Less technical folks would likely complain about it, as it tends to resemble the spam that was sent from their spoofed domain (I.e. “re: fake pills” subject lines as the rejection message hits their inbox).
This error message is often delivered to a catchall account, they are often configured with small mailboxes, that box fills up, throws alerts and ticks off a sysadmin somewhere. I only do this in cases where it's easier to SSH into my box and configure it than unsubscribe, and never to random address spam as that is wack-a-mole and futile.
I think the sending servers may also be misconfigured to get around greylisting. As sometimes they will try repeatedly to deliver to me. My server dutifully rejects each attempt and the messages pile up on the other side.
You can really easily create aliases for specific sites or just a general spam@ alias on your own domain. Then if it gets abused you can mark all mail directed to that alias to bounce.
You could later re-enable it if you wanted to.
The thing is you don't want to completely blackhole/delete messages received at a valid randomly-generated address, but which were sent by an unexpected sender. For that, I have a separate "Suspicious" child of my main "Inbox". The main exception I've seen that falls under "Suspicious" is that Amazon shares your account's email address with their shippers; so you'll receive a Fedex delivery notification at your Amazon address, which falls under "Suspicious" because the sender address doesn't originate from Amazon.
What I find mildly strange is that, in the 2 years since I've migrated from Gmail to a super-organized and rules-based organization with Fastmail, I have literally not received a single spam email. I credit this to having migrated my GitHub account to use their privacy wrapper, so none of my commits have a personal email attached to them. I thus suspect that most developers who receive spam have had their email crawled from commits to public Git repositories.
Of course, there is a caveat: I do not expect to be able to maintain this kind of scheme into old age. There's no way, at 60-70-80-90 years of age, that I will still be mentally capable of managing a wildcard domain. So while it works for now... at some point I will need to simplify back to a single email address. Sigh... fml in advance. :(
Do you think this will get technically harder and you'll no longer be familiar with the "new" process? Or are you more worried about your mental capabilities in general when you're that age?
I’ve gotten some spam, but so far it’s only come in to aliases I haven’t made (like info@) which I think I can block in the fastmail settings.
Basically, it allows you to create email aliases without having to whitelist.
Setup email@example.com and reject everything else arriving there.
Accept anything at @i.yourdomain.com
I have an inbox, everything firstname.lastname@example.org arrives there.
Then I have an "other" mailbox where all the @i.yourdomain.com emails arrive.
If there is a really annoying website that doesn't respect my wishes I create a filter for the offending email to ban any mail to my spam folder.
Going back after and saying you don't exist is like answering the phone and going "nobody is home".
Edit: I suppose this ghost setting could be used for future delivery attempts though. Perhaps this is what you meant originally.
If I get another message from them, Step 2 is to setup a mail rule to put everything from their company into the Junk folder.
If the sender just added me to their list without consent? Straight to spam.
Delaying step two requires book keeping.
Immediately blocking is low effort with effect.
In few cases, where senders seem to be "proper" companies I do a GDPR request. Sometimes they provide valuable information about address brokers etc.
Translates nicely to interpersonal communication
For that reason I have no need to be “nice” to entities who send me unsolicited email. I avoid clicking any link on email I didn’t request as - just like answering the phone confirms that a live person is home - clicking “unsubscribe” just means the email address is valid and has a human behind it.
We have to stop pretending like there are humans behind our communication. If I had to guess, 99% of my email volume is generated by a machine of some sort.
The issue is that there are good-faith and bad-faith unsubscribe links. Clicking the unsubscribe button can thus either have a good outcome (less junk mail) or a bad outcome I ardently want to avoid (letting a spammer know my address is active).
I'm sure Google knows this and does some verification and detection to try to prevent that bad outcome, but as an end user, I don't have much visibility into how well that works. It's a hard problem, but Google is smart, so it's possible they've solved it, but I don't really know whether they actually have.
So in practice, I always read over the email in question carefully to try to judge for myself whether it's safe to click the unsubscribe link at the bottom. It's annoying, but the effort seems worth it.
> This only works for some senders right now. We’re actively encouraging senders to support auto-unsubscribe — we think 100% should. We won’t provide the unsubscribe option on messages from spammers: we can’t trust that they’ll actually unsubscribe you, and they might even send you more spam. So you’ll only see the unsubscribe option for senders that we’re pretty sure are not spammers and will actually honor your unsubscribe request.
Hashcash is "used anywhere" in the sense that it's the idea behind bitcoin. There's a duality here where the very introduction of limited scalable resources which makes a cryptocurrency possible, also can be used in a different way to make spam impossible.
In that duality it is actually kind of interesting to think about IM2000. One would imagine a cryptocurrency based on something like "proof of network bandwidth shared" or something, which would be really hard to theoretically formalize. But if you could get a secure definition then that fundamental idea becomes rather explosive. Like I imagine a sort of viral peer-to-peer filesharing network kind of like BitTorrent which would end up as a sort of alternative to the World Wide Web; whereas there are huge clusters of bitcoin miners right now trying to chug out more proofs-of-work, in that situation you would have large numbers of proxy hosts trying to mirror more and more files online.
Right now it would be possible to do some really nasty things to bitcoin by designing software which stores arbitrary files in the spare bits in the ledger. If that software becomes really widespread then inevitably someone uses it to upload MP3s or, worse, illegal pornography and those things get ossified into the Bitcoin ledger and you cannot remove public access to that content without taking down the entire blockchain; probably what happens in practice is that the sharing software itself gets demonized as "only pirates/perverts use that sharing software." But one is immediately confronted with concerns about "hey if I download the blockchain am I technically performing an illegal action" to which the legal answer is probably "yes" at that point. The law doesn't usually care about whether you need sophisticated software to decode that crap.
If you had a cryptocurrency that was based on "I hosted and transmitted data, but I don't know what that data was" then I think you would have a sort of robustness to the network, maybe, where the offending data is not in the ledger. With that said, probably it gets a similar stigma as "only pirates/perverts use that, all the rest of us use the web."
Sounds like they were advocating a solution to spam . I wonder why it didn't work...
IM2000 probably would have succeeded if it had gotten the attention from him to go past a random idea into a well-specified protocol with a canonical implementation. Standards work is hard!
Honest question- why does this really matter? Or at least matter to any degree where you would rather have more junk mail than potentially stop spam/undesired emails.
If a spammer sends out 1000 emails and gets 100 bouncebacks.. then they keep on sending to the other 900. You are one of those 900 and you click unsubscribe.. sure, they can detect that your email is active. But are they really going to stop sending to otherwise? It's not like people are constantly changing email addresses these days.. if I were a spammer and I had a valid list, I would basically assume that's a valid email if I don't get a bounceback.
So I just don't get how detecting that someone attempted to unusbscribe is that much of a 'tell'.
I cannot vouch for the story but it looked as legit as the average HN story back then so it might be true (or not).
The goal is to find people who don't know any better..
Wouldn't someone who is like "this is spam, get me off the list" be way LESS likely to be a good scam target?
1) if I never signed up goes immediately to SPAM
2) if I did signed up I make the effort of going through their unsubscribe procedure
3) if I still get emails after (2) goes to SPAM
Each violation of the CAN SPAM act can be met with huuuuuuuuge fines.
If I get an email from an email I don't want legitimate company, I unsubscribe and never have to worry about getting non-transactional email from them anymore. I _do_ still get transactional emails from them, because I didn't misclassify them as unsolicited.
1) If I never signed up goes immediately to SPAM.
2) If I did signed up I make the effort of going through their unsubscribe procedure.
3.1) If I still get e-mails after (2), I file a request for my personal data under the GDPR (EU citizen here).
3.2) Once I got that, I use the GDPR to delete all of the data associated with my account / e-mail address.
4) If I still get e-mails after (3), it goes to SPAM.
With step 3, I hope that I can make them notice their bad behaviour. My goal is to drive up the costs of that behaviour (so they get incentivised to change it). Also, I'm generally interested in the personal data that a service has associated with me.
It costs them nothing to process your request - you're wasting far more of your time crafting the request than of theirs.
Note that I'm also doing this because I'm interested in the data, so its much less waste of time.
* Message body contains "unsubscribe" -> Skip inbox, archive
* Message body contains "webinar" -> Skip inbox, mark as spam
If they use a reputable bulk mailing service instead of using their first-party domain then they are indistinguishable from a phishing attack.
With most bulk mailing services, the message will come from the "first-party domain". They will have configured that service as a legitimate sender for the domain via SPF/DKIM DNS records.
It's not just the from:email@example.com that I'm talking about. If the unsubscribe link does not also go to firstparty.com, then it's still indistinguishable from phishing.
Tell that to the links in the email that go to the reputable service's click aggregation service.
I had to dive into this a bit for something and work and it’s just fascinating how much effort has been spent in trying to combat spam, build a reputation based system for emails etc. And this article does an amazing job of explaining list-unsubscribe...although the RFC is pretty easy to read too!
Gmail has over a billion active users. Mailing lists will probably adapt to whatever crumbs Google leaves on the doorstep.
If you know my email address, then put a token in the unsubscribe link so you can retrieve my address on your end, rather than making me retype it. If you don't know my email address -- maybe you are sending to a list, not to me -- then I consider you spam because you don't actually have the direct ability to remove me.
This is a real problem for us - not a made up scenario. So we remove the auto-filled email on the unsubscribe form.
Subject: "Was it something we said? crying emoji".
Body: "If you want to go... we won't stop you. [...]"
Footer: "You're receiving this email because [...] subscribed to Firefox Account Tips.
Yeah, thanks for the ~~tip~~ spam.
Felt like going through one of those dark pattern flows that Spotify or Amazon have when you try to unsubscribe from their paid plans, trying to guilt you into reconsidering.
(Still better than Google, though.)
Legitimate mailing lists have problems with people forwarding emails, when the recipients of the forwarded emails click the unsubscribe button, they will unsubscribe the original recipient who didn’t want to be unsubscribed.
As to why they forward it in the first place: how would I, an individual, know whether or not my mom will want to use the 20% coupon code for a cosmetics store I just received, but don't want to use? I'd ask her. I can ask her via an unsolicited phone call or email. Am I a spammer if I do that?
Similarly, if my mom clicks the "unsubscribe" link on what I forwarded, mistakenly thinking that it was sent to her directly by $costmetics_company, that sucks for me if I ever want to use their coupons.
An even more annoying situation is when someone in charge of procurement for a business forwards a "shipping confirmation" email to an employee as a means of indicating that the employee's requested purchase is on its way. If that employee makes a mistake (e.g. they have a lot of commercial email in their inbox and click the wrong one/are sleepy/whatever) and clicks "unsubscribe" on that shipping confirmation, the procurement person won't get any future confirmations for any orders for anyone.
There are mitigations to this (the shipper could use transactional emails without unsubscribe links, the procurement person could do something less lazy than just forwarding the email wholesale), but in the real world those often don't happen. So autofilled unsubscribe then causes problems for random upstream people, not the forwarded recipient.
Someone on the other hand was trying to wave away the whole idea of one-click unsubscribe due to this which seems to me more like lobbying towards adding another step requiring one to put their email in in order to unsubscribe (or put it another way - decreasing the unsubscribes).
So auto filled unsubscribe needs to exist. I never want to go back to the universe where that is not regulated and easy-to-use. Also in the UK there’s still loads of physical paper spam and I would hate if that was also the case for e-mails.
I think the better approach is simply showing the "Intended for firstname.lastname@example.org" next to Unsubscribe, but I could see why they ask for your email.
I don't see why you have to involve the web at all, but I can tell you that if I have to go through a bunch of bullshit when I want to unsubscribe I'll just mark it as spam instead. However appreciated and anticipated your newsletter is, you have to consider that most newsletter subscriptions are probably either accidental (failed to uncheck some box when signing up for something entirely different) or straight up unsolicited, and people like me will basically purge all their subscriptions without discrimination regularly as the crap builds up.
Because List-Unsubscribe is very new and not supported by all email clients or ISPs (inbox service providers). Since adoption is so spotty, most ESPs (email service providers) start from a baseline of a web unsubscribe system and (maybe) supplement that with List-Unsubscribe as well.
This situation will likely improve over time.
Adoption of it doesn't matter insofar that you can use the same link in the body as a fallback, which was part of my suggestion.
"ESPs" don't care because cumbersome and convoluted multi-step unsubscribe is a selling point for the majority of people who use such systems. They have moved from simple mail based unsubscribe which was the norm for years.
It's basically impossible to know if you've done the right thing.
> Sorry for any confusion. Select the box next to each desired communication option or deselect to stop communications.
So... if I uncheck the “unsubscribe” button that stops communications?!?
Yeah - very confusing though.
Marriott Bonvoy Assist
Sorry for any confusion. Select the box next to each desired communication option or deselect to stop communications
Now I think I understand what they are saying, but it’s not a great explanation either. A new sentence before the ‘or’ would have been helpful.
I run a newsletter where both subscribe and unsubscribe do double-opt-in (i.e., both subscribing and unsubscribing send you an email with a confirmation URL with a token - each newsletter has an unsubscribe link but that link doesn't include the token). Maybe this is a mistake? Is the norm that anyone can unsubscribe anyone else from newsletters?
Just use mailto links in List-Unsubscribe.
It's convenient, standardized and removes the need for further confirmation because you know who sent the mail.
That said, I don't see what the big deal is. If you forward a newsletter issue in its entirety to someone else, they hate it and feel confused enough about receiving it to click the unsubscribe link, maybe the sender deserves being unsubscribed. The absolute most you should do at this point IMO is to notify them that they were unsubscribed.
> Just use mailto links in List-Unsubscribe.
List-Unsubscribe is not widely enough adopted to be the only means of unsubscription (yet): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23360654
> maybe the sender deserves being unsubscribed
That's super presumptive/rude. Also not how interactions between people work, at all. The potential consequences of a mistaken forward-unsubscribe are also often quite large: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23360619
I am not suggesting List-Unsubscribe as the only means of unsubscription. Read my post again. It also is widely adopted. gmail.com, Mail (OSX, iOS) and outlook.com together probably represent the majority of clients now and all support List-Unsubscribe.
> That's super presumptive/rude. Also not how interactions between people work, at all. The potential consequences of a mistaken forward-unsubscribe are also often quite large
Maybe my view on the matter is colored by the fact that my friends and family don't send a bunch of useless marketing to me, and I have the decency not to send them any. Still, my suggestion solves the problem if you have it without involving a convoluted process to cancel a subscription. I absolutely could not care less about the dire consequences of not receiving a steady stream of cosmetics coupons, but whatever floats your boat, email-based unsubscribe works.
That term is super widely used in spam-prevention, commercial email sending, transactional email sending, and inbox provider industries.
You can disagree with the phrasing if you want, but that doesn't make it propaganda--not any more than the Orwellian naming of the "No Child Left Behind" act makes the law itself propaganda.
I tend to use the checkboxes to mark groups of emails as spam, then also chosen "unsubscribe me" without checking where they came from (since I don't want to open them).
When it happens to be spam sent to a mailing list, this feature unsubscribes you from the mailing list. When it's a Google group you moderate, good bye moderator status! Oops! (Filed a bug internally about this, no status updates so far.)
> without checking where they came from
I typically report companies that violate this (Chase, I’m looking at you with your “transactional” emails that are just thinly veiled ads) to the FCC (there’s an online report form) but I don’t know how much it helps.
You use unsubscribe for anyone with which you have some sort of prior relationship. Anything else is spam, report it and move on.
Sometimes it's understandable that someone wants to simply filter these mails as spam than go through whatever convoluted process they have in mind for unsubscribe. It's easier and discourages the practice of signing people up to random newsletters.
Years ago I worked at a large email service provider for bulk mailings on behalf of large customers and we took unsubscribes very seriously.
And for the really truly spam/scam emails, the unsub link is the least of your concerns since delivery and tracking pixels confirm the address is real and being used. The true spam usually doesn't even have an unsub link. In those cases mark as spam and hope that your email provider starts flagging them as spam before it ever makes it to your inbox in the future.
I'm an aggressive unsubscriber and 99% of the time it works. Very little junk flows into my inbox these days.
Does it work in Gmail? Since it doesn't load images until I athorize:
Although note that IIUC the gmail default is now loading remote content. (Although they do load it via a proxy so that your IP isn't shared).
Last time I went searching, I found google documentation that said there are no image options for the iphone app.
I use Thunderbird, which doesn't load that stuff.
I'd rather receive the mail and let Gmail put it into a blackhole than try to solve the problem upstream myself and have the small possibility that I either miss a newsletter and get spam anyway, or tip off some system that my email address is "real".
Unsubscribe is your best bet as honoring opt-outs are protected by the CAN-SPAM act.
There's and RFC for List-Unsubscribe headers.
Now that's your problem right there. _Don't_ use Gmail. You're not just giving up your own privacy, you're hurting the privacy of everyone who corresponds with you. There are plenty of non-US free email providers, and many/most of them are at the very least much better than Google in this respect.
Also _use a mail client_, not your browser. Thunderbird, KMail, evolution - even (ugh) Outlook.
I'd rather have my data in the hands of Google -- a company with strong compliance and the world's best non-government infosec outfit -- than in the hands of any of the other companies listed.
"best non-government infosec outfit" - but that outfit is not securing your information _from_ Google, the US government or Google's business parties; it secures it from other individuals and unaffiliated organizations.
I guess there's always E2E encryption, but I'd like to be able to recover my emails if I lose my password.
I appreciate the post because after revisiting it, I think that info was gathered from a few-years-old blog discussing a specific limit in (maybe?) Gmail, but it sounds like it can be broken down into multiple lines.
See e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20180605011201/https://www.list-... for a better example.
If it's a newsletter I actually signed up for, I respect that and will unsubscribe, but the majority is unsolicited spam where a company feels is OK because I happened to have bought a product they can now email me 8 times a day.
Gmail needs to handle that in a much better way to ensure they end up in spam for everyone else.
I'm not hitting unsubscribe if I didn't subscribe in the first place because it sends a signal to the sender that I don't want them to get.
I do keep track of if I already unsubscribed from a related list. Sometimes "unsubscribe from all" is completely ignored. Which really angers me.
If it's a random, clearly bought newsletter list from a related list, it depends on my mood. Likely spam.
Other notorious example: business A founder also founds (unrelated) business B. They just email their entire A client base with zero association to A. Big peeve of mine.
-- Edits (some more ramblings) --
My personal favorite: the "I want to receive marketing email" checkbox that rechecks if you have an unrelated issue with your transaction. Say, invalid CC details.
Still, even with these boxes, I think my standard is just: "I did business with them, I will get at least 1 marketing email. I'm ok with that. I will unsubscribe and not hear from them again." Anything past that is unacceptable.
To be clear: that's not how I think it should be. It's just how businesses, even small, genuine mom and pop shops, have been taught to operate. It's cultural.
It reminds me a lot of tipping in the US. I'm vehemently anti-tipping "culture" because a standard 20% is the opposite of rewarding for performance. But I still tip at a baseline of 18%+.
It's too ingrained. And I'm not going to protest by not tipping and try to change it.
I think we've come too far unless changed by law or restaurant management. Same goes for marketing emails.
I try to be a little more reasonable here. If it's a business that required me to sign up to do business with them and didn't allow me to opt out of their marketing emails then I have no problem whatsoever clicking the Spam button. And, if their marketing emails go to a third party domain -- such as a bulk emailer -- then it goes into the Phishing bucket regardless of whether or not I opted out of their marketing emails.
What’s the deal with this?
Every now and then I forget how annoying it was last time, and I think it would be nice to donate money to some sort of charity, and then they proceed to spam me for the following year. A couple years later I forget about he experience, and the cycle begins again.
In the span of two years the following happened:
* Original Charity I actually donated money to started emailing me
* then a second local charity I did NOT donate money to
* then I began getting messages from a local political candidate who was friendly with first charity
* soon after that Another local political candidate
* Then a statewide political action committee.
Is “getting out of hand” a hyperbolic reaction to how cavalier the use of mailing lists and newsletters have become when people sign up just to use a personal finance app or donate to causes?
If the unsubscribe link goes to a third party site, it's literally indistinguishable from a phishing attempt.
I'm the same way. Except for two: Staples and eBay.
Staples will send me three e-mails asking me to review a product that I ordered, but that Staples hasn't even shipped to me yet. Spam.
Recently I purchased one item from eBay using the Guest Checkout feature because I don't have an eBay account, and don't want one. Now eBay sends me e-mails all the time. In order to unsubscribe, I'm instructed to sign in to an account I don't have. Spam.
This is an extremely common annoyance of mine with Kickstarter campaigns. I back a lot of projects, and it's insane how many creators abuse the "project updates" system to promote other projects, often totally unrelated and from totally different creators. They're clearly getting paid for these promotions. I can't just "unsubscribe" from the updates because I do need to be aware of "real" updates that may require my input/action.
And many apps that rely on push-notifications for their core functionality are polluting these streams with ads. Uber basically admits this: they send ride updates by sms because they know people turn off their ad-filled push notifications.
My town is also using its covid-emergency-updates sms system to advertise local composting.
This is becoming an acceptable practice, and it seems impossible to filter the cruft.
They get a mail saying one more spam from them and I will ensure I never buy anything they make again, add them to blacklists and tell other people they are spammers.
They tend to go the attack/whine route about being a struggling entrepreneur, and I try to educate. Of the ones who actually engage, about 1/3 seem to come around, which I consider a pretty good rate. (I follow through with the rest. They're just shithead spammers.)
The worst for me is if you donate to one political campaign, once, you will be on every mailing list for every single candidate in that party for every single election; in every single country, state, county, province, parish, district, or city; forever.
I know that's how politics works today, but, Jesus, the #1 thing making me not want to participate in one of the major parties is this.
I do consider it spam, unless the email is actually about a previous transaction. I don't equate doing a transaction with a business with permission for them to bother me about something unrelated.
I have a big problem with this and never know what to do.
Person buys my course after following newsletters for a while. All good.
I put them on a followup list that helps guide them through the course and keep them on track. All good.
They get a newsletter they don’t like and unsubscribe.
Now they stop getting followup guidance emails for the course. This is a problem. Almost certain not what they wanted to happen either. But okay I honor it.
A while later I make a huge update to the course or migrate to a new platform. I need to tell every buyer that their account is moving. But some have unsubscribed from all emails.
Do I add them back or not?
This might be the ex-marketer coming out in me, but surely the course guidance emails could be considered transactional to the service and be honoured by a different opt-in/out policy to the newsletter?
> I need to tell every buyer that their account is moving
Again, this use case isn't marketing, and should very much be allowed as a requirement to keep people informed about the use of their data. In the same way a "change password" email is allowed to be sent.
That’s the tricky part that most “ew email is spam” folk forget. The definition of “all” can be super nuanced and most people don’t think about it.
It does. But the user clicked "No I want to unsubscribe all"
- Unsub from this marketing topic.
- Unsub from all marketing mails. You will continue to receive paid course content; to terminate see [account deletion request page].
On the account deletion page, make it clear that they'll lose out on further paid content, don't come back crying, blah blah.
Do you really want to open yourself up to being banned by your new platform, or facing a lawsuit over pennies in revenue?
Imagine being grumpy at a Starbucks barista once and now you can’t get Starbucks again ever anywhere.
Or a better example: You opted out of email now you can’t reset your password. Sorry can’t email you the link.
They unsub'd all meaning "no more emails ever" as you said. How do I tell them the stuff moved if they don't want to be contacted ever again ever?
Marking them as spam messes with Github's deliverability to all GMail users and may prevent you from getting notifications in your inbox in the future if you decide to sign up again.
Additionally most reputable email senders have a "feedback loop" set up with Google, Hotmail, and Yahoo where clicking that Report Spam button actually passes your email address back to the sender's email system. For example if you click Report Spam on one of our email newsletters in GMail, we will flag your record in our database and not send you any more messages even if you specifically sign up for a newsletter in the future. (Please don't test this.)
Now if it's unsolicited stuff -- SPAM -- no problem. But if it's a list you once signed up for and now no longer want, you're telling google -- for everyone -- that mail like that is spam. Even people who signed up for it (like you did) and still want it. That's unfair to the company and unfair to all those other people too.
But someone randomly blasting you with crap as is the usual case (and I includes that company you once did business with and who signed you up without your permission): that's what the spam button is for.
If you unsubscribe you're saying that you're no longer interested in the list, you see the merit but don't want to receive it any more for whatever reason.
If you hit spam you're saying this email should never have come to me, or I don't want to expend the effort to stop it from coming to me.
If the sender makes unsubscribing as easy as hitting spam (by making sure the Gmail unsub button works for example) then they make it more likely for their recipients to send the appropriate feedback - ie not hit the spam button.
If people start unsubscribing by hitting spam, then those users who still want to receive the mailing may have to search for it in their spam boxes.
While many senders will remove people who hit spam on their emails but not all do it. After a while, emails could be getting past the spam filter again.
Unsubscribing is usually more effective at stopping unwanted emails from any semi legitimate company as they are required by law to honor it.
If you want double protection, you can always do both.
Whereas mine is pretty reliably never sending false positives to my spam folder. Fastmail wins again.
The engagement and conversion rate on email is so low that the volume continually increases to convert further.
Really? Ignoring the "Spam" folder (which I never check), I get way less junk email than snail mail. And the snail mail is reliably 95% unsolicited garbage.
To be fair, Fastmail lets you set rules to route stuff to Junk, whereas USPS actively facilitates routing garbage to your mailbox .
I get tons of email, a lot of it being spam. I've had my email address for well over a decade.
> rarely provide our physical address
This. We order lots of stuff online, and I'd guess our info has been resold to 3rd parties many times. I provide a PO box whenever possible, but if something is being shipped...
Not all messages that get put into the spam folder are actually spam. There’s a wide variety of emails that aren’t spam, but also aren’t necessarily wanted anymore either. Those are the ones this article is focusing on. Make it easy for your readers to unsubscribe so they don’t call you spam.
What it does is show an Unsubscribe button above the email, which loads the unsubscribe URL into a small web panel below it.
Then I started clicking "block this address" from another drop-down - never got any new mail. Much recommended approach.
You can also contact the company directly and ask to be removed from their list.
I think the author missed adding a hyperlink in the summary at "You can check the source of an email to do this - here's a guide on how to do that. "
Occasionally, I'll sign up for something new, and get spam and then I have to do it all over again.