3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - bsder 11y ago
    Okay, I was wrong again. When I went to look for MailChimp emails, I found that I didn't have any. Apparently, MailChimp's servers are actually blacklisted on my server. And apparently it was done by hand by me about 4 years ago (yay for revision control on config files--boo for terse log comments). Something major happened about 4 years ago with MailChimp for me to actually construct a permanent blacklist entry by hand rather than let the keywords filter, but I guess I don't remember properly what the issue was anymore.
- eridius 11y ago
  I trusted bsder's claim that they aren't identifying themselves, and made assumptions that it was because it was too high of a spam indicator. If they are identifying themselves, then apparently it's not high enough of a spam indicator, which just means that MailChimp doesn't send as much spam as people are assuming. > What's worse than being wrong? Being super arrogant and insulting while wrong. That was unnecessary No, what's unnecessary was that. You're being deliberately offensive here. I took bsder's claim in good faith, and you're calling me "super arrogant and insulting" for doing that. That was completely uncalled-for.
  - 11y ago

by eridius 11y ago

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.
- bsder 11y ago
  Okay, I was wrong again. When I went to look for MailChimp emails, I found that I didn't have any. Apparently, MailChimp's servers are actually blacklisted on my server. And apparently it was done by hand by me about 4 years ago (yay for revision control on config files--boo for terse log comments). Something major happened about 4 years ago with MailChimp for me to actually construct a permanent blacklist entry by hand rather than let the keywords filter, but I guess I don't remember properly what the issue was anymore.
eridius 11y ago
I trusted bsder's claim that they aren't identifying themselves, and made assumptions that it was because it was too high of a spam indicator. If they are identifying themselves, then apparently it's not high enough of a spam indicator, which just means that MailChimp doesn't send as much spam as people are assuming. > What's worse than being wrong? Being super arrogant and insulting while wrong. That was unnecessary No, what's unnecessary was that. You're being deliberately offensive here. I took bsder's claim in good faith, and you're calling me "super arrogant and insulting" for doing that. That was completely uncalled-for.
- 11y ago