I Hit $115k/Month with a Status Quo Improvement

Re:I Hit $115k/Month with a Status Quo Improvement by gk1 on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @02:59PM (#19211411)

> Those actual email server operators (Gmail or SendGrid) have pretty sophisticated systems to detect spammers.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Hit $115k/Month with a Status Quo Improvement by ajaygoel on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @03:06PM (#19211473)

The text you're quoting has to do with how we distribute volume, NOT how we enable spammers. High volume campaigns does not equate to spamming. You can send a 10-email campaign that IS spam and a 10,000-email campaign that is NOT spam.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Hit $115k/Month with a Status Quo Improvement by AznHisoka on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @04:12PM (#19212036)

I hate this argument. People always resort to this type of argument when they want to divert responsibility. Have you ever heard of how the environment enables certain behaviors?

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!"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Hit $115k/Month with a Status Quo Improvement by ericpauley on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @03:59PM (#19211918)

This is effectively structuring for email. Would it be immoral to sell a system that allows people to bypass money laundering restrictions by automating structuring? I don't see how this is any different.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Hit $115k/Month with a Status Quo Improvement by sjg007 on Thursday February 21, 2019 @08:05AM (#19216544)

Structuring email isn’t illegal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Hit $115k/Month with a Status Quo Improvement by onion2k on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @05:23PM (#19212656)

If you found most of the campaigns fell in to the spam category would you shut down the business?

Maybe that's a convenient reason not to check.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Hit $115k/Month with a Status Quo Improvement by tomnipotent on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @08:31PM (#19213778)

> High volume campaigns does not equate to spamming

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Hit $115k/Month with a Status Quo Improvement by jimsmart on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @09:55PM (#19214138)

I used to run ops for a mailing list with over 1 million subscribers (all double-opt-in — perhaps you should google that?).

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Hit $115k/Month with a Status Quo Improvement by danols on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @04:04PM (#19211964)

It is a spam tool plain & simple. Stop defending yourself and keep counting your money instead. Congratulations on your financial success.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Hit $115k/Month with a Status Quo Improvement by Axsuul on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @10:12PM (#19214201)

I don't see how any of the citations you've presented incriminate GMass in helping spammers bypass their detection systems.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]