The Hostile Email Landscape

Post by unclebucknasty » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 2:37 AM UTC

Asbostos wrote: post #174

unclebucknasty wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* pinning the entirety of the blame on the third party provider is wrong.* We disagree. It's certainly understandable that the third-party might raise false-positives. However, what is wrong is when a business can demonstrate that it is not engaged in such practices, yet the third-party provider still refuses to cease penalizing them. So, who else's fault would it be? Mine? The customer? The customer's e-mail provid…

How about let your members keep missing their emails. If they really want them, encourage them to sort out the problem with their email provider which is apparently failing to do its job? Since the recipients are the ones who choose to receive it, then they're also the ones to be upset when something goes wrong - especially since it's caused by their choice of an unreliable email provider. I use email for a slightly…

Post by staunch » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 3:03 AM UTC

phit_ wrote: post #141

staunch wrote: post #56

This largely true and hugely disappointing. Our startup ( https://portal.cloud ) is making it possible for non-hackers to self-host their own email servers. It works very well for the most part, but we have had to explain to a number of them why their email sometimes gets bounced by the big proprietary cloud services. All of our users have their own domain names, IP addresses, SPF records, and correctly configured (a…

fyi: there's a little mixup on your main page, the $5/mo plan says 512gb ram instead of mb

Post by notatoad » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 3:29 AM UTC

eridius wrote: post #94

I feel like this is a solvable problem without making any changes to email whatsoever. The problem is the email recipient hosts are suspicious of the sender (as opposed to the message itself being suspicious). So the solution is to have a standardized way for senders to acquire an instantaneous reputation by tying their real-world identity to it (which lets them be held accountable if they do spam), and perhaps by th…

Post by unclebucknasty » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 3:41 AM UTC

lsc wrote: post #179

unclebucknasty wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the advice. I know you mean well, but none of it applies. I do agree with you on principle. We've been doing this for over a decade and have learned best practices. We also know what our customers appreciate and are very mindful of content, frequency, etc. But, you seem to be overlooking a key point, so I will state it for at least the third time: the problem was NOT the content, and it was NOT being marke…

>But, what you really don't seem to be getting is that they do have a responsibility not to harm us. That's why there is a legal cause of action known as "tortious interference". I sincerely don't know how to make that point any clearer. Perhaps researching that term a bit might help. Yes, yes, reading up on that is probably a good idea. I am not a lawyer... but in the case of a mail-filtering company blocking emails…

Post by degenerate » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 3:42 AM UTC

schoen wrote: post #117

tacon wrote: post #97

I've managed my own mail server since 1993, and my email address has been the same that entire time. Here are some tips for maintaining sanity: Greylisting still works amazingly well. With a long, long whitelist and greylisting plus DNSBL, I don't even bother running a spam filter, since the little bit of spam and emails from new senders ends up in its own directory as it came from a non-whitelisted sender. Comcast f…

> suddenly Gmail was connecting to my mail server over an IPv6 interface, and I had never bothered to put the IPv6 block into the SPF record Whoa, I think you just solved the problem I've been having with my outbound e-mail for the last two months! Thanks so much!