so, anyone working on the majordomo and mailman hacks for goodmail? "i am sorry, but you can not subscribe to this list from an aol.com address. don't ask us to explain, ask support@aol.com." or am i missing something here? clue-bat if so, please. randy
On 2/5/06, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
so, anyone working on the majordomo and mailman hacks for goodmail? "i am sorry, but you can not subscribe to this list from an aol.com address. don't ask us to explain, ask support@aol.com."
or am i missing something here? clue-bat if so, please.
Goodmail seems to be for transactional email. AKA bank and credit card statements for example. And for content rich email (html, with lots of cute pictures) You sending any of that? No? Alrighty then ... AOL's enhanced whitelist (EWL) / feedback loop setup seems to work just fine, and rumors of its imminent death appear to be exxagerated. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Goodmail seems to be for transactional email. AKA bank and credit card statements for example. And for content rich email (html, with lots of cute pictures)
You sending any of that?
dunno what 3/4 of the mailing lists hosted here contain. i can certainly imagine mailing lists for lovers of pictures of cute (and, for equal rights, not so cute) hamsters. do i care? randy
On 2/5/06, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
dunno what 3/4 of the mailing lists hosted here contain. i can certainly imagine mailing lists for lovers of pictures of cute (and, for equal rights, not so cute) hamsters. do i care?
Even those would be just fine with what exists currently Unless you're J.Random ESP with a bunch of clients sending advertising, bank statements etc to AOL users, you dont have to worry about this at all. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
* Randy Bush:
so, anyone working on the majordomo and mailman hacks for goodmail? "i am sorry, but you can not subscribe to this list from an aol.com address. don't ask us to explain, ask support@aol.com."
or am i missing something here? clue-bat if so, please.
I don't expect the existing filters will change significantly. If you've got problems routing mail to AOL customers, you are just offered another option. I would be surprised if AOL intends to make money off that service; it's probably just an experiment if this helps to curb misuse of the bypass facilities (which have already existed). What's the response of the solicited bulk mailers? Do they welcome this move? If they are too happy about it, maybe we should be worried. 8-) As far as I can tell, the filters at AOL are far less problematic than crude filters at smaller sites which simply use SORBS or bl.spamcop.net.
On Tuesday 07 Feb 2006 22:08, Florian Weimer wrote:
As far as I can tell, the filters at AOL are far less problematic than crude filters at smaller sites which simply use SORBS or bl.spamcop.net.
Not here, no one cares if some small bit player has stupid filters, but when a significant volume of your email goes somewhere stupid filters hurt, queues build, users complain, and we are a bit player in the email world. We have a regular email to a customer rejected weekly by AOL because it contains a "banned URL". Wouldn't be so bad, but it contains web referer stats, so is nothing but URLs. We've no idea which URL it is, and I'm not doing a binary filter approach to work around their broken filters. Simplistic content only based rejection of email is just a broken model, as is using end-user input in too simplistic a fashion (end users make too many mistakes), AOL do both. I manage to filter all my personal email with no content inspection over and above "no Windows executable attachments here - thank you", no end user interaction, no silly places where falsely classified email stagnates, it really isn't difficult to deploy filters like this. But I thought the whole thing looked like a marketing campaign for Goodmail, and nothing more.
participants (4)
-
Florian Weimer -
Randy Bush -
Simon Waters -
Suresh Ramasubramanian