Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

d practices instead. So we have to de-hard a few addresses every few years, when one ISP messes up. We can live with that. -- Benjamin From: mailop On Behalf Of Marco Franceschetti via mailop Sent: lundi 4 mars 2019 10:16 To: Maarten Oelering Cc: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] dea

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

: Maarten Oelering Sent: mercoledì 27 febbraio 2019 22:02 To: Marco Franceschetti Cc: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces Hi Marco, I am curious what false positives you encountered. We suggest to classify bounces using multiple features, the text, the enhanced

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

rcoledì 27 febbraio 2019 18:27 To: Marco Franceschetti via mailop Subject: Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces On 27 Feb 2019, at 11:16, Marco Franceschetti via mailop wrote: > Hello, > > We at contactlab are considering a change in the deactivation of hard > bounces. > Currently,

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

Yeah, we've run into all sorts of problems with the automatic bounce handling for Google Groups that way as well, there are a lot of bounce messages where you have to read them, and they're often in languages beyond English (and not always ascii, or munged because the should be ascii and something

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

It can be tough to square the "how dare you ever do this" responses from a couple of big ISPs versus the personal and direct experience of other big ISPs having meltdown scenarios where they give false positive "user unknown" bounces for periods of time. Been there, done that. Truth be told, every

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

We (web.de, GMX, mail.com) are clear in our response. We state if recipient mailbox either not exists "5xy Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable“ or is out of storage "5xy Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation, Quota exceeded“. If y

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

Hi Marco, I am curious what false positives you encountered. We suggest to classify bounces using multiple features, the text, the enhanced status code, and the status code. If the bounce is clearly an invalid address, then remove it after the first bounce. For example when the text contains “mai

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

ebruary 27, 2019 10:57 AM To: Michael Wise via mailop Subject: Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces On 27 Feb 2019, at 13:34, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: > If you ignore hard bounces on the Hotmail infrastructure...' > There will come a day, possibly sooner than you'd lik

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

On 27 Feb 2019, at 13:34, Michael Wise via mailop wrote: If you ignore hard bounces on the Hotmail infrastructure...' There will come a day, possibly sooner than you'd like, when the system will blacklist you, and you'll find it hard to get mitigated. All automatic. I sincerely hope that th

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

Gesendet: Mittwoch, Februar 27, 2019 6:26 PM An: mailop@mailop.org Betreff: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces Hello, We at contactlab are considering a change in the deactivation of hard bounces. Currently, we suppress not existing mailboxes at the first hit. We are aware of a small percentage

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

ysis "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ? -Original Message- From: mailop On Behalf Of Bill Cole Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 10:25 AM To: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces On 27 Feb 2019, at 12:36

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

On 27 Feb 2019, at 12:36, Michael Peddemors wrote: On 2019-02-27 9:27 a.m., Bill Cole wrote: However, there are specific basic and enhanced SMTP reply codes which are direct explicit statements that an address is non-existent which should be honored immediately rather than taken as possibly mi

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

Hi Marco, Do you have a way to approach this scientifically with a well-structured experiment of your own? The data will tell the story for ContactLab’s unique mix of customers and receivers. Some sophisticated receivers are known to downgrade the reputation of senders who repeatedly attempt

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

On 2019-02-27 9:27 a.m., Bill Cole wrote: However, there are specific basic and enhanced SMTP reply codes which are direct explicit statements that an address is non-existent which should be honored immediately rather than taken as possibly mistaken and retested later with a different message.

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

On 27 Feb 2019, at 11:16, Marco Franceschetti via mailop wrote: Hello, We at contactlab are considering a change in the deactivation of hard bounces. Currently, we suppress not existing mailboxes at the first hit. We are aware of a small percentage of false positives. Recent admissions crit

Re: [mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

If you keep the retry far enough apart, the second hit could be okay, but you will run into cases of 'over quota' and temporary failures. Technically, hard bounces take very little overhead on the receiving side, since the check is at SMTP layer, so unless you have a wide spread problem, eg a

[mailop] deactivation of hard bounces

Hello, We at contactlab are considering a change in the deactivation of hard bounces. Currently, we suppress not existing mailboxes at the first hit. We are aware of a small percentage of false positives. Recent admissions criteria for Certified Senders states: "The CSA sender must take emai