re Yahoo's spam insanity

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Scott Alexander <salex () dsalex org>
> Date: December 18, 2009 3:21:09 PM EST
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] Yahoo's spam insanity

> Dave:
>
> This approach extends to Yahoo! groups.  I'm on a mailing list that  
> relates to service dogs and discusses, among other things breeding.   
> There are people who work in that area and use the accepted term for  
> a female dog (which I'll leave out to avoid the spam filters at your  
> recipients).  When some of these messages got flagged, the list  
> owner contacted Yahoo! expecting that they could point out the  
> problem, point out that the term was being used in its original, non- 
> pejorative sense to apply to dogs and that everyone would have a  
> chuckle and the problem would be fixed.  Instead, Yahoo! said that  
> if that word continued to be used frequently on the group, it would  
> be shut down.  Consequently, we have professionals who cannot use  
> their own terms.
>
> Best,
> Scott
>
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:32 PM, David Farber wrote:
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Anthony Citrano <a () citrano com>
> > Date: December 17, 2009 10:15:29 PM EST
> > To: dave () farber net, ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> > Subject: Yahoo's spam insanity
> >
> > Hi Dave & fellow IPers,
> >
> > Based on my experience this week, a single email failing Yahoo's "bad
> > word" scanner will forever banish you - and everyone else who uses  
> > the
> > same server - to the spam folder of every Yahoo customer you write  
> > to.
> > Last week, a business proposal I e-mailed to a colleague landed in  
> > his
> > Gmail spam folder. We really couldn't ascertain exactly why, and a
> > gracious friend at Google helped me diagnose. We ended up concluding
> > (without much certainty) that it was probably a problem with the
> > receiver's remailer.
> >
> > This didn't feel very comforting to me, though, since I'd had this
> > problem before. In the photography part of my life, for example, I
> > often trade emails with editors, agents, and publicists, and those
> > emails can contain several hyperlinks, celebrity names, and other
> > content that might cause a message to be flagged or to score  
> > poorly. A
> > number of my emails with this kind of content have fallen into one
> > spam trap or another.
> >
> > Some friends suggested that since I have my own domain and server, I
> > should enable DomainKeys and Sender Policy Framework on it.  
> > Apparently
> > these help lift the legitimacy score of an inbound message on many
> > common spam algorithms. So, I did that. Once the SPF and DomainKeys
> > install had "taken", I did a test and emailed myself at my Yahoo
> > account to check the new headers and make sure they were working
> > properly and passing the checks OK. Once I saw that they were
> > operational, and curious if this new configuration did provide any
> > higher level of protection against false positives, I sent a *single*
> > deliberately spammy message (4-5 key words that I'll leave you all to
> > guess) along the same route (from my server to my Yahoo account.)  
> > That
> > message landed in the spam folder with a new, ominous header tacked
> > on: "X-YahooFilteredBulk:" followed by my server's IP address. I
> > emailed other friends with Yahoo! accounts (non-spammy messages) and
> > they each confirmed that my messages were all now going directly into
> > their spam folders.
> >
> > My research brought me to the people in charge of "helping" in such
> > situations: the Bulk Mail people on the Abuse team. They have an
> > online "application" to fill out, but most of the questions are all
> > aimed at - you guessed it - bulk mailers. Many questions about opt- 
> > out
> > policies, bounce policies, links to your privacy pages, unsubscribe
> > pages, and so on. I left many of them blank because they simply don't
> > apply, and in the comments portion of the form I kindly and clearly
> > explained the situation: this is a private server, no spam nor
> > newsletters nor bulk mail originates here, never has and never  
> > will. I
> > even explained the single spammy email and my new SPF setup. I sent a
> > copy via e-mail to their abuse team's email address.
> >
> > The responses were quick, but useless and empty-minded. I was scolded
> > for not supplying all the information on the form; I re-explained the
> > inapplicability of the questions, I was then sent another identical
> > form to fill out. I re-quoted myself, imploring them to grasp my
> > request. I was again chided for not completing the form - "since we
> > did not receive a completed application, we are unable to fully
> > evaluate your company's mailings for prioritized delivery."
> >
> > I went around and around all week with these guys, them asking and
> > re-asking me to provide nonexistent information. I got to the point
> > today where I was begging "Eddie" to just please read what I had
> > written.
> >
> > This evening I received what I think is my sixth reply from them.  
> > Eddie said:
> >
> > "Based on the information you have provided us, we cannot
> > systematically deliver your email to the Inbox at this time. We
> > suggest that you ask your users to set up a filter in Yahoo! Mail to
> > ensure that they get your email messages in their Inbox.
> > If you significantly change your policies, please feel free to  
> > contact
> > us again to submit a questionnaire in 6 months, and we will
> > re-evaluate your answers and mailing practices at that time."
> >
> > So, I am effectively unable to contact anyone on Yahoo Mail if I'm
> > using my personal e-mail address. And their abuse team doesn't read  
> > --
> > and doesn't care.
> >
> > This exercise in futility with Yahoo has me pondering the spam  
> > problem
> > overall. It seems to me that most current solutions/implementations
> > are woefully inadequate, either requiring action / education /
> > sophistication on the part of users (i.e. diligently checking their
> > spam folder or "teaching" their spam filter) or presenting massive
> > technical and/or social roadblocks to legitimate senders.
> >
> > A couple years ago at a party in Austin I met a guy who told me he
> > couldn't use email. I found it really shocking and asked him why. He
> > told me he was a pharmaceutical rep, had never spammed and wasn't
> > blacklisted anywhere - yet he'd been unable to find a way into the
> > inboxes of *existing clients*. Say what you will about pharma sales
> > reps, but his is not a problem unique to peddlers of ED drugs.
> >
> > Thanks for indulging my long rant - the Yahoo experience got me
> > thinking, and this felt right for IP.
> >
> > Happy holidays,
> > -a
> > ---
> > anthony citrano
> > technologist | cultural analyst | photographer
> > venice, los angeles, ca, usa
> > http://www.citrano.com
> > +1 310.256.3730
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com