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

[Damon Sauer]

I was admittedly not clear in my first post that started all of this.

I am not asking that the ~user~ further classify the messages they are
marking, but that the format allow for a section that could contain
information saying that the ISP's internal systems have checked
against their known transactional sending IPs, domains, whitelists,
etc. and that the email in question either matched or did not match.
This would help the sender do a number of things (off the top of my
head) Request whitelisting, verify the message is actually theirs,
look on the proper systems for which database the receipent address
resides as transactional email addresses and marketing addresses more
often than not live on separate databases or systems, etc. We are
genuinely interested in knowing how our reputation is with a
particular ISP and if by marking them as known transactionals means
that our reputation score is not diminished, it would help. If I am
getting too far out in the woods here... let me know.

Regards,
Damon

On 5/24/07, J.D. Falk <jdfalk at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> On 2007-05-24 13:30, John Marlin wrote:
>
> > Is there any hope that users and ISPs would be willing to allow (or
> > require) the user to break out the spam designation further.
>
> You're right that this isn't related to the format, so I'll just quickly
> point you towards this study:
>
> http://www.returnpath.biz/resources/archives/2007/01/consumers_want.php
>
> --
> J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager
> Yahoo! Mail
> _______________________________________________
> abuse-feedback-report mailing list
> abuse-feedback-report at mipassoc.org
> http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report
>