Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We have a 99% email reputation, but Gmail disagrees

blogfontawesome.wpcomstaging.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 325 posts

Re: We have a 99% email reputation, but Gmail disagrees

#171

Post by Ferret7446 »

RHSeeger wrote: post #142
amluto wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun quote from the OP: > But here’s the part that really gets us. At our CORE, our instinct is to only email folks when we actually have something fun to share. A big release, something we’re excited about, news worth your time. I would prefer not to give my email address to a company that thinks that this should give them a good email reputation. If you email me because you are excited and I’m not, I probably think…

I don't mind if a company sends me emails if I gave them my email address. As long as, when I click "unsubscribe" to the email, they stop. I don't want to have to go log back into their system and unsubscribe. I just want to click the unsubscribe button and have it be done - forever, not just until they add a new category for email. I have a fair number of companies that send me emails (because I signed up for their…

I kinda don't mind period, since I just mark them as spam. As OP is finding out though they're in denial

Re: We have a 99% email reputation, but Gmail disagrees

#172

Post by Ferret7446 »

aeturnum wrote: post #94
cs02rm0 wrote: post #39

> At our CORE, our instinct is to only email folks when we actually have something fun to share. A big release, something we’re excited about, news worth your time. That’d probably be every couple of months, if that. Respectful. Low noise. Low noise for some fonts is zero emails. In the nicest way possible, users aren't excited about your big release, they're just not.

Zero emails is not low noise - it's zero noise. I agree that I sometimes want zero noise from companies whose products I am using...and also it depends on what is in the noise? Sometimes I find unexpected signal. I would say that email is inherently a somewhat noisy channel. You have little meta-data about how appropriate and timely a message is, so often you are sending in the dark. There are many downsides to the p…

Easy, let the user opt in to email updates about new products, rather than automatically "opting" them in when you force them to use their email to create an account

Re: We have a 99% email reputation, but Gmail disagrees

#173

Post by [deleted] »

achandlerwhite wrote: post #170
Larrikin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember there was a thread some years back with an article complaining that you get emails immediately on sign up, but that it can take up to 10 days to stop receiving emails when you unsubscribe. One spammer said they could use the same servers for both but when you unsubscribe you have immediately signaled that you are now losing him money. So he uses the slowest cheapest part of the stack for removal. He will n…

It’s because transactional email and marketing email are two different systems.

[deleted]

Re: We have a 99% email reputation, but Gmail disagrees

#174

Post by FireBeyond »

echelon wrote: post #156
FireBeyond wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you know how exceedingly hard it is to grow a business This reminds me of a local bricks and mortar small business that closed down and the wife posted a completely tone deaf: "It is a horrible shame that our long sought out dream had to die because the local "community" was not willing to support it." I missed the part where "community" meant we are obligated to expend our own resources for your profit. Doubly…

Small business is brutal, isn't it? You're fighting small biz and accept the world big tech has created to extort all of us. You'd yell at that local brick and mortar for sending you a half off coupon in your email because it's spam, but my guess is you're fine with perpetual smartphone upgrades and not owning the entire vertical taxation and lock-in stack. We're allowing ourselves to become serfs of big business tha…

I have no problem with small business, but it seems like you have a chip on your shoulder and completely failed to miss the point. But, in case it wasn't clear - a husband and wife couple, who already appear to be more successful than the vast majority of the community they're in, actually going so far as to get pissed off at the community for not making them even richer. "The "community" (bonus points for the snarky air quotes) was UNWILLING to support OUR dream" they posted, from the front seat of their $200,000 SUVs.

Now, explain to me why I am somehow obligated to support their business?

Re: We have a 99% email reputation, but Gmail disagrees

#175

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #163
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #29

Opt-out is not consent. If I didn't opt in, I mark it as spam.

And for the spammers: What matters for this is whether the recipient thought they opted in. No matter how clever you think you are by pre-checking that checkbox, or hiding it in the TOS, or putting the non-mandatory spam checkbox between two other clearly-mandatory checkboxes so people think it's mandatory: If the user didn't want the mails, they're going to mark your spam as spam and you'll have the deliverability p…

Totally agreed. Intent to opt in is what matters. If the box is pre-checked, it's opt-out. If it's hidden (in the ToS or elsewhere), it's opt-out.

Re: We have a 99% email reputation, but Gmail disagrees

#176

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

RHSeeger wrote: post #144
ryandrake wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I basically give companies 0 strikes anymore, and assume the "unsubscribe" link is at best, a dark pattern that only unsubscribes me from that 1 out of their 100 "channels," and at worst, confirms my E-mail address. "Report Spam" immediately.

I unsubscribe twice (allowing for one possible bug), then spam. And, as others have noted, unsubscribe cannot involving going and logging into their system. If I need to do that, it generally goes directly to spam.

I unsubscribe, and immediately set up a filter to mark any email from their (sub)domain as spam. Too many sites keep spamming for a week or two after unsubscribing, that behavior deserves a reputation drop.

Re: We have a 99% email reputation, but Gmail disagrees

#177

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

trog wrote: post #167
jjulius wrote: post #65

My money is on the likelihood that most GMail users started marking these emails as spam, and GMail recognized that overriding trend and began to redirect the emails accordingly on a broader scale. Essentially, the people FontAwesome thinks will want to hear about their new features have actually, collectively, said, "No thanks," and FontAwesome is struggling to accept that.

I think part of the problem is that Google has conflated the "mark as spam" button with "unsubscribe" and people just mash it as a shortcut to "make this email go away".

Most of the email that I get with an "unsubscribe" link is spam. It's not the user's problem that unethical companies decide "opt-out" is consent. It's not the user's problem that unethical companies take seconds to start spamming you but days to process an "unsubscribe" request. It's not the user's fault that companies regularly add new categories of spam users have to "opt out" from.

Unsubscribe is a trap, setting up a rule to mark every incoming email from a spamming company's domain as spam automatically is the only thing that works. Or tediously hitting the button manually, for nontechnical users.

Re: We have a 99% email reputation, but Gmail disagrees

#178

Post by krater23 »

aidenn0 wrote: post #135
sva_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gmail has a system of reputation as you suggest. It is very likely that enough people marked their emails as spam, which the OOP could figure out on the postmaster dashboard if they were so inclined: https://postmaster.google.com/managedomains It also goes the other way, if enough people click "not spam" and interact with your mails, your reputation gets better. I'm currently trying to do that with my personal email/…

When I ran my own mail server, I was lucky to even make it to the gmail spam folder. More often it didn't even make it that far. From what I can tell, O365 is even worse though.

I run my own email server on own ip since 2005. Never had any issues with gmail or M$. Changed IP at least one time, no difference from the first day on. Just one time I had to activate SSL for inter server communication. But that was a known thing that gmail was rejecting you otherwise.

Re: We have a 99% email reputation, but Gmail disagrees

#179

Post by krater23 »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #87

I've recently switched my personal email to a brand new domain and am struggling with getting it delivered. And all I'm doing is ~100 emails a week hand written by me to other individuals. I've been doing Internet email for 35 years now, I used to handwrite sendmail.cf for my college. I'm worried the medium is going to fail entirely in 5-10 years because of complexity in spam fighting. Receiving mail: I was using Goo…

I hear this often, but I'm running my mailserver since 2005, since 2009 with a additional domain, have changed my IP at least one time. I had no issues with M$ or gmail at all.

Re: We have a 99% email reputation, but Gmail disagrees

#180

Post by krater23 »

apitman wrote: post #20

It's pretty amazing email hasn't been replaced, or at least joined, by an open protocol where you can't message someone without first being approved by them, either directly like Facebook messenger or through some sort of referral system.

And how should this approval look like? You think about a email that asks if you want to receive mail from buy-my-dickpicks-online-at-dp.com@dp.com?
Post reply on HN