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

281–290 of 325 posts

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

#281

Post by bandrami »

EGreg wrote: post #188
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…

I have done the opposite We had a million people enter their email over the last decade We haven’t messaged a single one. Now we plan to start sending out a newsletter. For many, they may have forgotten downloading the app, but they might still appreciate it. If not - they can u subscribe.

Oh my God don't do that

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

#282

Post by EGreg »

zephen wrote: post #276
EGreg wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That one-time announcement is called an email. And therefore that first announcement itself can be flagged as spam. And naturally, unless they click a link in the first email, gmail should consider anything subsequent to be spam anyway. They have no idea whether consent happened somewhere else or not. The unsubscribe links must work without even opening the email, according to gmail rules.

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, an…

So by your own description, ANYONE sending you a newsletter, by complying with Google’s rules, they piss you off and make you mark their email as SPAM because, according to you, they made “javascript execute on your computer”. Actually, gmail is the one executing tons of javascript. The mandatory unsubscribe LINK uses HTTP, not even HTML. Google just requires that the unsubscribe instant.

It is an unwinnable situation.

With all respect, why would I care what an impossibly hardass tech person would do if I sent them an email in an unwinnable situation? The vast majority of our users are not this technical, let alone a hardass HN denizen who advertises the fact that the mere compliance with Google’s rules will piss them off due to a misunderstanding of how unsubcribe works.

Here is what we might both agree on: email sucks. You shouldn’t be reachable by anyone who just has your address, and it is not your job to be vigilant. Then all these problems go away.

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

#283

Post by EGreg »

kolektiv wrote: post #278
EGreg wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People originally opted in and provided it expecting to get a newsletter on how to use the app. We never seemed to have the bandwidth to create a good enough one, so we never sent it. We kept improving the app until it became very good and still never sent the emails. But retained the addresses, so that one day we could tell people the app has improved, to give it a try, include animated GIFs of it in action and grad…

> 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…

Is there an actual regulation or case law showing what the cutoff time is du jure?

I would be glad to respect it if there was.

As it is, laws do allow for things they didn’t explicitly prohibit, and especially good-faith things like welcoming people to try the free app again, which they themselves downloaded and asked to be exucated about, since it’s improved, and showing them how and why to use the improvements.

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

#284

Post by EGreg »

williamdclt wrote: post #280
EGreg wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the consent was given, recorded, and never acted upon. It had no expiration date. Many of those people are still using the app today.

> 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, com…

So basically — you are affirming the point of the OP whose article was shared.

Wait too long — respect people’s attention and time so much that you don’t send them anything unless it is ready and benefits them - and apparently it’s spam when you finally do contact them. Meanwhile, if you were just drip feeding them slop once a month, then you’re fine.

I happen to agree with the article author, the email ecosystem is totally broken, that’s far more of a problem than small teams who have well-meaning intentions and respect for their users’ time. You’re blaming the victim, rather than the email system that’s open to SPAM and dominated by gmail.

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

#285

Post by mrweasel »

EGreg wrote: post #262
mrweasel wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least with your suggestions there's some chance that their newsletter won't instantly get flagged as spam. I'd do what you suggest, but send the newsletter from an separate domain once subscriptions have been confirmed.

That one-time announcement is called an email. And therefore that first announcement itself can be flagged as spam. And naturally, unless they click a link in the first email, gmail should consider anything subsequent to be spam anyway. They have no idea whether consent happened somewhere else or not. The unsubscribe links must work without even opening the email, according to gmail rules.

What I'd be concerned with is that if you have never sent anything to these users, they might have forgotten where and when they gave you their email address and simply mark your message as spam.

We've trained users to not use "unsubscribe" because some spammers once used that to verify addresses, or they may simply click "Spam" because they forgot who you are and think you got their address illegitimately. Gmail also doesn't make unsubscribe as visible as "Spam", making flagging the easier option. So now Gmail will see some percentage of users manually flagging you as a spammer, tainting your sender. This is why I'd switch the newsletter to a new domain or at least a new sender address. That does mean preparing that new sender, give it a bit of time to mature and send a few emails to Gmail accounts you control and ensure that they are not flagged as spam.

Probably also test with a list of Gmail account you control and check if you're tagged as spam and fix that, before doing the big push.

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

#286

Post by jonhohle »

eru wrote: post #219
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…

> 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. Hmm, wouldn't you want to remove the money losing people as soon as possible, so you don't waste even more money on them?

Doesn’t compute.

He probably meant that “customer” is not making him money, therefore not worth the time. The only reason unsubscribing works at all is probably a legal requirement.

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

#287

Post by zephen »

EGreg wrote: post #282
zephen wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, an…

So by your own description, ANYONE sending you a newsletter, by complying with Google’s rules, they piss you off and make you mark their email as SPAM because, according to you, they made “javascript execute on your computer”. Actually, gmail is the one executing tons of javascript. The mandatory unsubscribe LINK uses HTTP, not even HTML. Google just requires that the unsubscribe instant. It is an unwinnable situatio…

> So by your own description, ANYONE sending you a newsletter, by complying with Google’s rules, they piss you off and make you mark their email as SPAM because, according to you, they made “javascript execute on your computer”.

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or is it natural? I don't need to use gmail's web interface if I don't want to, but as it happens, I do let google's javascript execute on my computer.

> The mandatory unsubscribe LINK uses HTTP, not even HTML.

Two links are required. One in the header, and one in the email. As I wrote, if I read to the end of the email to make a decision, then I will click on the link in the email. Which often goes to a webpage with javascript on it.

> It is an unwinnable situation.

Did I write that I mark everything as spam? No? Why not, I wonder? Did it ever occur to you that if I am describing when I mark things as spam, that there are things that I don't mark as spam? No? Do you even read what you yourself write? No? You should try it sometime.

> With all respect, why would I care what an impossibly hardass tech person would do if I sent them an email in an unwinnable situation?

With all respect, if you wrongly believe the rules I gave are unwinnable, you shouldn't care. I won't be receiving further missives from you, and nature will take its course in determining whether I was an outlier or the canary in the coalmine.

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

#288

Post by patja »

daneel_w wrote: post #66
bar000n wrote: post #34

I can understand the frustration but let's face it: you cannot fool huge email providers such as Gmail. They have huge userbases and if their users mark some of your messages as spam then you're screwed. I am email admin since 2003 and I have real email users, i don't take customers who send any sort of automated messages, and I never had any issues besides the occasional compromised mailbox once in a while, and that…

In my experience they will mark your e-mails as spam for no sound reason at all. I run my own MX, for myself personally, and my e-mails to friends using Gmail regularly gets classed as spam as soon as it's been "long enough" since my last mail. My MX does everything by the books, ticks all the boxes, never ended up on any DNSBL etc. Their behavior is effectively a form of systemic sabotage.

I've been running my own MX for my business for a couple decades. I've never had trouble with Google. Apple on the other hand...as expected are not accommodating to anyone operating outside of the Apple garden. They don't even do DMARC reports, and just point you at their policy page with no indication of why they reject some mail to icloud addresses but not others. I will say I have received specific feedback from a human at Apple after submitting an email and waiting about a month for a response. But it was shocking in how braindead and years-out-of-date their reason was for blocking some (not all!) emails from our domain.

Actually the absolute worst are the rinky dink "free email" hosting that is bundled with some cheap web hosting services, where they use the UCEPROTECT block lists. UCEPROTECT is basically a protection racket where they expect you to pay to be removed from their blocklists, and they are often the one and only blocklist a domain or IP will appear on (which indicates it is likely a false positive money grab)

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

#290

Post by EGreg »

zephen wrote: post #287
EGreg wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by your own description, ANYONE sending you a newsletter, by complying with Google’s rules, they piss you off and make you mark their email as SPAM because, according to you, they made “javascript execute on your computer”. Actually, gmail is the one executing tons of javascript. The mandatory unsubscribe LINK uses HTTP, not even HTML. Google just requires that the unsubscribe instant. It is an unwinnable situatio…

> So by your own description, ANYONE sending you a newsletter, by complying with Google’s rules, they piss you off and make you mark their email as SPAM because, according to you, they made “javascript execute on your computer”. Are you deliberately being obtuse, or is it natural? I don't need to use gmail's web interface if I don't want to, but as it happens, I do let google's javascript execute on my computer. > Th…

To quote your own words:

>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.

The way I read it, this is an unwinnable situation. We must supply this link, in order to comply with Google's rules. If you see this link, it's too late. You're making it as spam. Because I may run javascript on your computer.

Having re-read it, it sounds instead like: you're likely mark it as spam before you get to this link (even though the web interface surfaces the unsubscribe button right in the list of emails -- but you don't use that interface).

Well, I guess there is a narrow path to "victory": mention that it may have been someone else who signed up, then if you see the unsubscribe link, you click it, then I'm supposed to say "thank you" and not serve any javascript. Anything else, and you click SPAM. Or maybe you already did.

Post reply on HN