I believe we are in solid agreement, a few notes below explaining how...
On 2024-04-14 at 08:00:19 UTC-0400 (Sun, 14 Apr 2024 08:00:19 -0400) Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> is rumored to have said: > Bill Cole <sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> writes: > >> On 2024-04-12 at 18:56:15 UTC-0400 (Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:56:15 -0400) >> Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> >> >>> Bill Cole <billc...@apache.org> writes: >>> >>>> 1. We serve our users: receivers, not senders. Senders claiming FPs >>>> need the support of a corroborating would-be receiver. >>> >>> Agreed. Or maybe we take requests to add only from receivers. >> >> Effectively, yes. Senders won't refrain from requesting to be welcomed >> by default just because we say we don't accept those requests. Only >> receivers can corroborate the existence of any FP problem which would >> be solved by a default welcomelist entry, and this isn't a 'just find >> one example' sort of issue. > > They won't refrain from writing, but it's fair to not let them open bugs > or have bugs open in the tracker. And to tell them > > 1) clean up your mail > > 2) we only take requests for defwl from actual receivers, so we're > done with this conversation. use of sock puppets is not ok. > > That's what I meant by "not take requests from". Right. Anyone can open a bug, but we enthusiatically close that are invalid. [...] >> I don't see this as misaligned, but rather a way of saying that def_w* >> entries come behind site-local receiver mitigations and >> receiver/sender collaboration on fixing the shabby mail. > > What I was trying to express is that often senders, even zero-spam > senders, are often enormous, opaque, and intractable. So while I agree > in theory, I guess the real question is whather we want to say to a > receiver: > > your non-spam mail is spammy, and we aren't going to add a defwl > because first you need to get e.g. Bank of America to stop sending > html mail. > > or > > your non-spam mail is spammy and it's ok to add a defwl > > I have occasionally complained to BigCorp and it has never been useful. > Sure, one can get the branch manager to reverse a fee, but I mean one > cannot get them to change their practices. Right. That's why there need to be alternatives to making the mail look less spammish. No one is required to persuade bank execs to behave differently... [...] > But I don't mean generally/vaguely. I mean senders that are zero-spam > and likely important to receivers, in the bank/airline notification (and > similar) class. Meaning something with real-world consequences that is > timely. Not newsletters. Right. > FWIW, I have given up on the KAM rules. The scores are insanely high > for things that appear in ham, and I was having too-frequent > misclassification. Some of the scores were triggering on things which > are not even objectively spammy, e.g a watch rule on a technical > discussion of clocks where it was on topic and I was subscribed. That's a rabbithole of a different nature. My point in mentioning the KAM channel was as an example of a local choice outside of the default deployment which has a radical effect on FPs. Akin to lowering the threshold to 3.0 (FWIW: I think the KAM rules are fine if, like PCCC, you have a staff of antispam experts and a mature package of customer-facing and staff-facing tools and processes to minimize and mitigate FPs. I use them personally, but I have a robust warren of ways for mail to get around SA analysis... ) [...] >>> I am extremely skeptical of anything that smells of email marketing >>> here. I would expect only places sending transactional mail and alerts >>> to established customers. >> >> I share the skepticism, but I have been working with business >> customers and their love of other businesspeople's email marketing >> (and random non-work-related email...) for long enough that I have >> stopped arguing with the nature of email that people eagerly desire in >> their mailboxes. I care that it is contextually safe, legal, and >> solidly consensual. There are marketers who stay inside the lines. > > If it's really 100% ok, fine. I just said that I'm skeptical and thus > require more convincing from and ESP than from bank alerts, to overcome > a presumption of "email marketing is rarely ok". Yes, I don't foresee ever seriously considering the addition of any marketing-oriented ESP per se to the default welcomelist. They all sometimes send spam. The Microsoft case is an example. The entry I removed matched any subdomain of microsoft.com, triggered by spam from an address at email.microsoft.com which came to me from a Marketo IP address. Marketo sends a LOT of spam. Marketo generally has no listing of its own. -- Bill Cole b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) Not Currently Available For Hire
