Michael Thomas wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
it is extremely difficult to distinguish wanted bulk mail from
unwanted bulk mail. Knowing whether a particular message was
solicited or not is a very useful data point in making that
decision.
Yeah, sure. I'm not even sure "solicited" makes a useful
distinction either, since those arguments usually devolve into
legalistic claptrap.
"Unsolicited" still makes the difference between spam and legitimate
bulk email. Having some data that might be held as legal evidence
would be a further incentive for legitimate bulk mailers to behave
correctly.
If you think of the "junk" button in terms of "I don't like this"
for whatever reason, we might make some progress in teasing out
people's fickle intents.
Doesn't that stem from the overall UI design? For example, YouTube's
text comments sport a "good"/"bad" pair of buttons, beside a "spam"
button, to classify comments. More buttons, less fickleness.
You'd think that legitimate bulk mailers would have a pretty big
incentive to heed a consistent "I don't like this" to one of their
lists/campaigns/whatever so as not to harm their overall
reputation.
Yes, responsible bulk senders take any step they can in order to make
it clear they are not spammers. In addition, I think they would also
be interested in finer feedback, i.e., more buttons.
Assuming that the feedback loop was completed, of course.
Currently, FBL is only available for extra large ESPs. (About a dozen
of them?) Isn't that a limitation?
With the minuscule amount of email traffic I have, I don't think
anyone would even consider applying to get FBLs from my servers. I
assume that's because entering into an agreement takes a finite amount
of human resources. Isn't it possible to automate the subscription
mechanism, so that users of small ESPs can return that feedback to
bulk mailers too?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg