I have no idea if this still works, and it probably wouldn't work for a school, but 15-20 years ago the way to get Yahoo to stop blocking your emails was to call up your ad rep and say something like "Why the heck should we keep spending $10000/month buying ads on Yahoo when any new customers we get from those ads that use Yahoo email end up pissed off at us and maybe even charge back because it looks like we are com…
Aka: extortion
What does outward rotation about an axis or fixed point have to do with politely asking corporate overlords to get their shit together?
You could also send them a reminder a few days later, just to be sure that they meant it. And then perhaps every week or so for good measure.
That seems to be a bad idea. The new rules state that you need to process the unsubscription within 2 days. Sending an email a few days later sounds like a good way to make it on the naughty list.
Don't be absurd - those rules are for evil spammers, not for your marketing department.
Oh 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.
Did we read a different article? DKIM is a simple DNS entry. One-click unsubscribe should be standard.
Most people that want to self host their own email server for personal use (e.g. on a VPS on their own domain) don't have the infrastructure for reverse DNS zones, so I'd argue that DMARC and DKIM are kind of pointless because their email lands in spam anyways once the PTR query on the IP fails to resolve to the same domain because 99% of the time it will be something like ipv4.somehosting-company.com
What bargain bin VPS provider doesn't let you configure reverse DNS for your IP?
> we’ll enforce a clear spam rate threshold that senders must stay under I hope they make it really strict. I'm sick of companies that send you spam ("newsletters") just because you interacted with them once, then when you unsubscribe, you get unsubscribed from that one list, so they keep spamming you just with a slightly different newsletter type. (Edit: Also, everything requiring a notification - by e-mail if they…
Just a perspective from the other side of the coin: I host various services for schools like online registration for parent - teacher conferences. When the platform is live hundreds of parents are logging in, choosing their appointments and have to confirm them via email (only one email per person not per appointment) And Yahoo is the Single worst email service to send to. I have correctly configured sfp, dmarc, dkim…
There is a form and people you can talk to if the form doesn't work. The form should have been mentioned in the reject message but is at https://senders.yahooinc.com/contact#sender-support-request> though you should first review their information, rules, etc, starting at https://senders.yahooinc.com/>, and the mailop mailing list at https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop> is where you can ask for help if the former doesn't suffice that will often result in direct contact with someone at Yahoo! that can get things done or at least give knowledgeable advice.
Why would you allow users to unsub from transactional emails?
I got a really cool vanity email address, back in the early days of gmail. But the downside of that is 100s of goofball people around the world randomly guessing it when they want to put some bullshit value in a field on a web form. The worst was when my address got posted to to some indian jobs forum, under a title like "test job" - I got dozens of applications per hour for a few days. I had to make filters to block…
This sounds like the Steve Wozniak story from his college and early Apple days. He was apparently an inveterate prankster, especially phone related.
After starting Apple and gaining some influence in the tech world, he managed to secure a mobile phone with the number (888)888-8888 - something he'd desired for years but could only realise once the 888 area (mobile) code came into use.
Well his life became a living hell - he'd receive calls at all hours, usually with only rustling or scraping sounds, sometimes breathing and the occasional gurgle. The penny finally dropped when he heard a stern motherly voice in the background of one of these calls shouting: "Put down that phone, Jimmy!"
He realised that babies all over America were picking up push button telephones and hammering the most obvious button - the one right in the middle of the bottom row...
He had to change his number because there was no way around this DDOS prank by The Universe.
None of that seems new. What would be new is if both gmail and Yahoo provided any means of allowing legit bulk senders to actually send properly. The one-click unsubscribe is from 2017's RFC8058. Everyone that's sending in volume is already doing all the usual stuff - DKIM, SPF, DMARC, matching reverse IPs, etc. The privacy-first email marketing service I wrote ( https://info.smartmessages.net ) implements account-wi…
> legit bulk senders Now who could you mean by those. > The privacy-first email marketing service I wrote Oh right, spammers.
Get a grip. So you would consider twitter and Facebook notifications you have explicitly requested as spam? I also run a social network with 20k users that is equally accessible over web and email, and we have had peaks up to about 4 million messages/month containing nothing but conversations between users, and we run into all these bulk sending issues all the time. Please explain, oh wise one, how is emailing people messages they have explicitly asked for spam?
Overall the changes seem sensible. For those wanting to self host there are plenty of guides out there on how to configure various MTAs with all of the required bits. BUT, Why does IP reputation matter so much these days when you have DKIM, MTA-STS, DANE and other mechanisms that provide verification of the sender? Say I want to startup a Email Service Provider, I need to go and source a bunch of IPv4 typically to ha…
Delivery via IPv6 still seems more stringent. IPv4 now requires "authentication" as well where previously only IPv6 did. Last I checked Google didn't use DANE, preferring instead MTA-STS -- perhaps understandable for a giant web property.