<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fusemail auto-suspends spam-suspect accounts!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://my.galagzee.com/2009/05/03/fusemail-auto-suspends/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://my.galagzee.com/2009/05/03/fusemail-auto-suspends/</link>
	<description>Tech in a Galagzee, Not So Far Away.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:02:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ville Walveranta</title>
		<link>http://my.galagzee.com/2009/05/03/fusemail-auto-suspends/comment-page-1/#comment-20952</link>
		<dc:creator>Ville Walveranta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:13:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://my.galagzee.com/?p=215#comment-20952</guid>
		<description>Fusemail is probably not the right service for any &quot;volume&quot; use. After the troubles last year I haven&#039;t really had any issues with Fusemail to speak of.. but then I don&#039;t push hundreds of emails through (or, &quot;any&quot;, for that matter.. details below :) ).

Last year I also tested a local mail proxy (set up with Postfix &amp; Dovecot) which worked perfectly, but in the end there was no need for inbound buffering. The proxy would&#039;ve both localized inbound mail on the LAN so both mail access would&#039;ve been virtually instantaneous. But accessing Fusemail directly ended up being only marginally slower, so the maintenance overhead of a proxy setup was not worth it. 

However, after an outbound email triggered account suspension including suspending mail reception (the reason for the original post), I switched sending all outbound mail through an internal/local SMTP server to ensure it would not happen again. Postfix has served in that role well. 

As for mass emails - even when it&#039;s just few hundred emails - you should give &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mailchimp.com&quot; target=&quot;_top&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MailChimp&lt;/a&gt; a try!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fusemail is probably not the right service for any &#8220;volume&#8221; use. After the troubles last year I haven&#8217;t really had any issues with Fusemail to speak of.. but then I don&#8217;t push hundreds of emails through (or, &#8220;any&#8221;, for that matter.. details below <img src='http://my.galagzee.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  ).</p>
<p>Last year I also tested a local mail proxy (set up with Postfix &#038; Dovecot) which worked perfectly, but in the end there was no need for inbound buffering. The proxy would&#8217;ve both localized inbound mail on the LAN so both mail access would&#8217;ve been virtually instantaneous. But accessing Fusemail directly ended up being only marginally slower, so the maintenance overhead of a proxy setup was not worth it. </p>
<p>However, after an outbound email triggered account suspension including suspending mail reception (the reason for the original post), I switched sending all outbound mail through an internal/local SMTP server to ensure it would not happen again. Postfix has served in that role well. </p>
<p>As for mass emails &#8211; even when it&#8217;s just few hundred emails &#8211; you should give <a href="http://www.mailchimp.com" target="_top" rel="nofollow">MailChimp</a> a try!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arttu</title>
		<link>http://my.galagzee.com/2009/05/03/fusemail-auto-suspends/comment-page-1/#comment-20941</link>
		<dc:creator>Arttu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://my.galagzee.com/?p=215#comment-20941</guid>
		<description>The Fusemail still sucks. Badly.

We sent the usual 560 invitations to the gallery opening, a list which has been used for years. All recipients in a BCC. All opt-in customers.

We got &quot;544 too many recipients&quot; error from Fusemail.

Fusemail repeatedly said that they do not have any limit on how many people one can send a single email.

After we insisted for about one hour that there truly is a limit, and the error comes from Fusemail, they agreed that &quot;yes, you can send one email to max 200 recipients. So yo must split up the recipient list to multiple emails&quot;.

So, we sent four mails, roughly 160+160+140+140 BCC recipients in each. After that I got some mails thru, and two Fusemail errors to the Fusemail-admin  account indicating that their &quot;automatic system had detected spamming&quot;, and no more mail can be sent. Even with the attached indicated Spam-score 0.00 in that Fusemail error mail.

There is no way now to know which of the recipients received the email, and which were filtered by Fusemail. Fusemail does not even see that information about blocked deliveries in Fusemiail outbound SMTP server would be critical to any real business. Spammers are the ones who do not care about SMTP logs, 99.99999% of their customers do care. And still all of the paying customers are treated like spammers.

Fusemail has placed our account account to &quot;HighVolume&quot;, which means we &quot;can send 1000 emails with same content in a time frame&quot;. And subsequently: &quot;Fusemail can not tell you what the time frame is&quot;. I hate these candid cameras, they must be joking or collectively having a bad trip.

Despite of what Fusemail claims to have improved over this, they absolutely have not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Fusemail still sucks. Badly.</p>
<p>We sent the usual 560 invitations to the gallery opening, a list which has been used for years. All recipients in a BCC. All opt-in customers.</p>
<p>We got &#8220;544 too many recipients&#8221; error from Fusemail.</p>
<p>Fusemail repeatedly said that they do not have any limit on how many people one can send a single email.</p>
<p>After we insisted for about one hour that there truly is a limit, and the error comes from Fusemail, they agreed that &#8220;yes, you can send one email to max 200 recipients. So yo must split up the recipient list to multiple emails&#8221;.</p>
<p>So, we sent four mails, roughly 160+160+140+140 BCC recipients in each. After that I got some mails thru, and two Fusemail errors to the Fusemail-admin  account indicating that their &#8220;automatic system had detected spamming&#8221;, and no more mail can be sent. Even with the attached indicated Spam-score 0.00 in that Fusemail error mail.</p>
<p>There is no way now to know which of the recipients received the email, and which were filtered by Fusemail. Fusemail does not even see that information about blocked deliveries in Fusemiail outbound SMTP server would be critical to any real business. Spammers are the ones who do not care about SMTP logs, 99.99999% of their customers do care. And still all of the paying customers are treated like spammers.</p>
<p>Fusemail has placed our account account to &#8220;HighVolume&#8221;, which means we &#8220;can send 1000 emails with same content in a time frame&#8221;. And subsequently: &#8220;Fusemail can not tell you what the time frame is&#8221;. I hate these candid cameras, they must be joking or collectively having a bad trip.</p>
<p>Despite of what Fusemail claims to have improved over this, they absolutely have not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ville Walveranta</title>
		<link>http://my.galagzee.com/2009/05/03/fusemail-auto-suspends/comment-page-1/#comment-12097</link>
		<dc:creator>Ville Walveranta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:19:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://my.galagzee.com/?p=215#comment-12097</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve subsequently been told by Fusemail tech support that the automated system has been disengaged from being able to disable the entire account (and hence also the mail reception) when a suspect outbound spam is detected. Since I currently only use Fusemail to receive mail and send outbound emails (also for the Fusemail-received domains) from my own mail server, I haven&#039;t had the opportunity to test the claim.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve subsequently been told by Fusemail tech support that the automated system has been disengaged from being able to disable the entire account (and hence also the mail reception) when a suspect outbound spam is detected. Since I currently only use Fusemail to receive mail and send outbound emails (also for the Fusemail-received domains) from my own mail server, I haven&#8217;t had the opportunity to test the claim.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ville Walveranta</title>
		<link>http://my.galagzee.com/2009/05/03/fusemail-auto-suspends/comment-page-1/#comment-10691</link>
		<dc:creator>Ville Walveranta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:58:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://my.galagzee.com/?p=215#comment-10691</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the update! It is good to hear that the problem has been addressed. I continue to use Fusemail for inbound mail, but have since switched to sending outbound mail using my own mail server to ensure that my inbound mail is never blocked like it was after the indicent described in my original post.

The delay with incident response was the other gripe in my original post - my account got erroneously blocked and it took 15 hours to remove the block. I understand that it was and is not the normal operating procedure, but somehow response to that incident fell through the cracks. Needless to say, it was incredibly frustrating.

Nevertheless, I would and do continue to recommend Fusemail.  There are some improvements that would be nice to see (such as sortable Mail Aliases list — with many aliases defined management of the list is pretty cumbersome when the addresses on the list cannot be sorted), but overall I&#039;m fairly satisfied with the service that I&#039;ve now been using some 4+ months.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the update! It is good to hear that the problem has been addressed. I continue to use Fusemail for inbound mail, but have since switched to sending outbound mail using my own mail server to ensure that my inbound mail is never blocked like it was after the indicent described in my original post.</p>
<p>The delay with incident response was the other gripe in my original post &#8211; my account got erroneously blocked and it took 15 hours to remove the block. I understand that it was and is not the normal operating procedure, but somehow response to that incident fell through the cracks. Needless to say, it was incredibly frustrating.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I would and do continue to recommend Fusemail.  There are some improvements that would be nice to see (such as sortable Mail Aliases list — with many aliases defined management of the list is pretty cumbersome when the addresses on the list cannot be sorted), but overall I&#8217;m fairly satisfied with the service that I&#8217;ve now been using some 4+ months.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat</title>
		<link>http://my.galagzee.com/2009/05/03/fusemail-auto-suspends/comment-page-1/#comment-10681</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:49:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://my.galagzee.com/?p=215#comment-10681</guid>
		<description>FYI, our fraud monitoring system is much more sophisticated now. Both in how it detects outbound spam, and how it affects your account. The most visible change is that we don&#039;t actually suspend the account, we only stop outbound email. Additionally if the block is not reviewed in a set period of time, the block is automatically removed. Also, this is not new, but we whitelist after reviewing to prevent multiple blocks.

I imagine this all seems pretty draconian, but unfortunately it is necessary. We have people signing up using stolen credit cards to send nigerian spam, viagra spam, every kind of spam that you could imagine. This gets us blocked from sending mail to other major email services, and affects all of our customers.

Thanks
Pat</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FYI, our fraud monitoring system is much more sophisticated now. Both in how it detects outbound spam, and how it affects your account. The most visible change is that we don&#8217;t actually suspend the account, we only stop outbound email. Additionally if the block is not reviewed in a set period of time, the block is automatically removed. Also, this is not new, but we whitelist after reviewing to prevent multiple blocks.</p>
<p>I imagine this all seems pretty draconian, but unfortunately it is necessary. We have people signing up using stolen credit cards to send nigerian spam, viagra spam, every kind of spam that you could imagine. This gets us blocked from sending mail to other major email services, and affects all of our customers.</p>
<p>Thanks<br />
Pat</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
