On Wednesday 13 August 2014 at 16:14:06 (EU time), Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> >> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >>> But you still have to consider point 1. If a user starts complaining
> >>> that he's getting spam from Amazon, I'm not going to mess with SA, I'm
> >>> going to tell him to click the unsubscribe link at the bottom of the
> >>> email. (Assuming that it actually is from Amazon, of course)
> >
> >Alex wrote:
> >> I don't really like the per-user control. The challenge is to build a
> >> system that requires as little maintenance as possible - that's what
> >> we're supposed to be doing, IMHO.
>
> On 12.08.14 18:11, Kris Deugau wrote:
> >So... What do you do, when user A gets extremely mad to see
> >$legitimatenewsletter in their Inbox, and user B gets extremely mad to
> >see $legitimatenewsletter in their Spam folder? If you only have a
> >global policy with no way to adjust on a per-user basis, you're going to
> >have someone mad at you either way.
>
> call an unsubscribe-hook _and_ train as spam.
> Should be viable for both solicided an unsolicited mail.
>
> Or, does anyone think that unsubscribing spam is counter-productive still?
Rejecting spam at the MTA can be good for this:
- spammers who get unsubscribe responses will use that to confirm the address
and send more, therefore unsubscribing to them is a bad idea
- genuine newsletters (which the user might even have signed up to, and has
either forgotten or just doesn't care) would respond correctly to the
unsubscribe request, but will also often auto-unsubscribe addresses after a
certain number of non-delivery bounces
Therefore users should be encouraged to unsubscribe from things they really
did subscribe to, but otherwise MTA rejection of what looks like spam should
reduce the quantity of both spam mass-mailings and genuine newletters etc.
Antony.
--
"I estimate there's a world market for about five computers."
- Thomas J Watson, Chairman of IBM
Please reply to the list;
please *don't* CC me.
