> What you call too bold and incorrect I have years of data showing otherwise.
It violates standards, unless the letter doesn't pass DMARC checks an SPF fail is not sufficient. You don't have the volume necessary for proving anything either, I'm sorry. The fact that you think content filtering is not necessary proves it.
> What does the scale have to do with the kind of filtering?
It changes how accurate your tests have to be in order not to flood your customer support with complaints.
> Many providers explicitly state their criteria, because they inform their customers what kind of spam protections are in place. Only large providers play games with random, unseen and unknowable rules.
You're just excluding all providers with significant user base, of course then the problem is simple and processes (if there even are any) transparent.
The moment you have any significant userbase you're going to have a bunch of people trying to bypass your filters. Be it for spam or phishing. No reasonable provider wants to reveal all those details, don't be naive.
Handwaving, along with no data. Also, you have zero idea about my volume or the volume of my clients.
Also, you assert, again without data, that knowing a provider's criteria for acceptable email is what would justify the energy needed to try to bypass it. Imagine that!
"Spammers: you have to not use spammy servers."
Spammers: "Let's start using 100% completely legitimate email servers."
Sorry. I think you just don't understand how ridiculous that is.
> Handwaving, along with no data. Also, you have zero idea about my volume or the volume of my clients.
No, not really. I'm basing what I'm saying on best practices outlined in many places, standards and well yes, also my experience as mailop.
You're the one going against the entire industry with things like content filtering being not necessary... I won't start explaining again why that is simply wrong or just a sign of the small scale you operate at.
It violates standards, unless the letter doesn't pass DMARC checks an SPF fail is not sufficient. You don't have the volume necessary for proving anything either, I'm sorry. The fact that you think content filtering is not necessary proves it.
> What does the scale have to do with the kind of filtering?
It changes how accurate your tests have to be in order not to flood your customer support with complaints.
> Many providers explicitly state their criteria, because they inform their customers what kind of spam protections are in place. Only large providers play games with random, unseen and unknowable rules.
You're just excluding all providers with significant user base, of course then the problem is simple and processes (if there even are any) transparent.
The moment you have any significant userbase you're going to have a bunch of people trying to bypass your filters. Be it for spam or phishing. No reasonable provider wants to reveal all those details, don't be naive.