311–320 of 325 posts
The closest we have to a global ranking are the scores decided by the almost-duopoly of Gmail and Outlook.com, and for the ~75% of it controlled by Gmail, the OP is definitely not at a 99% reputation.
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.
What percentage of those million remember the existence of your app?
Unless you're sure both of those are VERY high, you would be an absolute imbecile to spam them.
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.
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 als…
Big Red Flag for the spam button: newsletter comes from a different domain than it links to.
Don't switch your newsletter to a new domain. Use your domain, or don't send it.
newsletter@yourdomain.com is totally fine.
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”. 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…
That's an obtuse reading.
I am looking at the email. The email has a different link, mandated by the can-spam act in it.
Gmail has a bunch of icons at the top. There is not one for "unsubscribe".
So, I read your email, decide it is legitimate but I am not interested. I click on the link (not RFC8058) in the body of the email message itself to unsubscribe.
If that link takes me to a page that does nothing because it wants to execute javascript on my computer, then we are done.
Look, I'm not a terrible writer and this isn't that difficult.
> 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.
Oh, well, you did understand. Sort of. Except I view this as a common-sensical extremely wide path. If it's the first time that you're emailing me, you damn well better realize that it might have been a fake signup, and how the fuck am I supposed to know your intentions if you attempt to serve javascript? What part of removing me from your database requires you to execute shit on my computer?
And by the way, about this part of that statement:
> if you see the unsubscribe link
If you're playing "hide the link" then you've already shown that your intentions aren't honorable.
> Anything else, and you click SPAM.
I don't actually click spam all that often. Only on, you know, spam.
Look, you're the one who mentioned that you might have collected some of these email addresses 10 years ago. I'm just giving you a heads-up. Not only may they have forgotten about signing up, but the addresses themselves might have been recycled by now.
> Or maybe you already did.
Nope. I've been upfront and transparent. I thought you were being that way, too, given your first comment. I even upvoted it because I thought all the downvoting was a bit excessive.
But the intransigence and mischaracterization here is stunning.
Look, there are two possibilities here. (1) is that I'm not that extreme, in which case you're probably fucked. (2) is that, yes, I'm an outlier, and if you satisfy my needs, then you probably won't have enough emails marked spam to trigger google's filters.
Now, if you truly feel that my conditions offer only a narrow path to victory, then you're probably not really someone I should be offering this advice to in any case, because our interests are not congruent. My only solace is that maybe you won't take the advice and you'll receive a banning for your efforts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't do that, it will be disastrous for you. Instead, send them a politely worded one-time announcement with an invitation to subscribe. Clearly mention that if they don't, this is the last mail they'll get from you, and keep that promise by deleting their address. You'll still get some pushback, but I think most people would find that acceptable.
> Instead, send them a politely worded one-time announcement with an invitation to subscribe. NO. DO NOT DO THAT ! That is terrible advice and it is against the law. Opt-in has to be done without inducement and of a person's own volition. Sending a mail to someone saying "pretty please sign up" is not valid opt-in. It is spamming a bunch of people hoping they will opt-in. It does not matter if you got their mail anot…
But it's been 10 years. Can we send them a newsletter now with an unsubscribe link? Does GDPR have an expiration date on that stuff? Yes it was affirmatively opt-in.
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…
During a 1 month period (2024-03-26 to 2024-04-25) FontAwesome sent me 18 different marketing emails, including 4 in one day. I am not sure that matches with their supposed 'instinct' and I am unsurprised that they have a bad email reputation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It does, probabilistically. For any given customer C, the expected value EV(C) is... not much. By starting an opt-out process, a customer Co is revealed to have EV(Co) = 0, which is less than not much.
I'm a Font Awesome subscriber and yes, for the record, they spam me with annoying marketing and probably deserve their Gmail woes. They also use that silly dark pattern where they alternate sending out marketing emails from {David,Harry,Sam,Janet,every other person at the company}@fontawesome.com.
Wouldn't be a fringe. I get most marketing emails with a name as if a person sent it. Catchy subject seemingly target to me. Same for content. But you are right, it's more likely enough users marked them as spam that Google algorithm decided the source is the spam.
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/15263077
Constantly receiving email from one alias is fine since it signals a subscription-like communications. Recycling through different aliases for the same recepient is surefire way to get flagged.
If you want to "personalize" the email, just add the name of the marketer in the subject or footer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but that it can take up to 10 days to stop receiving emails when you unsubscribe This is a really bad business practice, people will just mark your mail as spam and the likelyhood of other people seeing your mails will drop
I still do not understand how marketers haven't understood that quality > quantity.
They also understand that they have little or no quality that most people actualy want and from their PoV quality > quantity > nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Instead, send them a politely worded one-time announcement with an invitation to subscribe. NO. DO NOT DO THAT ! That is terrible advice and it is against the law. Opt-in has to be done without inducement and of a person's own volition. Sending a mail to someone saying "pretty please sign up" is not valid opt-in. It is spamming a bunch of people hoping they will opt-in. It does not matter if you got their mail anot…
Under GDPR, can someone send an email to people who 1) downloaded our app, 2) voluntarily entered their email, viewing a message that says if they do that, we can send them a newsletter about how to be more efficient with the app, and 3) selected what kind of person they are, e.g. a teacher, marketer, etc. But it's been 10 years. Can we send them a newsletter now with an unsubscribe link? Does GDPR have an expiration…