We have a 99% email reputation, but Gmail disagrees

I need to side with GMail: Over the last year or so, email has turned into a cesspool. No one even reads it anymore.

Every week someone who I've never heard of adds me to some pointless email list that I never wanted and will never read. My inbox is constantly clogged with notifications that I never asked for, and don't care about. Every time I open an app or buy something from a website they think they can send me pointless emails forever.

The bigger problem is a lack of regulation: Because there's no rules, everyone needs to fight to keep their email at the top of the queue of unopened emails.

For whatever it's worth, I doubt that filtering to the spam label automatically has the same feedback effect in Gmail as a manual spam mark.

As a gmail user who may or may not have had to enter an email address to do something on the web, and who gets annoyed by spam, let me describe my decision points (anecdote is not the plural of data, of course, but here I am) when it comes to "unsubscribe" vs marking something "spam."

If your email reminds me (upfront!) how and when and why I specifically gave you (and not some other third party) my email address, and promises that you are advertising this newsletter one time, and it is opt-in, and you keep your promise, I am highly unlikely to mark it spam.

Now, this presupposes that it was really me who gave you my email address. I have a fairly generic email address because I got on gmail early. There are many variants of it, but sometimes people forget to add the trailing numbers or letters, so I get misdirected email all the time.

If the misdirected email is personal, I usually respond letting them know of the issue.

If the misdirected email shows a clear understanding that I might not have been the one who really signed up then I give them a pass.

If the misdirected email blithely assumes that I am the one who signed up, then I blithely assume that its senders are too fucking stupid to use the internet and it goes straight into the spam bucket. (And this is usually an easy call because they use the name of the person with the similar email address, which is not my name. My email address is firstinitiallastname@gmail.com and there are many different first names that start with the same initial.)

Any failure on any of those other points starts to increase the likelihood of it being marked spam, and...

> The unsubscribe links must work without even opening the email, according to gmail rules.

So here's where I'm a hard-ass and maybe even worse than google's rules.

If I see the RFC8058 unsubscribe link, it is too late. I only notice that link after I've decided to mark your email as "spam" and google asks if I'm sure, or if I merely want to unsubscribe.

Why did I decide to mark your email as spam? One possible reason is that I read through it, decided that the sender legitimately had my email address and was acting honorably, and then clicked the unsubscribe link embedded in the email.

When I do that, one of two things happens. Either I get some form of "thank you, you've been unsubscribed" or nothing happens because the sender assumes that I am OK with them executing javascript on my computer.

This is a privilege I jealously guard and only reluctantly offer to as few websites as possible.

Even if I previously gave you my email address, that did not come with an open invitation to use my computing resources for your own purposes.

> For that I get chastizement on HN, figures.

I really wasn't trying to chastize, honestly it was intended as a friendly dollop of advice as someone who's dealt with this kind of thing. But since you have replied, I would say:

> Yes, there is a clearly valid business purpose under GDPR for retaining the email addresses of users who want to learn how to use your app better and opted in.

Relevance is likely to be seen as contextual. Someone wishing to do something a full decade ago is not likely to be seen as sufficient evidence to justify contacting them now in case they still wish to. That's a big chunk of the point about time-limiting data retention - the data gets less relevant and more problematic over time. I get that you're not trying to colour outside the lines here, but from the perspective of your users, and anyone looking at their potential complaints from a regulatory perspective, the window in which they reasonably consented to contact has closed (and probably some time ago).

The regulations are there, ostensibly, to protect consumers. They will be interpreted in that light. I can almost guarantee that if you sent an email to your downloader base 10 years after they last heard from you, being ignored will be the best case, and the worst will be reports to local regulators.

> It had no expiration date

- non-legally speaking, consent for anything is never illimited in time. So whatever the law says, you're probably doing a dick move, I'm sure you can conceive that most people you're going to email would rather not get this email and you're planning to do it anyway. So if you act against these people's interest, don't be surprised if they react negatively (reporting the email as spam, complaining, reporting you to authorities)

- legally speaking... IANAL, but I don't think that you're correct that you have a legal basis to have kept this data, and even less to use it for marketing purposes. I don't think that you'd win the argument that the consent is still "informed" after many years of not hearing from you. If a reasonable person would no longer expect to hear from this company, then I don't think you still have consent under GDPR (could be wrong, IANAL)