You must have a lot more than me

Post #320,011 by drook 1/14/10 11:37:17 AM Reply	You must have a lot more than me I've got crappy DSL and a fairly ancient box, and mine usually all show up (eventually). Hmm, only 32, thought it was more than that. -- Drew
Post #320,022 by SpiceWare 1/14/10 2:57:22 PM Reply	just 1 more Just checked and there's 33 links. I don't know how often the timeout occurs as I've not kept track. I'm on Comcast, my only high speed option, which could be part of the problem.
Post #320,026 by drook 1/14/10 4:08:08 PM Reply	Gratuitous Comcast rant They've blocked my domain (for email) about a dozen time over the last few months. I keep forwarding them the same information every time, and it always gets resolved pretty quickly. But come on guys, can't you eventually figure it out and quit blocking me? Let's not even get into Yahoo ... or Juno. -- Drew
Post #320,030 by boxley 1/14/10 7:18:36 PM Reply	Re: Gratuitous Comcast rant if they are using a filter that that uses abuse reports as a vote, its not comcast its the vendors software they use. If you have a link from an ad thats on a list you can get a block and there is not much you or comcast can do about that. Large ISPs do not whitelist for any reason. I know one particular ISP who refuses to whitelist their own media mailings, :-)
Post #320,037 by drook 1/14/10 9:37:33 PM Reply	No ads in this It's a double-opt-in list. Never any ads, no flash, no scripts, no images. One PDF attachment. (Although with the news from China that might not be the best idea any more. [sigh]) The only trigger I can think of is that they get several dozen copies of it within an hour. -- Drew
Post #320,040 by boxley 1/14/10 9:45:58 PM Reply	nope, that bar is too low they are using a filter that occasionally gags on pdf's I have seen that issue. A similar type of operation was sending out pdf's, renamed it to foo.foo instead of pdf and it went fine. So comcast is probably facing the same issue. Ping me off line if you want more details.
Post #320,041 by folkert 1/14/10 9:50:52 PM Reply	How are you sending? 1) Are you sending one connection with multiple e-mails per connection to the MX of comcast.net? 2) Are you sending one email per connection to the MX of comcast.net? 3) Are you sending individual e-mail to each person? 4) Are you sending a fake to and BCC everyone at once? 1 is better than 2 3 should be the standard 4 if you are, you deserve everything you get Also, attachments such as PDFs are seem as advertisements by MANY type and kinds of spam classifiers. I'd suggest you include a short description of the recipe (or an HTML version of the recipe with no pictures) and then include a link to the location on your site and let the person download the PDF. PDF isn't as bad as a BMP/JPG/PNG only in the e-mail. This coming from experience sending millions of e-mail per year and seeing the after effects of PDF vs straight HTML with the plaintext version (plaintext is required as per the rfc governing that stuff, HTML is an option part) and just the plaintext versions.
Post #320,044 by drook 1/14/10 10:33:19 PM Reply	Have been rethinking the PDF I've been doing that for the newsletter so I can have some control over the formatting. And it's just plain easier dropping images and links into it. The system I'm using does include the option for TinyMCE for writing, so I might give that a shot, and just do a rich HTML-formatted email. I've been avoiding that because I get all my mail in plain text by default, and only download images or HTML when I need it. Just because I do that doesn't mean most of the people on my list do it. As for how I send, it's individual mails to each recipient. My host counts each address as one outgoing message against my quota anyway, so doing the BCC route wouldn't save me much anyway. -- Drew
Post #320,053 by boxley 1/15/10 7:16:14 AM Reply	also it may be your neighbors at the host if the ip's next to you have sloppy reputations, it affects yours. Run a senderscore on the neighbors to check
Post #320,057 by folkert 1/15/10 9:30:18 AM 1/15/10 9:31:06 AM Reply	fsck senderscore... They suck and charge to much. Not only that, but they allow places to use their service for peanuts for pre-filtering... but charge out the ass for those they are targeting to get them to pay. Edited by folkert Jan. 15, 2010, 09:31:06 AM EST Expand All History
Post #320,058 by boxley 1/15/10 10:32:01 AM Reply	Re: fsck senderscore... go ahead, however a manual lookup is free and a lot of products, filters use that score
Post #320,034 by folkert 1/14/10 8:42:14 PM Reply	Don't get me started!
Post #320,035 by static 1/14/10 8:45:46 PM Reply	We have an Aussie ISP who blocks us. And by 'us' I mean the guys I work for. After numerous attempts to even talk to them, we've given up and tell customers with no hesitation that such-and-such ISP blocks our emails. And if they don't want to switch, they need to convince their ISP to not block us. :-) Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.

Welcome to IWETHEY!