 24 (wall clock) hours. I'll accept 1 business day / give some slack for a weekend / holiday / etc.
Note: That's how long I think it should take for the message ~> ticket to be routed to the postmaster / hostmaster. That's completely independent of how long said postmaster / hostmaster has to respond to it.
Aside: I'd like to see a response from the postmaster / hostmaster within 72 (wall clock) hours / 3 business days.
I (personally) don't really send out emails through these servers.
I suspect that's quite common, particularly for subscribers of this mailing list.
When those customers send messages to Yahoo or any other email service ... they really don't care if the individual recipient at Yahoo or whoever flags that message as spam.
Agreed.
Is this wrong? Absolutely!
Reluctantly agreed.
But this is the disconnect from reality that I think a lot of Mailops seem to discount.
?
We've reached a point in society where individuals can't read and can't be expected to take the 90 seconds it takes to read and understand something, they want to be spoon fed information.
With heavy resignation in my heart, I agree with your description.However, I would /require/ that clients using my server to do something notoriously questionable, e.g. sending mass email, to actually spend the 90 seconds to read and act on such bounces / abuse reports / complaints.
Because if they don't do so as the list administrator and I receive enough (copies of) notices / abuse reports myself, I would (eventually) suspend their services.
Eventually because there would be multiple strikes with escalating responses.
... If an individual in the general public gets a feedback loop report about a message being spam... they're not going to read it... they're not going to take the time to understand it... they're just going to keep sending out to their list just ignoring that report
Agreed.However I do not acknowledge that a mailing list administrator is /simply/ a member of the /general/ /public/. Rather they are a (paying) customer and they have agreed to my companies terms of service. As such, they have a responsibility to keep their use of my services clean, lest they find themselves looking for a new service provider.
Now, eventually, Yahoo or whatever mail service, will say that the mail server that I'm an administrator to has sent them too much spam and they start to block/blacklist/throttle mail from the server.
Yep. Which is why you have the responsibility to keep your server(s) as clean as possible.
I'm left out in the cold because 1) I'm not the one sending out the mailing list messages 2) I have no way of getting feedback loop messages from Yahoo or whatever mail service for this sending IP 3) there's a severe lack of ways to get in touch with a human person at Yahoo or whatever mail service to discuss the situation.
I made sure that I received a copy of anything and everything that was sent to abuse@, postmaster@, and hostmaster@ for any of the domains that ran through my servers. I *REQUIRED* it as a condition of using my servers. -- I would periodically send test messages to the aforementioned addresses to confirm that I received copies.
It's not a perfect method by any stretch of the imagination. But I do believe that it is a step in the correct direction.
Some people seem to assume that 1 IP address = 1 domain sending out mail = 1 person responsible for managing that.
I assume that these people you speak of have never actually administered a server since the '90s when we could just throw IPs at things.
And that is just simply not true.
Agreed.
If a service is going to block/blacklist/throttle messages by the sending IP, then what good does it do to base feedback loops and spam reports on a domain basis?
From a spam defense point of view, the domain tends to be likely to span multiple IPs, as such is more valuable than /just/ the IP. <ASCII shruggie>
From a system defense point of view, that's a problem.
A sending IP could have 1000 domains sending from it and only 1 of those domains is sending spam or sending to a list that is being flagged as spam, but the recipient server isn't going to block based on domain, it's going to block based on IP.
I reluctantly agree. I prefer to things at the domain level as opposed to the IP for this very reason.
-- Grant. . . . unix || die
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
