For our userbase with yahoo/hotmail/aol accouts they hit the spam button more often than delete. Then complain they do not get emails anymore from us, then want discounts on a bill of sale they missed. It is a never ending story. ------Original Message------ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian To: Micheal Patterson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters.. Sent: Feb 24, 2009 7:59 PM On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Micheal Patterson <micheal@spmedicalgroup.com> wrote:
SPF records aren't being recognized, I've been running them for some time now so it would seem that they're not honoring them.
Christ .. Yahoo did say "complaints". And it can take a very low level of complaints before a block goes into place - especially for low volume (corporate etc) mailservers. Feedback loops are one cure, and another cure is keeping complaint volumes down. * Do you have an unfiltered NAT gateway pointed to the same IP as your corporate MTA? * Do you have any large spam sources in close proximity to you? Like you are colo'd on a /28 and someone else has a /27 or /26 in the same /24 that's emitting tons of spam (assuming colo). Or you have your mailserver hosted on a dsl pool (even a business class dsl pool) in which case your server is an island of valid mail in a large swamp of virus traffic * Do you have a marketing department that might be slightly overactive? etc etc. srs
With a large enough userbase, misdirected spam complaints become far less of a factor. Lets put it this way .. one or two users can forget and report the same email as spam. If a whole bunch of users do that, not just a few, then either two things. 1. You have a problem or 2. There's a mass outbreak of alzheimers and all our users forgot Again - that's with a large enough userbase and with marketing content sent in bulk. Deliverability problems for lower volume is tougher to troubleshoot and it could be because of various other reasons than just complaints. --srs (mailops IS operational and belongs on nanog) On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Stefan Molnar <stefan@csudsu.com> wrote:
For our userbase with yahoo/hotmail/aol accouts they hit the spam button more often than delete. Then complain they do not get emails anymore from us, then want discounts on a bill of sale they missed. It is a never ending story.
------Original Message------ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian To: Micheal Patterson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters.. Sent: Feb 24, 2009 7:59 PM
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Micheal Patterson <micheal@spmedicalgroup.com> wrote:
SPF records aren't being recognized, I've been running them for some time now so it would seem that they're not honoring them.
Christ .. Yahoo did say "complaints". And it can take a very low level of complaints before a block goes into place - especially for low volume (corporate etc) mailservers.
Feedback loops are one cure, and another cure is keeping complaint volumes down.
* Do you have an unfiltered NAT gateway pointed to the same IP as your corporate MTA?
* Do you have any large spam sources in close proximity to you? Like you are colo'd on a /28 and someone else has a /27 or /26 in the same /24 that's emitting tons of spam (assuming colo). Or you have your mailserver hosted on a dsl pool (even a business class dsl pool) in which case your server is an island of valid mail in a large swamp of virus traffic
* Do you have a marketing department that might be slightly overactive?
etc etc.
srs
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
On February 25, 2009 at 04:26 stefan@csudsu.com (Stefan Molnar) wrote:
For our userbase with yahoo/hotmail/aol accouts they hit the spam button more often than delete. Then complain they do not get emails anymore from us, then want discounts on a bill of sale they missed. It is a never ending story.
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked the same sender (I know, forged sender etc but something like that) as spam in a reasonably short amount of time like an hour or a day at most. I know of the 99.99% false positives I get I am pretty sure if the threshold were two related complaints it'd get rid of, well, probably 99.99% of them (percentages not scientifically accurate!) Ok, that's not an algorithm but I hope you see my point. My point is that what makes spam "spam" is not that some one clicks a spam button, it's that more than one person, and just two might be a sufficient threshold in practice, believes it's spam. At least from the POV of a network operator trying to id spam sources from spam button clicks. If they ever get it down to fretting about spams really sent to only one AOL (et al) customer then one could revisit this idea. P.S. I thought about this a little and decided it's more in the realm of network operations than spam per se, the same idea could be applied to any number of customer-reported problems which ripple outwards. It reminds me of years ago when I worked with the Boston Fire Dept and as you ran for the trucks the sure sign there really was a fire was fire alarm shouting over the house loudspeaker "CALLS COMING IN!" which meant hq was getting more than one unrelated report (fire box, phone) in the same general location. Then your heartbeat increased. That is, one call, who knows, two or more unrelated? Must be something. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com> To: <stefan@csudsu.com> Cc: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists@gmail.com>; "Micheal Patterson" <micheal@spmedicalgroup.com>; <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:58 AM Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On February 25, 2009 at 04:26 stefan@csudsu.com (Stefan Molnar) wrote:
For our userbase with yahoo/hotmail/aol accouts they hit the spam button more often than delete. Then complain they do not get emails anymore from us, then want discounts on a bill of sale they missed. It is a never ending story.
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked the same sender (I know, forged sender etc but something like that) as spam in a reasonably short amount of time like an hour or a day at most.
I know of the 99.99% false positives I get I am pretty sure if the threshold were two related complaints it'd get rid of, well, probably 99.99% of them (percentages not scientifically accurate!)
Ok, that's not an algorithm but I hope you see my point.
My point is that what makes spam "spam" is not that some one clicks a spam button, it's that more than one person, and just two might be a sufficient threshold in practice, believes it's spam. At least from the POV of a network operator trying to id spam sources from spam button clicks.
If they ever get it down to fretting about spams really sent to only one AOL (et al) customer then one could revisit this idea.
Barry, there's also the honest accidental emailings that are being clicked as spam as well. In the days of old, spam was unsolicited bulk email. The problem that I see currently is what is Sally in Florida is sending mail to joe@thisdomain.com, hosted by yahoo, when they should have sent it to jjoe@thisdomain.com or joel@thisdomain.com and the recipient clicks it as spam. Bam, Sally's now a spammer in the eyes of yahoo. This is not much different in practice than what Spews used to do. Blow out an entire /16 to stop what they "percieved" as spam from someone deep in the trenches, without very little recourse to remove yourself from the axe path unless you switched providers. -- Micheal Patterson
Barry Shein wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked the same sender (I know, forged sender etc but something like that) as spam in a reasonably short amount of time like an hour or a day at most.
Well there's a problem with that too. Lets say that you happen to need to deal with various office workers, who just happen to be the kind of folks who hold the public they serve in low regard and high contempt. Lets further say that these office workers feel no obligation to obey the law or demonstrate any consideration whatsoever for you or the trouble their callous inconsideration actions have caused you, requiring that you repeatedly and persistiently make contact and state your case. Lets further say that these same office workers - who are incompetent functionaries bewildered by that pointy thing on the screen and have zero forethought about the consequences of their actions - decide it's easier to deal with you by clicking 'spam' repeatedly instead of engaging in that conversation and working twords a resolution of the problem you need to report. We forget here on nanog that our list participants are (usually) high functioning people with substantial computer, technical, communications experience and who approach their personal communications a lot differently than the average 'end user', who has difficulty even finding the 'on' button let alone using it to any great effect. I run into the above described office worker stereotype on a frequent basis (the bearer of bad news, or having to represent someone or some cause) and the default action - spam - is almost universal amoungst these types. Just because THEY say it's spam, doesn't mean a whole lot of anything other than maybe you interrupted their coffee break or it would be too much work and maybe someone else will get the message so they don't have to do anything. The idea of using a group of users to effectively 'vote' only works when the group in question is comprised of reasonable people, and unfortunately, freemail users and office workers 'protected by postini' are the least likely candidates to make reasonable choices with votes for spam..... $0.02 Mike-
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked the same sender (I know, forged sender etc but something like that) as spam in a reasonably short amount of time like an hour or a day at most.
.. and you think AOL doesnt track these? Come on, barry - try to give large mailops shops with massive userbases some credit for clue level. You have all the clue in the world but you dont even begin to guess at the firehose AOL / Yahoo / we etc have to deal with. Or what we routinely do, as a matter of best practice. I wont claim perfection, infallibility etc for any of the big 3 (hotmail / yahoo / aol) or even for us (large enough - 76 million users we filter for, 40 million of which we host). But a user report based spam reporting system works quite well on the aggregate. And yes, legitimate outfits can wind up blocked (universities because of unfiltered machines on campus, and because of nigerians / phishers hacking user accounts, webhosts because of hacked scripts, or because they end up hosting a high volume spammer in part of a /24 with legit customers near him ..) One thing that may need to be improved at one place or the other is false positive handling - make that faster and more efficient, and also publish the "unblock contact path" in block messages you issue, and you would find a lot of the gripes getting resolved. To some extent anyway. Postmaster work is a place for people with decent mailops / routing skills, yes - but far more than that, it is for people with both soft skills for customer service plus a finely tuned b.s detector. It is complex, and far too long for nanog .. took maawg three or four brainstorming sessions over a year to discuss. http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/Abuse_Desk_Common_Practices.pd... And then some others relevant to this thread - http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/MAAWG_Email_Forwarding_BP.pdf http://www.maawg.org/port25 http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/MAAWG_AWPG_Anti_Phishing_Best_... http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments --srs
On February 26, 2009 at 06:55 ops.lists@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked the same sender (I know, forged sender etc but something like that) as spam in a reasonably short amount of time like an hour or a day at most.
.. and you think AOL doesnt track these? Come on, barry - try to give large mailops shops with massive userbases some credit for clue level.
I have no idea what they track and it's completely irrelevant. We get a steady stream of "spam" complaints from the AOL feedback loop which is virtually all either (we assume) unsubscriptions from legitimate mailing lists or random misfires, "it was nice seeing you and dad last week" From joe blow, To susie blow, which just probably isn't spam. Now, if you're still following, none (or a microscopic amt) of that would pass the "complaints came from two different sources in a fairly short amount of time" sniff test I proposed. If you track it and don't use it, well, tree falling in the forest and all that. I can see with my own eyes that nothing like this is being done. As far as I can tell from here, and other sites may see it diffferently, the feedback thing is mostly just a "please unsubscribe me from this mailing list I subscribed to and can't remember how to get off" and the occasional "oops, hit the spam button on mom's mail, oh well!"
You have all the clue in the world but you dont even begin to guess at the firehose AOL / Yahoo / we etc have to deal with. Or what we routinely do, as a matter of best practice.
Nor is it my problem. Why should my staff and I spend valuable time subsidizing your business model? Hire more people if you feel overloaded, but don't pass the workload off on others, particularly others in the biz, we have workloads too.
I wont claim perfection, infallibility etc for any of the big 3 (hotmail / yahoo / aol) or even for us (large enough - 76 million users we filter for, 40 million of which we host). But a user report based spam reporting system works quite well on the aggregate.
Perhaps it works for you, but we get a non-stop stream of false positives; unsubscribes (a lot of it), Dad's out of the hospital would love to see you next week, and on and on. I was suggesting a simple improvement which would help: Don't send it as a spam report unless you get two or more complaints about the same msg/source within a short time period. It's good and valuable advice, you can send me a PO... The point is, I'm not complaining, I'm making what I think is a constructive suggestion: Don't send it until you get two or more complaints (as previously outlined.)
And yes, legitimate outfits can wind up blocked (universities because of unfiltered machines on campus, and because of nigerians / phishers hacking user accounts, webhosts because of hacked scripts, or because they end up hosting a high volume spammer in part of a /24 with legit customers near him ..)
I didn't say a word about any of this...
One thing that may need to be improved at one place or the other is false positive handling - make that faster and more efficient, and also publish the "unblock contact path" in block messages you issue, and you would find a lot of the gripes getting resolved. To some extent anyway.
Postmaster work is a place for people with decent mailops / routing skills, yes - but far more than that, it is for people with both soft skills for customer service plus a finely tuned b.s detector. It is complex, and far too long for nanog .. took maawg three or four brainstorming sessions over a year to discuss.
Well, this is all nice, I'm sorry you entirely missed my rather simple and straightforward suggestion, but whatever.
http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/Abuse_Desk_Common_Practices.pd...
And then some others relevant to this thread -
http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/MAAWG_Email_Forwarding_BP.pdf http://www.maawg.org/port25 http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/MAAWG_AWPG_Anti_Phishing_Best_... http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments
--srs
-- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
We get a steady stream of "spam" complaints from the AOL feedback loop which is virtually all either (we assume) unsubscriptions from legitimate mailing lists or random misfires, "it was nice seeing you and dad last week" From joe blow, To susie blow, which just probably isn't spam.
It depends. What WE get from the AOL fbl is by and large actual spam sent by our users. Yes there's a non trivial amount of misreported legit email but when you get near real time notification of actual spam too, that's incredibly useful. ARF - in which aol (and our) loops are sent is designed to be automatically parsed. So, go right ahead. Run the stuff through (say) SA and see what you come up with, besides running counts / numbers, user X signed up just a coupla days back and see, he's already got a couple of hundred complaints from AOL, Comcast, etc.
Why should my staff and I spend valuable time subsidizing your business model? Hire more people if you feel overloaded, but don't pass the workload off on others, particularly others in the biz, we have workloads too.
Well... If you think theres no value in the AOL or other feedback loops and your network is clean enough without that, well then, dont sign up to it and then bitch when all you get for your boutique network with users who are by and large fellow geeks doesnt generate any actual spam at all. On the other hand, for SPs that actually have real userbases to contend with, and on far larger scales than theworld has .. well, they'd certainly find it a lot more useful.
I was suggesting a simple improvement which would help: Don't send it as a spam report unless you get two or more complaints about the same msg/source within a short time period.
Well .. set limits and you'll have spammers who work around those limits. Its a catch 22. Spammers have an almost infinite capacity to scale horizontally, you'll find.
I didn't say a word about any of this...
It was a meta comment to the rest of this rather uninformed thread, but anyway ..
Well, this is all nice, I'm sorry you entirely missed my rather simple and straightforward suggestion, but whatever.
Saw it. Dismissed it as impractical. -srs
On February 26, 2009 at 09:14 ops.lists@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote:
Well... If you think theres no value in the AOL or other feedback loops and your network is clean enough without that, well then, dont sign up to it and then bitch when all you get for your boutique network with users who are by and large fellow geeks doesnt generate any actual spam at all.
Hey, I didn't bitch, I didn't say it was valueless, I didn't say any of this. Can't you make your point without amplifying and putting words in my mouth? It sounds to me like you just want to vent. I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from the same source before firing it back as spam. I'm sorry if you don't feel you got your money's worth. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from the same source before firing it back as spam.
And the trouble is - that can and will be gamed by "horizontally scaling" spammers. Misreports of the sort you describe shouldnt trigger blocks anyway.
On 2/25/09, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
On February 26, 2009 at 09:14 ops.lists@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote:
Well... If you think theres no value in the AOL or other feedback loops and your network is clean enough without that, well then, dont sign up to it and then bitch when all you get for your boutique network with users who are by and large fellow geeks doesnt generate any actual spam at all.
Hey, I didn't bitch, I didn't say it was valueless, I didn't say any of this. Can't you make your point without amplifying and putting words in my mouth? It sounds to me like you just want to vent.
I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from the same source before firing it back as spam.
But aren't the spam messages sufficiently randomized these days to make it impossible to get *two* complaints about the same spam, since the messages are all uniquified with randomized strings in them? Matt
I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from the same source before firing it back as spam.
Perhaps, but different people have different heuristics. There's nothing keeping you from writing your own de-duper that only shows you stuff with a count of 2 or more. R's, John
Barry Shein wrote:
I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from the same source before firing it back as spam.
I've developed systems for ISPs to handle inbound complaints from AOL & such, and that's exactly what we did: multiple complaints were acted upon, single complaints only fed into the aggregate stats. On the INBOUND side. We didn't ask AOL to do that work for us. Many recipients of complaint feedback actually /want/ to receive every complaint, because -- like John Levine -- they treat those complaints as unsubscribe requests. Yours is not the common use case. -- J.D. Falk Return Path Inc http://www.returnpath.net/
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:45 AM, J.D. Falk <jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org> wrote:
Many recipients of complaint feedback actually /want/ to receive every complaint, because -- like John Levine -- they treat those complaints as unsubscribe requests.
That's ONE use case. But we are not senders, and we do use a feedback loop because we are an ISP (like barry) but we dont have the luxury of a purely geek (so largely clean e&oe pwned systems) userbase like Barry has. In other words - we do get spammer customers. And the feedback loops provide us near real time notification of these, allowing us to terminate.
Yours is not the common use case.
His IS the common use case. Just that he doesnt have the sort of userbase that will generate usable FBLs (aka no significant number of genuine spam issues on his network). For which he has to count himself lucky.
$0.02 within
-----Original Message----- From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:29 PM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored
On February 26, 2009 at 06:55 ops.lists@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote: the
spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked the same sender (I know, forged sender etc but something like that) as spam in a reasonably short amount of time like an hour or a day at most.
.. and you think AOL doesnt track these? Come on, barry - try to give large mailops shops with massive userbases some credit for clue level.
I have no idea what they track and it's completely irrelevant.
We get a steady stream of "spam" complaints from the AOL feedback loop which is virtually all either (we assume) unsubscriptions from legitimate mailing lists or random misfires, "it was nice seeing you and dad last week" From joe blow, To susie blow, which just probably isn't spam.
The format is standard so you can have it automated to look for people trying to unsubscribe and simply unsubscribe them. AOL also uses a % system before initiating a block. If you send 100000 emails to them and you get 500 complaints...its not going to block you. It is more of a friendly notice of what their members are saying is spam. It isn't their responsibility to tell you what is and is not actually spam with the FBL, they are saying what the recipients of your message is spam.
Now, if you're still following, none (or a microscopic amt) of that would pass the "complaints came from two different sources in a fairly short amount of time" sniff test I proposed.
If you track it and don't use it, well, tree falling in the forest and all that.
I can see with my own eyes that nothing like this is being done.
As far as I can tell from here, and other sites may see it diffferently, the feedback thing is mostly just a "please unsubscribe me from this mailing list I subscribed to and can't remember how to get off" and the occasional "oops, hit the spam button on mom's mail, oh well!"
If you are getting hundreds of spam complaints you either send a large volume of email to them or something is wrong with your mailings. I know at my old company we had thousands every day coming in, but it wasn't more then 0.2% or so of the volume that was actually sent to them (they send out the alerts when you start getting to there threshold).
You have all the clue in the world but you dont even begin to guess at the firehose AOL / Yahoo / we etc have to deal with. Or what we routinely do, as a matter of best practice.
Nor is it my problem.
Why should my staff and I spend valuable time subsidizing your business model? Hire more people if you feel overloaded, but don't pass the workload off on others, particularly others in the biz, we have workloads too.
Automate it, they are standardized reports. Separate your newsletter from all other email.
I wont claim perfection, infallibility etc for any of the big 3 (hotmail / yahoo / aol) or even for us (large enough - 76 million users we filter for, 40 million of which we host). But a user report based spam reporting system works quite well on the aggregate.
Perhaps it works for you, but we get a non-stop stream of false positives; unsubscribes (a lot of it), Dad's out of the hospital would love to see you next week, and on and on.
I was suggesting a simple improvement which would help: Don't send it as a spam report unless you get two or more complaints about the same msg/source within a short time period.
It's good and valuable advice, you can send me a PO...
The point is, I'm not complaining, I'm making what I think is a constructive suggestion: Don't send it until you get two or more complaints (as previously outlined.)
And yes, legitimate outfits can wind up blocked (universities because of unfiltered machines on campus, and because of nigerians / phishers hacking user accounts, webhosts because of hacked scripts, or because they end up hosting a high volume spammer in part of a /24 with legit customers near him ..)
I didn't say a word about any of this...
One thing that may need to be improved at one place or the other is false positive handling - make that faster and more efficient, and also publish the "unblock contact path" in block messages you issue, and you would find a lot of the gripes getting resolved. To some extent anyway.
Postmaster work is a place for people with decent mailops / routing skills, yes - but far more than that, it is for people with both soft skills for customer service plus a finely tuned b.s detector. It is complex, and far too long for nanog .. took maawg three or four brainstorming sessions over a year to discuss.
Well, this is all nice, I'm sorry you entirely missed my rather simple and straightforward suggestion, but whatever.
http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/Abuse_Desk_Common_Practices. pdf
And then some others relevant to this thread -
http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/MAAWG_Email_Forwarding_BP.pd f
http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/MAAWG_AWPG_Anti_Phishing_Bes t_Practices.pdf
http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments
--srs
-- -Barry Shein
The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Feb 25, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how much better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored the spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicked the same sender (I know, forged sender etc but something like that) as spam in a reasonably short amount of time like an hour or a day at most.
.. and you think AOL doesnt track these? Come on, barry - try to give large mailops shops with massive userbases some credit for clue level. You have all the clue in the world but you dont even begin to guess at the firehose AOL / Yahoo / we etc have to deal with. Or what we routinely do, as a matter of best practice.
Whenever I see the words "best practice" I find my self wondering, "Best for who?"
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Paul M. Moriarty <pmm@igtc.com> wrote:
Whenever I see the words "best practice" I find my self wondering, "Best for who?"
For us, email hosting / mailbox providers, its kind of a shared best practice evolved in MAAWG meetings and elsewhere. What works for us may or may not work for say a corporate network, or a .. [etc] -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
participants (10)
-
Barry Shein -
J.D. Falk -
John Levine -
Matthew Petach -
Micheal Patterson -
mike -
Paul M. Moriarty -
Ray Corbin -
Stefan Molnar -
Suresh Ramasubramanian