I was using s small British provider, and almost by accident discovered at some point in time that emails I sent to gmail addresses in the prior 2 months had been marked as spam, unless they were a reply something sent to me (so it wasn’t true that everything got lost - only stuff I originated).
I gave up and moved to FastMail because I don’t have the time to deal with this (and solving it once is no guarantee it won’t happen again)
So, email is federated but effectively not decentralized - unless you use one of the central services, you are at risk from being obliviously blackholed at any second (that happens to large providers too, but there’s safety in numbers - it will be discovered sooner by someone)
Looks like Google will have to keep the 5bn "fines for stupid things we do to EU citizens and companies" line on their budget for years to come.
I don't think this will fly when the relevant authorities finds out (a nice mix of protecting local business and punishing an annoying company that have ignored the rules too many times).
And frankly I think that is great!
Hoping Google will sooner or later return to their roots as Internet superhero.
Meanwhile get ready for more fines, I'm especially looking forward to the almost-destroying-browser-competition-on-desktop fine that I've been waiting for a while. : )
I've seen public entities switch to Office 365 in order to "get rid of spam" and thereby losing a lot of incoming legitimate mails in the same process. A fact that is worsened by users using the "Mark as spam" button to delete legitimate emails from their inbox (a practice that is horribly common).
Going from that to billion-EUR fines to Google and Microsoft is a very, very long way.
Companies need to validate email addresses.
I get AT&T bills, OnStar notifications, etc. I have never used any of their services. Someone else probably signed up with my email address.
Additionally, other companies are violating the CAN SPAM Act by hiding the unsubscribe ability behind a log in. Nextdoor does this.
You are, of course, absolutely right re. spam and rightfully so. On the other hand, I regularly get spam reports re. 100% legitimate mails, often in the middle of longer email conversations and so on, and where one side of the conversation marks entire email threads as spam.
We always follow up on spam complaints and the one thing we do get often in cases like that is that the other party only wanted to delete the emails and didn't realise there were other consequences.
Yes, there's a lot of people that knows how to use the "Mark as spam button". I still, however, maintain the position that a lot of other people don't know how to use such features.
I would unsubscribe and delete, but have not really thought about marking as spam or not yet. Just interested in some input there.
If I would get it from a company where I have not signed up the answer is of course obvious.
When I get the old "you'll be removed from our list within 10 days" message, I generally reply to it with a quick message: "Please remove me immediately or your next message will be marked as spam". Many times the sender has complied with a personal response provided someone saw my message, even for some large companies with "no-reply" emails.
For smaller companies - especially the mom and pop type operations - I'll usually give them a friendlier notice. "Hi, I unsubscribed and I'm still getting emails. Please remove me as I'd really rather not mark your messages as spam". I usually get a friendly personal response with apologies and a removal.
In all cases, after the company has been warned, I don't think twice about sending them to spam.
Then I discovered my provider didn't set up SPF and DKIM correctly so emails were failing authentication.
There are many factors affecting email delivery beyond SPF and DKIM, and it can be difficult for a small provider to get everything right.
So if you're having delivery issues I'd start with that, not by assuming without evidence that the big guys are intentionally classifying spam just because it's from a small provider.
Been running my own mail for a long time, and with one big exception[1] and occasionally spotting misconfigured systems, any time I've had delivery trouble it has been my fault.
If someone is bouncing you, make sure your ducks are in a row. One easy thing to do that won't catch everything but will help is to send mail to a Spamassassin-protected account, and look at how it classifies things.
[1] The Deathstar has been bouncing me for a long time, and their postmaster appears to be /dev/null. Given that I've had exactly one person using them I wanted to mail, they can bite me.
Except sometimes, like when Comcast looks at your DMARC policy that specifically says "p=none" and decides that means "reject all mail from this domain". Gotta love those guys.
Edit: s/spf/DMARC
It allows the owner of a domain to specify which mail servers are authorized to send mail from the domain.
Being small may not have been their problem. I run a single-user server and haven't had any trouble with delivery to Gmail.
It was only google, only non-response emails, so it is a google specific thing and not general IP reputation.
Switching to fastmail, otherwise exactly the same (domain, equiv dkim and spf setup) solved everything.
Sure looks like I was on the scoring edge, with fastmail being better (or some special trust arrangement) than my previous provider. Which is fine if I had gotten feedback and had a way to resolve this - but practically I didn’t.
Edit: I had a catchall on that domain forward to an account on gmail. It was suggested to me that may have been the problem. But i still do from fastmail, and everything is fine, so it’s more likely that overall reputation or special fastmail arrangements were the issue. Either way, i’m far from being alone with this issue - as evidenced even i this subthread. It is federated but not practically open to everyone, which is an implicit attribute most people associate with decentralization.
Same here. Perhaps I should switch to a larger provider too.
This is anti-competitive behaviour.
Especially clear since, as GP points out mail gets through if it is a direct reponse, meaning they knew very well it was a legitimate address.
This is abuse of bulk mail filter to squeeze out local competitors.
Even if they could kangaroo court it for standard business practices they wouldn't since they don't want to be known as "the dumb fuckers who banned domain based spam filtering" and face pressure from annoyed constituents now receiving piles of spam.
It seems clear from the description above that poster is someone recipient wants mail from.
As for the ignorant users using spam button I've seen that once since I started working.
Happy to do so, but which are the relevant authorities?
I tried searching for it though and this seems relevant:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/competition-and-...
Microsoft, Apple. I’d move my mail to one of these to get away from Google but I can’t find a way to do so. I already pay for Office 365 and iCloud but I don’t get to bring my own domain for email. Unless I’m missing something.
I don’t pay Google for my email on my own domain because I got in early enough on Google Apps for your Domain or whatever it was called.
I’m happy to pay a reasonable price - I just don’t know whether it’s possible.
Fastmail is a relatively cheap option. Yandex mail will do it for free.
I've also tried Mastadon but their interface leaves something to be desired. The experience is not there yet.
I do agree on interoperability -- and while Zuckerberg is doing this with Whatsapp and Messenger, we should really take this across most messaging app.
I fear for increasing centralization ONLY because they have the resources and money to do this. This will not change unless we develop a consortium that has the numbers to make it work.
That's not true "federation" the way the OP meant. What's happened with email is that it's turned into an oligopoly: you can have email from Gmail, Apple, Yahoo (if you're elderly), or Microsoft, and that's it, unless you have a corporate address for work. If you want to run your own personal email server, forget it: you'll be considered a spammer and your emails will go into the bit-bucket.
Speaking of Facebook and whatsapp, a while ago I read that you couldn't post links to some other social networks. Is it true and if so which sites are affected?
I think this is what federation looks like when it works. Yeah, everyone uses Gmail, but it's also ok to use another service. It still works and delivers a pretty similar experience. Your messages make it out of the Gmail garden.
> Web sites were federated, but everyone being web master for their homepage was too difficult, so we get GeoCities, and Yahoo Clubs, and later, Squarespace and Wix, etc. Then blogs were decentralized, but everyone self hosting and authoring blogs was too much, so then we get Wordpress.com and Tumblr, and Twitter, and FB, etc. (even USENET eventually developed super-large hubs like uunet)
Geocities was one of many roughly equivalent services. It was sort of a social network, but it was mostly just free hosting. Anyone could still link to anywhere and being on geocities wasn't a requirement for being on the web.
Squarespace is a pretty good product and not what I would consider harmul centralization, because it's still interoperable with other websites and they don't prevent people from hosting elsewhere. The web is still federated.
Something different has happened with social media. Different social media services aren't interoperable. I can't message you on Twitter from Facebook, or tweet at you on LinkedIn. You must stay in their walled garden to interact with their users. They're at such a critical mass that almost everyone is in their garden.
It seems like federation is a happy middle ground between decentralization and centralized walled gardens.
Maybe something like Mastodon will some day become so popular that Twitter is forced to become part of the federation and compete on features and marketing instead of vendor lock-in.
With a federated version of any type of social media clone, eventually new entrants will prefer to join the federation instead of trying to make a new walled garden. It wasn't really an option for Hotmail to only let you interact with other Hotmail users, because the federation was already established.
There was tremendous demand for social media services, but no federation to provide those services when the demand hit and explosive growth happened, so now we have a centralization problem.