Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

OP already received a decent reply,

> A quick look at Talos Intelligence reports a 1600% increase in email from your domain over the last day; email reputation os 'neutral' at this time. Not good, not bad, but neutral.

> Also you're on OVH, about which a quick look through the list's archives will possibly prove instructive. It's reasonably likely (as likely as not) that you're running on an IP in a neighbourhood with some poor neighbours.

> As Mathieu pointed out in his second email, building a good reputation takes time. Losing a good reputation is a matter of rather less time and can be influenced by factors outside of your control.

The rest of that reply chain is the usual debate:

OP. My domain's emails are marked as spam by Gmail

REPLY. Their system, their rules

OP. I don't accept that

Repeat ad nauseam.



Ah yes. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

A "1600%" increase in email could be explained by 1 email yesterday, and 16 emails today.

Which is in fact what he claims lower down in the thread.


The final exchange between OP and someone who works in detecting spam:

https://www.mail-archive.com/mailop@mailop.org/msg09020.html

This is where HN discussion should pick up, not at the beginning where we need to rehash everything.


It's actually worse than that:

> "Their network; their rules".

No, it's not their network. It's our common network. If anybody imposes own rules on their part of the network, we are losing interoperability. Internet loses any sense.

He apparently thinks that he (or maybe more accurately "we") should dictate how private companies treat traffic. Despite it's huge footprint, Google does not have a monopoly on email, if they are treating users unfairly, they can switch -- but I use Gmail because their spam filtering is so good. And I'm ok with dropping a few legit emails if it means not seeing spam in my mailbox.


> Google does not have a monopoly on email

53% of email accounts in the US are with Gmail.

What's the definition of a monopoly?


From my old law courses (IANAL but someone decided programmers should have a basic knowledge of law):

* An illegal monopoly should not be absolute. Having >20% of the market has been enough te be considered a monopoliy for antitrust. The main question is if your actions dominate the market.

* But having a monopoly is not enough. You can have 100% of the market and be legal. Abusing the monopoly is the problem. Abuse is typically crushing smaller competitors, or using your monopoly in 1 market to push yourself to another market.

* Is google abusing its potential email monopoly? My non-lawyer guess is no. Being non-responsive and arrogant is not illegal.

* But the google browser and search engine might very well be other stories. Here google seems dominant enough to influence web standards and change other corporations behaviour to raise in their search index.

* I don't think US or EU governement are willing to step in, though.


Is that a rhetorical question or you really don't know?

Definition of monopoly:

1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

2 : exclusive possession or control

3 : a commodity controlled by one party

4 : one that has a monopoly

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly


Since they seem to have confused "majority" and "monopoly", I suspect that they really didn't know, but thought they were being sarcastic.


Yeah, this debate have spread to quite a lot of the threads on the mailop mailing list recently.

It's simply one of those things one has to deal with if one operates an email server.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: