"transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft)

[Damon Sauer]

> If I'm understanding this correctly, your use case is:
>
> 1. Macy's sends (what they consider to be) a transactional message to a user
> 2. the user reports it as spam to their ISP, via whatever mechanism
> 3. the ISP reports it to Macy's, using ARF with a report type of "spam"
> (which really just means "this user complained")
> 4. now Macy's replies somehow to the ISP, using ARF with a report type
> of "transactional" (which really means "the user had no right to
> complain, tell them to suck it up")
> 5. Macy's assumes that the ISP will smack their user for mis-reporting
> the message as spam
>
> Correct?
>
> Has any ISP (or other likely report generator) expressed any interest in
> smacking their users?  Have any users expressed any interest in being
> smacked?

Holy Smokes! Not what I thinking or said at all!

Quite frankly, before even considering this type of reply, I would
have hoped you would have been more professional and sent it to me
directly rather than sullying my employer's excellent worldwide
reputation in a public forum.
<stronger words and thoughts snipped>

1) What we consider to be a transactional message is what the CAN-SPAM
ACT also considers a transactional message.

2,3) Given

4) We would reply to the ISP that this is a transactional message (if
allowed to do so, which I ~thought~ was the basis of this
conversation). Which I would hope would mean to the ISP, that a good
corporate citizen has received the complaint and has actually done
something with it rather than send to /dev/null.

5) And being good and trusted corporate citizens the ISP in question
would not diminish our reputation scores over a misclassified email.
Our excellent reputation IS what I am worried about keeping and
promoting.

I have ALWAYS supported the fine and excellent work done in this group
as well as the others you and I have both participated in. In every
company I have worked for, I have asked for and have received the
highest level of support for implementing protocols such as SPF, DKIM,
and adherence to the CAN-SPAM Act and I completely and utterly reject
your notion that something less than an actual care and loyalty to our
customers and their experience is our goal.

I would like to continue to participate in this forum, but please, if
you think I am off-base, or just plain loco, please direct those
comments to me (even publicly) but not my employer whom is innocent of
the slander here.

Regards,
Damon Sauer