Yes, and your product helps spammers bypass those detection systems. You even explain it in the post I linked:
> GMass will automatically send 500 emails/day or 2,000 emails/day if your email campaign has more than 500 or 2,000 recipients, respectively. You can also control, however, how many go out per day with the new Spread out setting under the GMass Settings arrow. If left blank, GMass will use 500 (regular Gmail) or 2,000 (G Suite) automatically, but you can override this by setting your own value.
And...
> It's not that we're looking the other way... we don't have to look at all.
That is what the phrase means.
Supporting a system where people can mass-send emails = enabling spam.
How absurd will you extend this argument? "Oh, yeah, 99% of my customers are spammers, but I'm not the one making them click send! They could've just paid, twiddled their thumbs and not do anything with my product!"
Maybe that's a convenient reason not to check.
In what instances is high volume not spam when using this service? Given one legitimate use case where a customer isn't better off using a cheap MailChimp account.
We never had to bother avoiding any of the measures you deliberately subvert, because our mail was all legitimate.
Granted, doing a 'mail run' with that volume took about a week, but whatever.
If your (client's) recipients aren't all double-opt in, then what you're running could very easily be seen as irresponsible (and that's me being polite), no matter how much money it's making.
And the phrase "It's not that we're looking the other way... we don't have to look at all" simply means he's delegating spam detection to the Gmail/SendGrid platforms instead.
Yes, but, the evil genius of the idea is that the email will be from a gmail domain. Emails from gmail to gmail with your own 5 year old account will have a ridiculous conversion rate. In my tests with email, if the email is from the actual gmail domain other carriers TRUST it more. Spam systems rely heavily on DNS/IPaddresses -- and this bypasses all that.
I feel for the smaller email providers. Gmail wont be able to patch this anytime soon, thus, the smaller ESPs without resources will have to change their rules to make the gmail domain less trusted.
There's literally _Zero_ value in DNSBL/DKIM/SPF because of this. Email sent from reputable sources is actually _more_ likely to be spam than small mail servers.
Content-based filters are the only thing that work against this sort of spam.
Maybe reducing the max number of recipients to the hundreds would help reduce the chance for abuse while still keeping your core customer base happy? It might also reduce the risk of getting booted off the Chrome Store.
True spammers are sending spam to many orders of magnitude more recipients. They are not going to use this tool.
>We recommend that an unsubscribe link be added to all mass emails containing promotional or marketing content, but the decision is up to you.
An unsubscribe link is a requirement of the CAN-SPAM Act and the GDPR. Your own docs effectively say "We advise you not to use our product to break federal and EU law, but the decision is up to you". I can't speak for anyone else, but that doesn't really accord with my sense of ethics.
Which is fine, but admit you have an immoral business, and are just doing this for lots of money. Don't justify anything.
To answer your analogy with another analogy: If you're gonna get in a shootout under questionable circumstances you'd be well advised not to pick the hundred dollar hi-point as your weapon of choice.