Comment by inopinatus
5 years ago
Such outcomes are also true of email services, which train reputation stochastically.
It recently took me a week of mitigation haggling with Outlook Deliverability Support to overturn an unexpected adverse finding in SNDS for an assigned /29.
Fortunately this hosted a low-volume MTA with few (sender,recipient) tuples to consider, and after a thorough review of our logs the root cause was uncovered, and I was moved to instruct <relative>, in no uncertain terms, to stop using Junk as their deletion mechanism.
Reading your comment it just occurred to me that "Junk" is a very poor label for the spam button. Many users are going to legitimately think that a button marked "Junk" simply means "put the message in the trash". That is what the verb means. It's no wonder so many people are getting this wrong.
That is quite astute, and yes, I will confirm that the example above was born of flawed UX and consequential misunderstanding. Also that the cherished relative in question is a perfectly reasonable, intelligent, and thoughtful human being, I might even say a notable systems thinker in their own field, but otherwise a layperson with regards to email; so the blame attaches entirely to the interface even though the remedy sits with the individual.
As a counterpoint however, I also have a story about a SVP at a high-profile boutique development shop (one of the "fast five", for those who were around two decades ago and remember the term) who habitually filed important documents in the handy wire basket on their desktop. One day, they were enraged to discover that months of work had suddenly vanished. Imagine being the staffer who accepted that particular call for deskside support.
Hotmail has blacklisted the entire network my mail server is on. I just tell Hotmail users to use a mail provider that isn't garbage if they want mail from me.