gpg: Signature made Mon Dec 19 12:26:45 2016 UTC
gpg: using DSA key 2099B64CBF15490B
gpg: Good signature from "Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andrew James Smith <andy@strugglers.net>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (UKUUG) <andy.smith@ukuug.org>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (BitFolk Ltd.) <andy@bitfolk.com>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (Linux User Groups UK) <andy@lug.org.uk>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (Cernio Technology Cooperative) <andy.smith@cernio.com>" [unknown]
Hi Scott,
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:57:58PM -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Fri Dec 16 Andy filed a RT ticket with me about spam being sent from my
> account. Unfortunately, he quoted the problematic spam in the RT ticket,
> which means that his email to me included the spam verbatim, which of
> course meant that it ended up in my spam folder as well and I never saw it.
Yes, apologies again for that rather rookie mistake. I really should
have realised that a message with spam in it might not get through.
> He then turned off networking for my domain. Which certainly got my
> attention.
If the only issue were "getting the customer's attention" then I
would normally be happy to wait a lot longer - at least 21 days as
we've established now. In this case though I was seeing spam being
delivered so I had to shut off the network, and would have done that
whether we'd been in conversation or not.
> But that's neither here nor there. What my story seems (to me) to indicate
> is that "we did not receive the email" is in fact a valid excuse if the
> email in question quotes spam.
Me quoting spam was certainly a bad idea and I will avoid doing that
for at least the initial message in future.
When I say not receiving the email is not a valid excuse though,
it's specifically because I've now implemented multiple contact
methods one of which being phone. I will certainly make use of a
cell phone number to send a text message, before shutting anyone's
service off.
I will also add more contact methods if they seem popular and
relevant. Perhaps Twitter? I may not be able to direct message
people but can at least leave a "@yourname please contact us
urgently" message.
> Content-specific filters make that a bad assumption.
It also highlights the fact that the concept of a "spam folder" can
be problematic is an outright delivery rejection would be more
useful to me than a delivery which may just go to a folder that's
never read. I know this is not always under people's control. But
the battle for email is lost and email deliverability is only going
to get worse.
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
