Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a previous life, we prevented the GET url problem by having a javascript POST and forward to a secondary URL. This allows everything to be "one click" (which honestly is a good thing) but prevents crawlers from accidentally triggering the unsubscribe. Not sure this still works today and obviously this is not legal advice.
I think some crawlers run JS, because a lot of the web simply won't work without JS to initialise the page state these days. You can use captcha or similar, one workaround I've seen has a submit that is hidden so never clicked by real people then a visible submit that sets a hidden input and clicks the other one which requires the hidden input... not foolproof but avoids some accidents.
Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
381–390 of 420 posts
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean... No? You can set up your own mail server all you want, it's just that few people will take your mail. Just make friends with other people who hate managed mail companies, you'll be able to email them just fine.
That's too facile. Email was intended as a federated service that allows anyone to send mail to anyone. Privileging large companies over small companies and individual users is a clear violation of that principle, and a danger to the open and impartial internet. I get that spam is annoying (I hate it too) but letting giant American tech companies decide who is allowed to send email and who isn't is not the solution.…
There is no such thing as the open and impartial internet. It's a melange of fiefdoms which only works through loose agreements between giant providers that tacitly allow all kinds of shit to happen in the hopes that they'll recoup the cost through their own business plans. The internet is quasi-open; open enough at the level that you interact with it that it "feels" open, sometimes. And it most certainly is not impartial. Competing interests have been warring over pieces of the pie for decades, and use whatever control they can grasp to make as much money as they can, while they can. Nerds running self-hosted servers and railing on about the inequities of corporate control on forums have absolutely no say.
> I get that spam is annoying (I hate it too) but letting giant American tech companies decide who is allowed to send email and who isn't is not the solution.
Again, they aren't. They have their own e-mail system, and you can use it or not. They aren't telling you you can't send your own e-mails or run your own systems. You are just upset that they have their own party and won't let you choose the music. You could throw your own party, but you don't want to do the work that entails, while you do want to force the people who are doing the work to do it your way, despite everyone else in the world not giving a shit and not wanting to deal with the problems anymore.
E-mail is not state sponsored racism. Again, you can choose what e-mail provider you use, and run your own mail system, and do whatever other asinine navel-gazing techno bullshit you want. Nobody is stopping you. They just aren't going to accept what you make. That's not oppression, that's called competition and free choice.
I'd be curious what you think of the telephone. Was that too intended to be some kumbaya international symbol of freedom that anyone could do anything they wanted with? Are you looking to run your own switchboard, and upset that AT&T won't carry your calls without forcing you to pay to hook up to their equipment? How dare they be able to reject your homemade lines to connect to their customers?
You want to know what actually not having a choice means? It means you can't even run your dinky mail server at home because the service is deemed illegal. That has not happened, and will not happen, because literally nobody cares about you and your e-mail service. You are the only person who cares about this. You are obsessed with a principle for the principle's sake, and the funny thing is, that principle isn't even being violated.
You want an end to the "tyrrany"? Use that engineering genius to come up with a solution to spam that doesn't revolve around IP reputation. Companies around the world will gladly take your mail if you can come up with a solution that doesn't require them to spend millions to mitigate spam.
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#383> 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…
Scandalous, it's almost as if the established major providers have a financial interest in making it difficult for smaller providers and individuals to send mail using their own domains!
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is exactly why GDPR exists. What you are describing is illegal in the EU. Sending marketing communication requires clear opt in consent.
Are you sure? I don't have more than anecdotal data, but I remember unsubscribing from EU newsletters to be much more cumbersome than from US ones.
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#385> 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…
i can't be the only oldskool person on hacker news who knows not to click on unsubscribe buttons because it just identifies you as a legitimate email/mark... these are spammers, not cases where you ever actually signed up to some kind of legitimate newsletter or discussion group. to pretend good faith is your first mistake...
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope they make it really strict. The threshold is "spam rates reported in Postmaster Tools below 0.3%". That sounds pretty low to me, but I'm not in the bulk email business. I guess maybe a very small number of users actually report spam? Or maybe Google is being strict. Source: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126#zippy=%2Crequir ... (I work for Google, but on something totally unrelated, and don't speak…
One of the key problems is that both gmail and Yahoo UIs actively encourage users to report messages as spam rather than unsubscribing. Yahoo is particularly bad at this; it's common for me to receive spam reports from yahoo on an entirely double-opt-in social site I run. My reaction there is to remove the reporter from all lists because the amount of damage a single spam report can do is immense; a single spam repor…
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#387> 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…
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#388> 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…
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but it's hard to say. False positives are much more harmful than false negatives. I have peronally had Gmail flag a number of legit emails as spam, and those are just the ones I know about! It's almost certain that I have lost valuable messages because I didn't check the spam folder in time. These aren't transactional emails either, I'm talking about messages from real people that I know personally. I would…
I'd take the false positives, personally. If someone really needs to reach me and doesn't get to me on the first try, they usually just email or text back and go "Hey, did you get my email?". Or, just quickly skim through the spam folder once a week.
It sounds like a lot of people here check their spam folder regularly, which is good, but I don't know how widespread that is. I remember Gmail early on deemphasizing the spam folder since, in their view, the filtering was so good people didn't need to check it.
Re: Gmail, Yahoo announce new 2024 authentication requirements for bulk senders
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should try starting one. You'd just need to work with every email provider on the planet (including people running personal email servers) and convince them to let you decide for them what is spam or not, get them to implement a massive list of IPs/domains to whitelist on their servers, get them to let you edit that list whenever new mass mailers sign up for your "We're totally not spam" service, and then get the…
> You'd just need to work with every email provider Why would you need to do that? Just work with those that'll pay you for it. The others won't care as they'll just ignore the header.
I suppose that really you'd be able to get a lot of utility by convincing just a handful of very popular email providers (gmail) to trust that your service will never be used to send spam (or that they should let spammers who slip by you right past all of their spam filters). The more email providers you can get to use your service though the more you could charge the mass mailers for guaranteed message delivery.
Such a service could lead to two very bad outcomes though. Parents being told that if they want to get email from the school they'd better sign up for an email account at one of the few supported email providers (gmail) and/or (if it becomes successful) any sender who isn't paying for the privilege of sending email being treated like a spammer.