[taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft

[Damon Sauer]

On 5/24/07, J.D. Falk <jdfalk at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> On 2007-05-24 06:49, Damon Sauer wrote:
>
> > How about adding one more:
> > I know a big one for me is * transactional. Where a user is part of a
> > group or system that sends messages regarding status or account
> > changes, billing, receipts, etc.
> > I think this would cover a great deal of the *not-spam reports and
> > would help catagorize them better.
>
> How would this be used?  Would users be shown "this is not spam" and
> "this is not spam because it is transactional" options when reporting
> miscategorization?  Or, would the report generator use some sort of
> content matching?
>
> Also, is this the CAN-SPAM definition of "transactional," or the
> Goodmail definition, or...?
>
> --
> J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager
> Yahoo! Mail

Of course the legal definition is the one I would choose :-)
I am now wearing the hat of postmaster at Macy's. (And contrary to a
recent report in USAToday, I added DKIM sigs to all our Macys.com
transactional email 6 months ago.)

Everyday I am inundated with people marking their credit card receipts
and shipping confirmations as spam. Since I am sending all my
transactional from a particular domain, I suppose it is possible to do
something with it.While the wording "This is not spam because it is
transactional" would need some smithing it would go a long way in
educating the user that would otherwise, for whatever reason, mark it
as spam and thereby reducing the amount of noise in the actual
reporting.

I am certainly not standing on the soapbox shouting. Just offering
suggestions from the responsible neighbor (corporate) viewpoint and
letting you guys poke holes.

Damon