121–130 of 149 posts
Hi, I'm Nicolò and I work in the deliverability team of Qboxmail.com. We have run into similar problems in the past. The reason of the behavior of Gmail with your domain is not easy to understand, a theory could be that in the past someone has used it for sending spam, and even if it was not your server, you are paying for this. The solution we have used, it was bring Gmail to understand that your emails have been se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, may have to pay Google the $5 (or thereabouts?) to host my mail for a month and consider it a cost of freedom from them long term. After 2+ years of hosting my domain myself, it doesn't seem possible to build up enough reputation with them personally.
If the Google Apps anecdote is true, it's likely to be a design flaw in their anti-spam systems - think of the number of spammers who could register domains, associate them with a $5 google apps account, and spam millions of Gmail recipients. If you think about the kind of metrics/outcomes the Gmail anti-spam team uses to measure success, it's hard to imagine a scenario where that would be good for them. What this lo…
I doubt you'd get away with doing it for a domain sending legitimate mail, or at least not for very long.
Hi, I'm Nicolò and I work in the deliverability team of Qboxmail.com. We have run into similar problems in the past. The reason of the behavior of Gmail with your domain is not easy to understand, a theory could be that in the past someone has used it for sending spam, and even if it was not your server, you are paying for this. The solution we have used, it was bring Gmail to understand that your emails have been se…
Is there a way to automate this procedure?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh oh. I created an "unsubscribe" filter a while ago to get rid of spam. It's been great for keeping my inbox clean but I just don't see stuff with an unsubscribe line anymore.
It's not a good idea to manually create filters that 100% block. You can't think of all the special cases like this.
Doing a quick search on my inbox, there are some relevant emails containing the word 'unsubscribe'
I always wonder how companies like Mailchimp stay out of Google's blacklists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would wager that Google handles a large enough cross section of all email traffic such that their internal statistics on the trustworthiness of domains/ips would rival any other blacklist system. I've never had issues inboxing on gmail accounts using SPF/DKIM/DMARC + Sendgrid, even when sending 125,000+ emails (legit!) per day.
Accuracy in spam filters is a difficult thing to measure, particularly if you don't have access to internal metrics on filter performance. The primary limiting factor for most blacklists is not scale, but simply the fact that most of them have no more than a few data sources - most commonly spamtrap data. It's useful, but it's not a comprehensive enough data point to accurately evaluate mail. Having dozens or hundred…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
> What do you mean there is "no clear antitrust issue" here? Most of OP's contacts use gmail, but gmail refuses his legitimate outside mail. But Google does accept almost everybody else's email, including many actual commercial competitors, and there is no reason to believe anyone at Google is deliberating singling OP out or even knows who OP is, so I can't imagine where you're seeing anticompetitive behavior. > Sinc…
If all small scale email providers get blocked then that's surely anti-competitive. It doesn't require them to have specifically blocked his server for them to be acting anti-competitively.
If the only practical way to get your [non-spam] email passed on to a person who uses gmail is to move away from your [non-spamming] email provider that's also anti-competitive IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That...doesn't make any sense. The author doesn't appear to be spamming or doing any kind of mailing list traffic. He is an individual communicating with other individuals. That's kind of the whole point of this Internet thing we have going here. Besides, he's only being singled out by Google; no other providers seem to have a problem with his domain and Google's own headers show that everything is fine.
First, it's about triggers. You are not allowed to carry guns on an airplane. "But I didn't shoot anybody." You didn't, but the people who do, carry guns. It's a negative trigger. Second, when a technology becomes extremely mainstream, it begins to generate federation and structure around it. It's called evolution. This is higher in services where stakes are higher, and where giving an individual excess power can scr…
I don't think that's a good analogy. It misses the crucial point that the emails are being whitelisted by the receiver but still get blocked. A better analogy IMO would be that you invite me in to your living room for a chat, I say I'll bring the gun you wanted to see, you say that's fine. Then Google come along and muscle me away at your door because I have a gun. Then another day I ring and say can I come over for a chat, I say I have the gun you wanted to see, you say that's fine and that you've let Google know you want me to come over. Then Google meet me at the door and say I can't come in because I have a gun - I don't even get to knock, they don't ask you if you want to see me despite me having what you requested, they pay no attention to your request to them to let me in.
In case it's not clear what is happening outside the analogy is that I'm sending a message with content (the gun) that Google thinks is harmful. You want that content (to see the gun). You tell Google you want that content (whitelisting my email address, marking my email as not-spam) but they continue to block the email. What's worst is they block the email now without notifying and ignore the whitelist (they meet me at the door). You never get my emails that you want (never get to see the gun), because Google have made an erroneous assumption based on generalities and ignored the interventions of their customer.
Meanwhile - inside the analogy - a third party can bring a gun to your friends house but they happen to hire Google doorstaff themselves ...
It has the complexion of a protection racket: "Wouldn't it be a shame if you used some other supplier and your emails didn't get through, oh no. /s". Then as soon as the "you paid Google" flag is raised [eg by giving them access to all your emails] suddenly the exact same messages get through to the exact same people.
Google may be completely innocent but it stinks real bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the opinion is not even logically valid because there is nothing that shows Google's punishment of his server is required to reduce spam. It's like eliminating poverty by killing all poor people. Yes, it would work, but the side effects are worse than the outcome.
Logical validity only means that the argument works given its premises, not that the premises are correct.
Your 'majority rule' analysis is flawed as the ability for individuals to access the internet without relying on [specific] mega corps or other major organisations serves the needs of the majority. The ultimate end of requiring people to satisfy a corporations demands before being allowed to communicate using the common means (email here) is anti-democratic, it gives too much power to those companies.