On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:15:41 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Better case would be to automatically discover that a TLD is bad but also
>provide for the possibility that a given domain in the TLD is fine using a
>reputation based system.
Fortunately, the volume here (a few hundred a day) is low enough that I can
perform this personally.
>And having enough traffic to be able to learn and a way for some mail to
>get through so that you can learn the "good" domains.
In the case of TLDs like .top and .xyz, the traffic is, by local standards,
profuse.
>Anyways, if your traders don't get the email updates from abc.xyz because
>you blocked the entire TLD, they'll probably get annoyed... and if enough
>money was involved, you may
>lose your job. Which is to say, how you handle these things have more to
>do with the level of effort you're willing to put in for the payoff and
>what your customers require.
Heh. The only one who can fire me is me (although a mob of enraged users
might be prejudicial). My customers require that the amount of electronic
used food in their mail client be brought to a minimum, consistent with not
rendering their account even slightly nugatory.
>As a sender, you may want to avoid these instead of trying to work around
>the implicit penalty.
In this case, my role is as receiving administrator. In my other role, giving
advice to senders, I promote avoiding exotic TLDs. Since the average punter
never sees the (claimed) TLD of the sender in their mail client, any supposed
advantage is a matter of folklore.
mdr
--
Sometimes half-ass is exactly the right amount of ass.
-- Wonderella
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
