3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- dangrossman 11y ago
  The issue with your comment isn't the subject matter of the discussion, or the correctness of your statements, it's the way you spoke to bsder. I respectfully disagree that my comment was uncalled for. > your assertion here is laughable This is an insult. That's what laughable means: his claim is so ludicrous that you could laugh about it. If you don't intend to insult someone who's not on stage delivering a comedy routine, then you shouldn't call their ideas laughable. > Of course they don't You purposely emphasized words in a way that, if emphasized by tone in speech, would come across as very condescending. > obviously not compatible Telling someone that it's "obvious" what they claimed is incorrect is arrogant. If it was obvious to them, they wouldn't have said it.
  - eridius 11y ago
    I really don't get what you're trying to accomplish here, besides being repeatedly insulting. This is not productive, this is not appropriate, and nobody asked you to do it. You know what's arrogant and condescending? You, right now, with your comments. Please stop.

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.

dangrossman 11y ago
The issue with your comment isn't the subject matter of the discussion, or the correctness of your statements, it's the way you spoke to bsder. I respectfully disagree that my comment was uncalled for. > your assertion here is laughable This is an insult. That's what laughable means: his claim is so ludicrous that you could laugh about it. If you don't intend to insult someone who's not on stage delivering a comedy routine, then you shouldn't call their ideas laughable. > Of course they don't You purposely emphasized words in a way that, if emphasized by tone in speech, would come across as very condescending. > obviously not compatible Telling someone that it's "obvious" what they claimed is incorrect is arrogant. If it was obvious to them, they wouldn't have said it.
- eridius 11y ago
  I really don't get what you're trying to accomplish here, besides being repeatedly insulting. This is not productive, this is not appropriate, and nobody asked you to do it. You know what's arrogant and condescending? You, right now, with your comments. Please stop.