> To help ensure messages you send to Gmail accounts are delivered as expected, you should set up either SPF or DKIM for your domain.
But spammers already do that, why would enforcing that even help ?
Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
11–20 of 420 posts
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#12Oh fun so basically no one will be able to setup their own email servers by themselves anymore. Antispam is killing the open internet now.
...and saving email at the same time. It's totally unusable without spam filters, and the open models/blacklists don't come anywhere close to Gmail's capabilities.
Ironically, most of my breakthrough spam seems to come from @gmail.com addresses...
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#13Most of the spam I get in gmail apparently comes from other gmail accounts. Presumably google already filtered out senders pretending to be gmail, so I am not sure what a big improvement this will be for the average user.
> Most of the spam I get in gmail apparently comes from other gmail accounts.
Are they actually from Gmail accounts, or are they simply spoofing the sender? My bet is on the latter, because Google has heavy restrictions on Gmail that make it impractical to use for sending bulk spam.
> I am not sure what a big improvement this will be for the average user.
It's not going to be particularly noticeable for the average user, except for the second part (single-click unsubscribe, as opposed to a multi-step flow, is slightly stricter than what's required by CAN-SPAM). It will probably make Google's work easier, though, by having a publicly-known policy of rejecting emails without DKIM, as opposed the the status quo of having that be merely an open secret.
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#14This isn't as big of a change as it sounds. There are three requirements. The first requirement - DKIM - is already a de facto must-have when sending emails to avoid getting marked as spam. The second is also a legal requirement in the US for all commercial email under the CAN-SPAM act[0]. And the third is more or less how email delivery has worked for the last 20 years or so anyway. [0] The "one click" and "within t…
The one-click part I believe is referring to the unsubscribe smtp header.
CAN-SPAM is ignored for the most part anyway, e.g. LinkedIn requires recipients to authenticate in order to unsubscribe and openly violates the letter and spirit of the law to the point scripts are required: https://github.com/chengyin/linkedin-unsubscribed
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did we read a different article? DKIM is a simple DNS entry. One-click unsubscribe should be standard.
Also: > So today, we’re introducing new requirements for bulk senders — those who send more than 5,000 messages to Gmail addresses in one day If you run an email server for personal use, you are quite unlikely to send more than 5k messages per day.
Heh, I see someone has never had an automation script go bad.
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#16This isn't as big of a change as it sounds. There are three requirements. The first requirement - DKIM - is already a de facto must-have when sending emails to avoid getting marked as spam. The second is also a legal requirement in the US for all commercial email under the CAN-SPAM act[0]. And the third is more or less how email delivery has worked for the last 20 years or so anyway. [0] The "one click" and "within t…
Agreed. I shared the same view here: https://mailmeteor.com/blog/new-gmail-protections
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#17Doesn't matter to me, if an email doesn't have a one click unsubscribe I just mark it as spam. Messes with their email reputation so they hopefully get kicked off of reputable email services.
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#18This isn't as big of a change as it sounds. There are three requirements. The first requirement - DKIM - is already a de facto must-have when sending emails to avoid getting marked as spam. The second is also a legal requirement in the US for all commercial email under the CAN-SPAM act[0]. And the third is more or less how email delivery has worked for the last 20 years or so anyway. [0] The "one click" and "within t…
The one-click part I believe is referring to the unsubscribe smtp header. CAN-SPAM is ignored for the most part anyway, e.g. LinkedIn requires recipients to authenticate in order to unsubscribe and openly violates the letter and spirit of the law to the point scripts are required: https://github.com/chengyin/linkedin-unsubscribed
Unsubscription requirements are a pain in the ass in the sense that anyone that steals a large list of emails (from any service, not yours in this particular case) could now run it against your service and unsubscribe a million users before you realize what's going on via a botnet.
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#19Most of the spam I get in gmail apparently comes from other gmail accounts. Presumably google already filtered out senders pretending to be gmail, so I am not sure what a big improvement this will be for the average user.
> Most of the spam I get in gmail apparently comes from other gmail accounts. Are they actually from Gmail accounts, or are they simply spoofing the sender? My bet is on the latter, because Google has heavy restrictions on Gmail that make it impractical to use for sending bulk spam. > I am not sure what a big improvement this will be for the average user. It's not going to be particularly noticeable for the average u…
Spoofing the sender to show up as gmail.com on gmail.com is not possible.
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#20Oh fun so basically no one will be able to setup their own email servers by themselves anymore. Antispam is killing the open internet now.
Did we read a different article? DKIM is a simple DNS entry. One-click unsubscribe should be standard.
It's also standard practice to use self-signed certs with mail DKIM. Mail as a protocol has, for the most part, tried to stay true to it's federated roots and most things can be implemented without dependencies on third party corporations.
I avoided DKIM till 2018 when google started accepting my mail but silently sending it to the spam folder; so I wouldn't even get a reject message. I thought it'd be to onerous to implement but rspamd's dkim signing feature made it easy to use with my locally generated self-signed certs (and postfix).