Yahoo Blocks Venerable Email List Over False Positives

RomulusNR writes "Yahoo has stopped delivering This Is True, Randy Cassingham's 14-year-old mailing list, because too many Yahoo readers have mistakenly or carelessly flagged it as spam. Yahoo readers make up over 10% of True's readership, slashing the ad revenue that keeps it going. And Yahoo doesn't negotiate with spammers. As Randy describes it: 'The yahoos... ask to be put on True's distribution, then confirm that request, and... then click the "This is Spam" button when they don't recognize the mailing or simply don't want it anymore. Yes, those yahoos have screwed thousands upon thousands of others who really do want my newsletter. Too bad: Yahoo is listening to the yahoos instead: they're blocking it. To them, we're "spammers" and no protestations from "spammers" count.' The irony is that This is True is one of the first profitable mailing lists, predating Yahoo! Mail by almost three years."

Comments

Understandable, but for long

[rastoboy29]

I think Yahoo can be forgiven thus far, as anyone who works in the hosting industry knows the nature of customer service in it.  That is, there are an awful lot of yahoos out there, as it were, that want you to make exceptions for their <insert_nonsense_here> all day, every day of the week, 365 days a year.  It is truly astonishing the number of clueless people there are in the hosting realted businesses.  And in the end, a sane person simply has to tune them out, as Yahoo has done, here.

So anyway, I suspect a Slashdot front page story will be sufficient to get the mailing list whitelisted.

Re:So, what is the problem?

[lena_10326]

The person being hurt is the mailing list owner, who isn't a customer of Yahoo

If no one is upset over its absence, then it indeed was spam. The determination of spam is based on whether you want it to continue or not. The lack of complaining subscribers suggests it wasn't.

The remaining Yahoo subscribers may or may not notice they ceased receiving it. Many will assume that the mailing list has closed all together.

A paying subscriber will know.

Re:So, what is the problem?

[Tony Hoyle]

Companies that spew junk at me becuae I happened to visit their site *once* get firmly reported as spam.. it's unsolicited commercial email ie. spam.

Re:So, what is the problem?

[lena_10326]

Huh? It's an OPT IN MAILING LIST, with a very deliberate signup process, you can't inadvertently or accidentally sign up. You have an interesting definition of what spam is, well not so much interesting as stupid.

You're assuming four things: 1) a live user is on the receiving end of the email, 2) coregistrations, 3) a newsletter today can never be spam tomorrow, 4) the opt-in accurately portrayed what the subscriber would get

1. Most users use disposable accounts to test a subscription to minimize spam, so this occurs regularly. This indicates a user wants access to a site in some fashion, probably temporarily. It's also indicative that the user doesn't want the email or wants to test the waters. This disposable account is in essence a dead account; email to a "dead" account is spam if you consider the ISP's perspective. If the newsletter was wanted, the user would either login and read it or transfer tit to a live email account. In that case, the account getting the email would be a live account.
2. Ever heard of co-registrations? You signup for website A and get auto-signed up for websites B, C, and D. The fine print was small so you missed it. By your definition, emails from B, C, and D are not spam, but the majority of people would disagree.
3. Consider the dot bomb. Many companies turned harmless newsletters into spam lists due to intense financial pressures. I know this because I witnessed numerous companies go this route. Opt-in yesterday does not mean opt-in for today.
4. Identifying spam is a subjective decision. You're operating with an assumption that opt-in gives the list owner full right to blast whatever they want to the subscriber because "The user opted-in! They asked for it!" What if the user signed up to an advice column, but got an email with 5% advice and 95% porn ads? Was the opt-in fair? NO. Most people would consider that spam.

You have an interesting definition of what spam is, well not so much interesting as stupid.

And you're ignorant. Rather than request clarification for something you did not understand, you cry "stupid" like a typical slashmonkey beating his chest. I hold these viewpoints because I have industry knowledge in this topic, which you were unaware of.