
Enforcement is therapeutic
Policies exist for a reason. For instance, most email service providers have a policy forbidding the use of non-opt-in lists. Those policies exist because of statements like this one:
Microsoft prohibits the use of the service in any manner associated with the transmission, distribution, or delivery of any unsolicited bulk or unsolicited commercial e-mail (“spam”). You may not use the service to send spam. You also may not deliver spam or cause spam to be delivered to any Microsoft service, Web site, or customer.
Microsoft Anti-Spam Policy
While some companies have a limited ability to vet incoming lists, most companies are greatly dependent upon incoming reports from third-parties. Most of those reports these days come via feedback loop reports. That means that many of the reports used to tell “good” customers from “bad” customers come from the mailbox provider as a result of input given from recipients. The other major input of this data comes in the form of direct complaints sent by those same recipients.
Ultimately, this means that the same data used by policy enforcement agents at email service providers to find customers who are violating their policies are also being used by the mailbox providers themselves to make reputation decisions.
The result is that policy enforcement is purely therapeutic in nature. That is to say that damage has been done and the job of policy enforcement is to limit the amount of damage done, prevent that damage from intensifying, and attempt to begin repairs to whatever damage has occurred.
That damage will usually take one of two forms:
- Customer-oriented. This means that most of the reputational damage is limited to the customer’s own reputation. The use of dedicated IP space and the growing use of domain-based reputation have greatly helped mailbox providers to pin the blame for poor practices directly upon the mailers who are responsible for sending the mail that users are complaining about.
- Provider-oriented. By the time that provider-oriented reputational damage has occurred, it is usually the case that a mailbox provider has noticed many unmitigated instances of customer-oriented reputational damage. As it becomes more and more apparent that the provider itself is either unwilling to police its customers or is perhaps actively assisting them in doing things which cause end-user complaints, it becomes more and more likely that the provider will become understood to be the problem and that punitive measures against the provider become seen as the best option.
In a well-run company, it is the job of policy enforcement to protect the company from falling victim to the second of those two options. They do this by carefully working with customers who violate published policies to either bring them into compliance or to remove them from the equation.
And either result is therapeutic.
Bibliography
- Microsoft (n.d.), Microsoft Anti-Spam Policy. Retrieved February 2020 from https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Microsoft-Anti-Spam-Policy-e4506f97-694f-49bc-8231-cac4369afcb8.
Archives
- November 2021
- July 2020
- June 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- January 2017
- August 2016
- June 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- July 2015
- June 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- November 2014
- June 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- September 2013
- May 2013
- June 2012
- April 2012
- September 2011
- August 2011
- March 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- March 2009
- January 2009
- October 2008
- September 2008
- April 2008