Peter, Thanks for this thoughtful response - it is good feedback and we'll take it to the team here to discuss.
If anyone else has similar input on cut line for a non-commercial usage, we'd love the input. Anything else comes to you, please let me know. Thanks, Tom On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 6:24 PM Peter via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Thanks for your response here, I appreciate the clarification. > > As I said earlier my usage is just for the positive reputation allowlist > and just in postscreen (I think SpamAssassin also makes use of the list > but since a lookup was done just prior in postscreen the local resolver > would have the entry cached and not cost an extra query to your > servers). Based on one query per connection to postscreen I ran a quick > check in my server logs: > > # grep -E 'postscreen.*CONNECT' maillog* | wc -l > 23651 > > These logs span slightly over a month back, so as you can imagine a > limit of 10,000 queries per month is not enough to satisfy my needs. I > do not consider my server to be a high volume or commercial server, I > use it for personal and my own business email and I also host email for > my local baseball club and umpires association, hardly a commercial > endeavor. I believe that your limit of 10,000 queries for the free tier > is an order of magnitude too small and a more reasonable number would be > 100,000. > > That said, it is not my business or place to dictate your company > policies, I am fine with you choosing to set the limit wherever you feel > is appropriate, but unfortunately a limit of 10,000 queries is too > little for me to continue to use the service, which is my choice. > > If this limit changes I will happily reconsider. > > > Peter Ajamian > > > On 5/04/25 09:54, Tom Bartel via mailop wrote: > > Hey Simon, Peter and Jaroslaw, I saw this thread and wanted to jump in. > > > > Our reputation data access was introduced many years ago as a free tool > > and usage has grown significantly. Recently we’ve seen very high and > > extreme usage so we added registration for this, and now we’re > > introducing paid tiers for high-volume use. > > > > As we have real operational costs, we want to work with our heavy users > > to keep things sustainable and continue delivering a solid experience > > for everyone. > > > > That said, we’re committed to keeping the service accessible. There’s a > > free tier available for light usage (10,000 Queries in a rolling 30 > days). > > > > And we’ve rolled out other options across our product line for smaller > > consumers. Our delivery tools for mailers with lighter sending starts at > > $20 month, complaint FBL starts at $18 year, and email list verification > > has an entry point at $40. We also offer nonprofit programs for > > qualifying orgs. > > > > Feel free to respond to any notification you received directly, or to > > ping me directly with any feedback or additional questions. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Tom Bartel > > Sent from my personal address but with my SVP Data, Validity, Inc. hat > on. > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 2:05 AM Peter via mailop <mailop@mailop.org > > <mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote: > > > > On 4/04/25 20:27, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > > > Dnia 4.04.2025 o godz. 16:10:40 Peter via mailop pisze: > > >> > > >> Yeah, well they already charge an arm and a leg to get on their > > >> allowlist, now they want to make money from the servers that use > it > > >> as well. Sorry I won't be partaking in that list any longer. > > > > > > I never used their list as I have absolutely no reason for it, > > but their > > > logic seems strange to me. > > > > I run postscreen after-220 tests and so it pays to get more servers > > whitelisted to avoid delays. I was just using the dnswl.org > > <http://dnswl.org> list but I > > found some major senders weren't on it, but were on some other > > lists, so > > I included this one and a couple of others. I think I can do without > > this list though as I can find others which whitelist the servers I > > need > > to get mail from and it's not worth spending money for my little > server > > on it. > > > > > As it costs a lot of money to get on their list of "good" > > senders, it is > > > clearly directed towards big companies who can afford that money. > Big > > > companies (I mean those who send legitimate email, not spam) > > usually already > > > have pretty good reputation and deliverability without using > > additional > > > "boosts" like this list, because their messages are quite > > commonplace, so > > > regardless if they are on Validity list or not, spam filters are > > tuned to > > > pass them through anyway. So there's actually little benefit from > > including > > > that list in receiving server configuration, and little > > motivation to do so > > > for the admin. > > > > > > If they now want to charge money for using that list, said > > motivation drops > > > to near zero, and benefit, in monetary terms, may even become > > negative... > > > > While I tend to agree here, Validity plays with the big boys and > > they're > > allowlist is used by Microsoft among others. That alone is probably > > good enough to make it worthwhile for senders to pay to get on it and > > they likely don't care about driving away small folks like us. > > > > > > Peter > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mailop mailing list > > mailop@mailop.org <mailto:mailop@mailop.org> > > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop <https://list.mailop.org/ > > listinfo/mailop> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mailop mailing list > > mailop@mailop.org > > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
