One of the big corner cases I've noticed is transaction-oriented email-- the password resets, "welcome to your account" emails, order details, shipping notifications. People want these, but they're probably harder to deliver than personal email or much spammier bulk mail sent directly via outsourced experts.
These have a lot of iffy issues.
* Since they're going to be generated by the ecommerce service, it may not be running on the same server or IP block as your main mail infrastructure, so you might have to specially configure around that.
* The content-- hundreds of messages a day, at seemingly scattershot recipients and highly templated-- screams spammy nto the wrong algorithm.
Yeah, there's services like Mandrill, but the whole ecosystem feels broken. It's not serving mailers. It's not serving the recipients very well. It seems designed to please a small, delicate, vocal audience. The people so upset at the prospect of false negatives (spam in the inbox) that they rally around providers who are prone to aggressive false positives. Who are these people and what makes them tick?
I could see this backlash in a situation where it's high risk or cost, but users can manage their own filters in any half-decent mail system, and frankly, clicking through a few pieces of spam a week is not a big deal-- arguably far less a hassle than spending an hour on the phone to get a tracking number that a spam filer ate.
These have a lot of iffy issues.
* Since they're going to be generated by the ecommerce service, it may not be running on the same server or IP block as your main mail infrastructure, so you might have to specially configure around that.
* The content-- hundreds of messages a day, at seemingly scattershot recipients and highly templated-- screams spammy nto the wrong algorithm.
Yeah, there's services like Mandrill, but the whole ecosystem feels broken. It's not serving mailers. It's not serving the recipients very well. It seems designed to please a small, delicate, vocal audience. The people so upset at the prospect of false negatives (spam in the inbox) that they rally around providers who are prone to aggressive false positives. Who are these people and what makes them tick?
I could see this backlash in a situation where it's high risk or cost, but users can manage their own filters in any half-decent mail system, and frankly, clicking through a few pieces of spam a week is not a big deal-- arguably far less a hassle than spending an hour on the phone to get a tracking number that a spam filer ate.