[SC-Help] Re: Getting balcklisted

[Mike Easter]

Iain wrote:
> So then, the very first Email that is sent as a part of the opt-in
> process would under your comments get reported as spam if the user
> wasn't expecting it - caused by the original web user giving someone
> else's address for whatever reason? That is a no-win situation you
> describe as I have no way to test the address provided - ever -
> unless I send mail to it!

There are all kinds of spam reporters.  We'll use me as an example.  If
I receive an item which is 'purely' confirmatory, not promoting itself
or its products or its purpose in any way, and whose entire purpose is
to tell me that my address has been entered as desirous of wanting to be
on that mailing list -- and, that in order for me to be so subscribed
then I must click this link or reply this mail, else the subscription
process fails -- then I do not report that as spam.  That
non-reportability is aided by my observation that the From of the sender
and the source of the confirmatory mail and other elements of the header
show no bogosity;  that the item was 'straightup' From = source and
nonabusive to any proxies.

OTOH, some spamcop reporters are triggerhappy and kneejerkish.  So, if
they get something which they don't recognize, they might spamcop report
it.  That is against the spamcop rules which sez to not report
confirmatory items.  But, your problem is that if such a spamcop
reporter gets your mail, their spamcop notify doesn't provide you with
the email address to which you sent the confirmation.  The spamcop
reporting process acts as an anonymizer, so you can see a problem
developing for your list there.

In addition, if a spamtrap receives your confirmatory mail, then that
can cause your mailing list to be named as a spamsource as well.

> "The confirmation mail when someone first subscribes to something must
> contain no 'content' other than its own confirmation."
>
> So then, if you're the recipient of a message with 'no content' sent
> to you because someone else gave your Email address as their own
> address, this is going to help you? Surely a message that explains
> what it is, why it is being sent to the person and what to do if they
> do/do not want it - a 'welcome message' - is a lot better than
> something with 'no content'.

Let's be careful about not 'overinterpreting' no content -- just like we
must be careful about not misusing 'welcome'.  What I meant by no
content was no content which is promoting the item.  Some mailing lists
think they can send something out promoting itself and be so convincing
that the person they sent it to decides that they want it.  What I mean
is no content promoting anything, including itself.  The purpose is for
confirmation, not promotion.  Obviously there would be enough 'content'
that the person could tell that it was something they had just
requested.  There are many ways of doing that without the item promoting
itself or being an 'issue' of the mailing list subscription.

Let us also be careful about this welcome business.  Earlier we were
talking about someone being sent a subscription to something welcoming
them, telling them how great this item is, in order to convince them to
subscribe.  Or to not unsubscribe.  That would be considered a
'promotional' welcome.  When I say no content, I mean no promotional
content.  Only confirmatory content.

> My point about addresses 'going invalid', is that just because you
> get an opt-in message does not mean the address will be good forever.
> It means it was okay and the user wanted it at that time, but the
> address may lapse for many reasons. If *the ISP* then invokes rules
> about mail being sent to invalid mail addresses you fall into that
> problem despite the opt-in.

I can't comment on all of the different kinds of mail managements that
recipient ISPs may do.  The ideal situation would be that if you emailed
an invalid address that the mail would 'bounce' where bounce means be
permanently rejected before transmission;  ie not accepted for delivery.

Emailing a dead or invalid address is quite a different matter than
emailing a spamtrap address.

> So, let's say there's a number of people
> all opted-in from a company and then for some reason that company's
> Email addresses get suspended, suddenly we'd be sending mail to
> multiple invalid addresses.

That's a crazy scenario.  When you use your imagination like that it
smells like a dirty list again.

 >Yes we need to process 'invalid address'
> replies, but we can't do that until we get the bounces and we need to
> try all the addresses to know they're all now bad.

Same crazy scenario.  Doesn't make any sense to me.

> I also do not understand your comments about 'a dirty list' when the
> whole purpose of posting this is *precisely* to establish the best,
> most spam-protected means of allowing users to subscribe for Email
> notifications and ensuring that for whatever reason, inadvertent or
> malevolent, users cannot sign up someone else to receive Email they
> don't want. It is precisely because we're trying to ensure the list
> is not only clean but up to date we're going through this exercise!

The reason I mention 'dirty list' is because all to often when someone
starts 'worrying about' getting 'balcklisted' ;-) they are worrying
because they *have* a list and they are worried about using it.  Anyone
who has a list and starts worrying about it almost universally has a
dirty list;  that is, they don't have a proper list at all;  so they
don't have a list.

If you don't have a list, then you don't have a dirty list.  If you have
a list and you're worried about what might happen when you mail to it,
then you have a dirty list.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin