|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Ray Corbin <rcorbin@traffiq.com> To: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:11:13 -0600 In-Reply-To: <18854.3219.454176.970127@world.std.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org $0.02 within > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:29 PM > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters.. >=20 >=20 > On February 26, 2009 at 06:55 ops.lists@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian= ) > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> > wrote: > > > > > I realize this is easier in theory than practice but I wonder how > much > > > better the whole AOL (et al) spam button would get if they ignored > the > > > spam button unless two (to pick a number) different customers clicke= d > > > the same sender (I know, forged sender etc but something like that) > as > > > spam in a reasonably short amount of time like an hour or a day at > > > most. > > > > .. and you think AOL doesnt track these? Come on, barry - try to give > > large mailops shops with massive userbases some credit for clue level. >=20 > I have no idea what they track and it's completely irrelevant. >=20 > We get a steady stream of "spam" complaints from the AOL feedback loop > which is virtually all either (we assume) unsubscriptions from > legitimate mailing lists or random misfires, "it was nice seeing you > and dad last week" From joe blow, To susie blow, which just probably > isn't spam. >=20 The format is standard so you can have it automated to look for people tryi= ng to unsubscribe and simply unsubscribe them. AOL also uses a % system bef= ore initiating a block. If you send 100000 emails to them and you get 500 c= omplaints...its not going to block you. It is more of a friendly notice of = what their members are saying is spam. It isn't their responsibility to tel= l you what is and is not actually spam with the FBL, they are saying what t= he recipients of your message is spam. > Now, if you're still following, none (or a microscopic amt) of that > would pass the "complaints came from two different sources in a fairly > short amount of time" sniff test I proposed. >=20 > If you track it and don't use it, well, tree falling in the forest and > all that. >=20 > I can see with my own eyes that nothing like this is being done. >=20 > As far as I can tell from here, and other sites may see it > diffferently, the feedback thing is mostly just a "please unsubscribe > me from this mailing list I subscribed to and can't remember how to > get off" and the occasional "oops, hit the spam button on mom's mail, > oh well!" >=20 If you are getting hundreds of spam complaints you either send a large volu= me of email to them or something is wrong with your mailings. I know at my = old company we had thousands every day coming in, but it wasn't more then 0= .2% or so of the volume that was actually sent to them (they send out the a= lerts when you start getting to there threshold). > > You have all the clue in the world but you dont even begin to guess > > at the firehose AOL / Yahoo / we etc have to deal with. Or what we > > routinely do, as a matter of best practice. >=20 > Nor is it my problem. >=20 > Why should my staff and I spend valuable time subsidizing your > business model? Hire more people if you feel overloaded, but don't > pass the workload off on others, particularly others in the biz, we > have workloads too. Automate it, they are standardized reports. Separate your newsletter from a= ll other email.=20 >=20 > > I wont claim perfection, infallibility etc for any of the big 3 > > (hotmail / yahoo / aol) or even for us (large enough - 76 million > > users we filter for, 40 million of which we host). But a user report > > based spam reporting system works quite well on the aggregate. >=20 > Perhaps it works for you, but we get a non-stop stream of false > positives; unsubscribes (a lot of it), Dad's out of the hospital would > love to see you next week, and on and on. >=20 > I was suggesting a simple improvement which would help: Don't send it > as a spam report unless you get two or more complaints about the same > msg/source within a short time period. >=20 > It's good and valuable advice, you can send me a PO... >=20 > The point is, I'm not complaining, I'm making what I think is a > constructive suggestion: Don't send it until you get two or more > complaints (as previously outlined.) >=20 > > And yes, legitimate outfits can wind up blocked (universities because > > of unfiltered machines on campus, and because of nigerians / phishers > > hacking user accounts, webhosts because of hacked scripts, or because > > they end up hosting a high volume spammer in part of a /24 with legit > > customers near him ..) >=20 > I didn't say a word about any of this... >=20 > > One thing that may need to be improved at one place or the other is > > false positive handling - make that faster and more efficient, and > > also publish the "unblock contact path" in block messages you issue, > > and you would find a lot of the gripes getting resolved. To some > > extent anyway. > > > > Postmaster work is a place for people with decent mailops / routing > > skills, yes - but far more than that, it is for people with both soft > > skills for customer service plus a finely tuned b.s detector. It is > > complex, and far too long for nanog .. took maawg three or four > > brainstorming sessions over a year to discuss. >=20 > Well, this is all nice, I'm sorry you entirely missed my rather simple > and straightforward suggestion, but whatever. >=20 > > > http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/Abuse_Desk_Common_Practices= . > pdf > > > > And then some others relevant to this thread - > > > > > http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/MAAWG_Email_Forwarding_BP.p= d > f > > http://www.maawg.org/port25 > > > http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/MAAWG_AWPG_Anti_Phishing_Be= s > t_Practices.pdf > > http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments > > > > --srs >=20 > -- > -Barry Shein >=20 > The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |