4 ms·

Email marketing and spamming are not the same thing. The difference is, if I signed up for it, it's not spam. If I didn't sign up for it, it is spam. Unless yo

by eridius 11y ago

Email marketing and spamming are not the same thing. The difference is, if I signed up for it, it's not spam. If I didn't sign up for it, it is spam. Unless you're trying to claim that the very concept of sending solicited marketing messages via email is inherently bad (which seems a ludicrous position to take), then calling MailChimp a spamming service seems like libel.

bsder 11y ago
The problem is that 99.9% of people DIDN'T sign up even remotely voluntarily. Most people provide an email address only because they get extorted if they don't, and the company they are providing it to makes it egregiously hard to find the "No, don't spam me you assholes" choice. I know since I run my own email server. I can give out a unique address to every single company that demands it, and I am actively aggressive about the "No don't bug me" button. I have 432 pieces of junk scattered across 22 unique email addresses that have been sold. THAT'S JUST TODAY If Mailchimp wants to convince people that it's not just enabling a bunch of spammers, it's really easy--simply put an X-Mailchimp: line in every email. If that doesn't turn into an anti-spam keyword, they're not spammers. Oh, whoops, we already did this experiment. They actually had to remove MailChimp identification from email blasts for exactly that reason.
- eridius 11y ago
  You seem to be deliberately blaming MailChimp for something that is completely not their fault. I can't imagine how any marketing email vendor would possibly be able to distinguish between a legitimate email list (of people who signed up for it) and a list of people who didn't, given that the list is (presumably) provided by the company that wants to send the marketing email. If you get spam that's sent via MailChimp, that's not MailChimp's fault, that's the spammer's fault. If a spammer sent you unsolicited email using their computer's built-in mail client, would you blame that mail client for the spam? No, you'd blame the spammer. So I don't get why you're trying to pin the blame here on MailChimp. As for the X-Mailchimp suggestion, your assertion here is laughable. Of course they don't want to identify messages sent by them! Even though spamming is not their fault, they still recognize that a certain percentage of emails they sent are actually spam (they just have no way to identify that percentage ahead of time). And if they are sending enough spam, then any common identification for their emails is going to end up getting flagged as a spam indicator, which will cause all of their email to get filtered as spam (even though a lot of it isn't spam). And since their business is sending email, having all their email filtered as spam is obviously not compatible with their business. Given all that, not identifying their emails as being sent by them is not some sign that they're doing something nefarious, it's simply common sense.
  - bsder 11y ago
    > And if they are sending enough spam, then any common identification for their emails is going to end up getting flagged as a spam indicator, which will cause all of their email to get filtered as spam (even though a lot of it isn't spam). Postfix clearly identifies itself in email headers. Thunderbird clearly identifies itself in email headers. The ratio of non-spam to spam is high enough that the Bayesian filters don't train to recognize those as a spam keyword. If MailChimp were a legitimate tool, it would fare the same. The fact that MailChimp doesn't meet that ratio means that too many people mark what is sent using it as spam.
    - eridius 11y ago
      Postfix isn't a marketing email tool. It's a general-purpose MTA. Thunderbird isn't a marketing email tool. It's a desktop email client. These are not at all analogous. And you're continuing to ignore the distinction between a tool that is commonly used to send spam even though that's not its purpose, and a tool whose purpose is to send spam. MailChimp is the former, but you're treating it like the latter.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - dangrossman 11y ago
    > As for the X-Mailchimp suggestion, your assertion here is laughable. Of course they don't want to identify messages sent by them! ... obviously not compatible with their business. MailChimp does identify every message sent by them, and they do it with X-MailChimp type headers. http://i.imgur.com/a9bzEtG.png http://i.imgur.com/a9bzEtG.png Try to be more civil when disagreeing with someone. What's worse than being wrong? Being super arrogant and insulting while wrong. That was unnecessary.
    - bsder 11y ago
      I was going to make an excuse, but, you know what, I'm just wrong. I checked my own Bayesian and MailChimp does keyword as a medium spam indicator, but not enough for an immediate dump.
- z3t4 11y ago
  You can black-list their IP's! Just make sure you do it via your smtp so that false-positive's at least know that their e-mails are not getting trhough.
  - bsder 11y ago
    Oh, I already did some of that. I've already killed about a dozen email addresses permanently, and anything sent to those triggers a black-list of the IP for an exponentially increasing amount of time.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
If companies are going to spam me I'd rather they did use MailChimp. At least they handle unsubscribes properly and seem to actually honour them.
ownagefool 11y ago
I worked on a large UK domain sellers mail platform for a couple of years and I'd definitely consider pretty much all marketing mail as spam. The landscape has been so destroyed by tricks that it's near impossible to tell if anyone actually wanted your mail. Examples:- a) Opt-in unchecked. These guys are "doing it right" except they usually have this box right next to a probably completely unnecessary TOS box that's also unchecked. Anyone who isn't paying attention will just check all the boxes to get to the next stage. b) Opt-in checked by default. Fuckers. c) Opt-out checked by default. Praying on folks that uncheck anything with "opt" into it. d) Opt-out unchecked by default. Praying on folks not paying attention. Basically the only way you're not a spammer is probably if signing up for mail is seperate from the sign up process. The problem is, I think this is a proven way to generate more revenue so companies are not going to stop fiddling with it.

by eridius 11y ago

bsder 11y ago

The problem is that 99.9% of people DIDN'T sign up even remotely voluntarily. Most people provide an email address only because they get extorted if they don't, and the company they are providing it to makes it egregiously hard to find the "No, don't spam me you assholes" choice. I know since I run my own email server. I can give out a unique address to every single company that demands it, and I am actively aggressive about the "No don't bug me" button. I have 432 pieces of junk scattered across 22 unique email addresses that have been sold. THAT'S JUST TODAY If Mailchimp wants to convince people that it's not just enabling a bunch of spammers, it's really easy--simply put an X-Mailchimp: line in every email. If that doesn't turn into an anti-spam keyword, they're not spammers. Oh, whoops, we already did this experiment. They actually had to remove MailChimp identification from email blasts for exactly that reason.

eridius 11y ago
You seem to be deliberately blaming MailChimp for something that is completely not their fault. I can't imagine how any marketing email vendor would possibly be able to distinguish between a legitimate email list (of people who signed up for it) and a list of people who didn't, given that the list is (presumably) provided by the company that wants to send the marketing email. If you get spam that's sent via MailChimp, that's not MailChimp's fault, that's the spammer's fault. If a spammer sent you unsolicited email using their computer's built-in mail client, would you blame that mail client for the spam? No, you'd blame the spammer. So I don't get why you're trying to pin the blame here on MailChimp. As for the X-Mailchimp suggestion, your assertion here is laughable. Of course they don't want to identify messages sent by them! Even though spamming is not their fault, they still recognize that a certain percentage of emails they sent are actually spam (they just have no way to identify that percentage ahead of time). And if they are sending enough spam, then any common identification for their emails is going to end up getting flagged as a spam indicator, which will cause all of their email to get filtered as spam (even though a lot of it isn't spam). And since their business is sending email, having all their email filtered as spam is obviously not compatible with their business. Given all that, not identifying their emails as being sent by them is not some sign that they're doing something nefarious, it's simply common sense.
- bsder 11y ago
  > And if they are sending enough spam, then any common identification for their emails is going to end up getting flagged as a spam indicator, which will cause all of their email to get filtered as spam (even though a lot of it isn't spam). Postfix clearly identifies itself in email headers. Thunderbird clearly identifies itself in email headers. The ratio of non-spam to spam is high enough that the Bayesian filters don't train to recognize those as a spam keyword. If MailChimp were a legitimate tool, it would fare the same. The fact that MailChimp doesn't meet that ratio means that too many people mark what is sent using it as spam.
  - eridius 11y ago
    Postfix isn't a marketing email tool. It's a general-purpose MTA. Thunderbird isn't a marketing email tool. It's a desktop email client. These are not at all analogous. And you're continuing to ignore the distinction between a tool that is commonly used to send spam even though that's not its purpose, and a tool whose purpose is to send spam. MailChimp is the former, but you're treating it like the latter.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dangrossman 11y ago
  > As for the X-Mailchimp suggestion, your assertion here is laughable. Of course they don't want to identify messages sent by them! ... obviously not compatible with their business. MailChimp does identify every message sent by them, and they do it with X-MailChimp type headers. http://i.imgur.com/a9bzEtG.png http://i.imgur.com/a9bzEtG.png Try to be more civil when disagreeing with someone. What's worse than being wrong? Being super arrogant and insulting while wrong. That was unnecessary.
  - bsder 11y ago
    I was going to make an excuse, but, you know what, I'm just wrong. I checked my own Bayesian and MailChimp does keyword as a medium spam indicator, but not enough for an immediate dump.
z3t4 11y ago
You can black-list their IP's! Just make sure you do it via your smtp so that false-positive's at least know that their e-mails are not getting trhough.
- bsder 11y ago
  Oh, I already did some of that. I've already killed about a dozen email addresses permanently, and anything sent to those triggers a black-list of the IP for an exponentially increasing amount of time.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago

If companies are going to spam me I'd rather they did use MailChimp. At least they handle unsubscribes properly and seem to actually honour them.

ownagefool 11y ago

I worked on a large UK domain sellers mail platform for a couple of years and I'd definitely consider pretty much all marketing mail as spam. The landscape has been so destroyed by tricks that it's near impossible to tell if anyone actually wanted your mail. Examples:- a) Opt-in unchecked. These guys are "doing it right" except they usually have this box right next to a probably completely unnecessary TOS box that's also unchecked. Anyone who isn't paying attention will just check all the boxes to get to the next stage. b) Opt-in checked by default. Fuckers. c) Opt-out checked by default. Praying on folks that uncheck anything with "opt" into it. d) Opt-out unchecked by default. Praying on folks not paying attention. Basically the only way you're not a spammer is probably if signing up for mail is seperate from the sign up process. The problem is, I think this is a proven way to generate more revenue so companies are not going to stop fiddling with it.