2 ms·

There's also the possibility that their emails are full of links, which is a decent indicator of a low quality spammy email. There are exceptions, e.g., I sent

There's also the possibility that their emails are full of links, which is a decent indicator of a low quality spammy email. There are exceptions, e.g., I sent an email full of research with sources to a family member I've been emailing with for fifteen years and it went to spam, despite it being @gmail.com to @gmail.com. In retrospect, I was misusing email versus sending a document or a link to one with it in.

aidenn0 4y ago
Sending an e-mail full of links is a 100% valid use-case for e-mail. I don't see how it's "misusing" e-mail.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Is it? If I'd sent a link to a document, they'd have the latest version and I could continue appending to it, and they'd have a version history and could even contribute to it if I permitted them. The times have changed. It's not unreasonable to expect how people use email to have changed, ergo people sending emails full of URLs are statistically more often than not spammers. Is it a broad stroke? Yup. But I'm willing to bet that I'm a fringe case and it prevents a ton of spam.
  - massaman_yams 4y ago
    I deal with email at global scale, and yes, you're a fringe case. There are many billions of messages sent every day which have lots of links, and which recipients in general are interested in, and want delivered to the inbox (or promotions), rather than spam.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  I agree. I also believe that message contents are much less important for abuse classification than nerds generally believe. Spam is about behavior more than it is about messages.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    Content is very important. Experiment with mail-tester and tools of its ilk. You can even test it yourself without fancy tools by sending emails full of links and mentioning keywords like Viagra et al.
    - massaman_yams 4y ago
      Speaking from quite a bit of experience, content can matter at Gmail if it's very obviously malicious/spammy, but not usually otherwise. Metrics matter more than content at gmail. For other filters/ISPs, content can matter a bit more, but as a general rule for consumer mailbox providers, metrics are the primary thing that affects filter outcomes.

aidenn0 4y ago

Sending an e-mail full of links is a 100% valid use-case for e-mail. I don't see how it's "misusing" e-mail.

hammyhavoc 4y ago
Is it? If I'd sent a link to a document, they'd have the latest version and I could continue appending to it, and they'd have a version history and could even contribute to it if I permitted them. The times have changed. It's not unreasonable to expect how people use email to have changed, ergo people sending emails full of URLs are statistically more often than not spammers. Is it a broad stroke? Yup. But I'm willing to bet that I'm a fringe case and it prevents a ton of spam.
- massaman_yams 4y ago
  I deal with email at global scale, and yes, you're a fringe case. There are many billions of messages sent every day which have lots of links, and which recipients in general are interested in, and want delivered to the inbox (or promotions), rather than spam.
jeffbee 4y ago
I agree. I also believe that message contents are much less important for abuse classification than nerds generally believe. Spam is about behavior more than it is about messages.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Content is very important. Experiment with mail-tester and tools of its ilk. You can even test it yourself without fancy tools by sending emails full of links and mentioning keywords like Viagra et al.
  - massaman_yams 4y ago
    Speaking from quite a bit of experience, content can matter at Gmail if it's very obviously malicious/spammy, but not usually otherwise. Metrics matter more than content at gmail. For other filters/ISPs, content can matter a bit more, but as a general rule for consumer mailbox providers, metrics are the primary thing that affects filter outcomes.