Reccomendations for sending bulk or mass email

I am seeking economical solutions to send approximately 30,000 emails
at a time, without monthly limits or "per email" fees, to willing
recipients without being dropped or blacklisted with my email host. I
would prefer a medium that allows for the "opt out" feature so that
recipients can unsubscribe easily if they don't want my emails.

Any sugestions?

Feedback and sugestions will be greatly appreciated.

Sean

Re: Reccomendations for sending bulk or mass email

sean@areb.net wrote:

> I am seeking economical solutions to send approximately 30,000 emails
> at a time, without monthly limits or "per email" fees, to willing
> recipients without being dropped or blacklisted with my email host.

There's a guy called Alan Connor who may be able to help you out...

--
David.

Re: Reccomendations for sending bulk or mass email

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
software that supports modern Internet standards.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-14616-1134276399-0001
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

sean@areb.net writes:

> I am seeking economical solutions to send approximately 30,000 emails
> at a time, without monthly limits or "per email" fees, to willing
> recipients without being dropped or blacklisted with my email host. I
> would prefer a medium that allows for the "opt out" feature so that
> recipients can unsubscribe easily if they don't want my emails.
>
> Any sugestions?

Sometime within the next 48 hours, you should get a reply from a deranged
kookbag who is, basically, comp.mail.misc's resident village idiot and is
popularly known around here as the Usenet Beavis.

Before you are tempted to waste your time on that poor soul, the first
suggestion is to go to http://groups.google.com, and just search for "Usenet
Beavis", then read all the archived messages from this newsgroup.

As far as a direct answer to your question.

There are a number of commercial mailing list providers who profess to excel
at outsourcing economical mailout services. It's been my past experience
that all of them -- without exception -- should be blacklisted on sight,
because the majority of their clientele appears to be spamming companies who
know that they're spamming, but they don't want their corporate mail servers
to get blacklisted, so they fob off their dirty mailing lists onto someone
else, so they get to deal with it.

These mailing list outsources appear to be fully aware that they're spamming
dirty mailing lists, but they attempt to avoid getting blacklisted, by
putting pressure on antispam blacklists, by putting mailing list traffic
they get outsourced from smaller companies. Those lists are generally
clean, and they get used, for all practical purposes, as human shields.

I don't think you want anything to do with this.

I usually suggest to handle these kinds of situations all by yourself. This
is not rocket science. Order a comparatively inexpensive broandband circuit
from a mid-tier Internet provider. Stay away from telco-owned, or retail
consumer-oriented bitbucket shops, and go with independent ISPs who
generally have more clue and offer business-level circuits with an SLA and
static IPs. Their rates will be slightly higher than the telco-owned/retail
consumer bitbucket shops, but the clue level is usually worth it. Set up a
Linux or a BSD server, and use any one of many free, efficient, mailing list
software packages to run the list for you.

Being in full control of your IT infrastructure is worth its weight in gold.
Remember that depending on a provider of outsourced services, be it mail
services or anything else, always means that you depend on their
incompetence as well.



--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-14616-1134276399-0001
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDm68vx9p3GYHlUOIRAhEZAJ9GyIv3LJtOC2EqxCcMA7BVWcQKvwCf dfIi
Pnuq+Lf5hbW3jzX8rCf9B0c=
=BIB3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-14616-1134276399-0001--

Re: Reccomendations for sending bulk or mass email

On comp.mail.misc, in <1134266906.755107.73080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "sean@areb.net" wrote:


Send it to me. The spams that aren't deleted on the server will
go straight to /dev/null and even then I won't ever know you
tried to get your garbage into my mailboxes unless I check my
logs. Which I rarely do.

http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html

[Note: I don't read the posts of "Sam" or his numerous
sockpuppets or his 'friends', nor any responses to them.]

Alan

--
URLs of possible interest in my headers.

FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.50) (was Re: Reccomendations fo

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
software that supports modern Internet standards.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-1077-1134314435-0001
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg

Usenet Beavis writes:

> On comp.mail.misc, in <1134266906.755107.73080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups=
..com>, "sean@areb.net" wrote:
>
>=20
> Send it to me.

You stupid Beavis. How did you know what his message said, if the body o=
f=20
the alleged message is â€=9Cnot downloadedâ€=9D?


> The spams that aren't deleted on the server will
> go straight to /dev/null and even then I won't ever know you
> tried to get your garbage into my mailboxes unless I check my
> logs. Which I rarely do.

As long as rarely is defined as "every time".

>=20
> http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
>=20

> [Note: it's not my fault that I'm a complete dumbass. I was dropped on =
my=20
> head as a child. See http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/alanconnor =
for=20
> more information]

FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.50)

This is a canonical list of questions that Beavis never answers. This FAQ =
is=20
posted on a semi-regular schedule, as circumstances warrant.

For more information on Beavis, see:

http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml

Although Beavis has been posting for a long time, he always remains silen=
t=20
on the subjects enumerated below. His response, if any, usually consists =
of=20
replying to the parent post with a loud proclamation that his Usenet-read=
ing=20
software runs a magical filter that automatically identifies anyone who's=20
making fun of him, and hides those offensive posts. For more information=20
see question #9 below.

==================== =====3D=
==================== =====3D=
==================== =====3D=
=3D

1) If your Challenge-Response spam filter works so well, why are you mung=
ing=20
your address, when posting to Usenet?

2) If spammers avoid forging real E-mail addresses on spam, then where do=20
all these bounces everyone reports getting (for spam with their return=20
address was forged onto) come from?

3) If your Challenge-Response filter is so great, why do you still munge=20
when posting to Usenet?

4) Do you still believe that rsh is the best solution for remote access?=20
(http://tinyurl.com/5qqb6)

5) What is your evidence that everyone who disagrees with you, and thinks=20
that you're a moron, is a spammer?

6) How many different individuals do you believe really post to=20
comp.mail.misc? What is the evidence for your paranoid belief that everyo=
ne,=20
except you, who posts here is some unknown arch-nemesis of yours?

7) How many times, or how often, do you believe is necessary to announce=20
that you do not read someone's posts? What is your reason for making the=
se=20
regularly-scheduled proclamations? Who do you believe is so interested i=
n=20
keeping track of your Usenet-reading habits?

8) When was the last time you saw Bigfoot (http://tinyurl.com/23r3f)?

9) If your C-R system employs a spam filter so that it won't challenge sp=
am,=20
then why does any of the mail that passes the filter, and is thusly presu=
med=20
not to be spam, need to be challenged?

10) You claim that the software you use to read Usenet magically identifi=
es=20
any post that makes fun of you. In http://tinyurl.com/3swes you explain=20
that "What I get in my newsreader is a mock post with fake headers and no=20
body, except for the first parts of the Subject and From headers."

Since your headers indicate that you use slrn and, as far as anyone knows=
,=20
the stock slrn doesn't work that way, is this interesting patch to slrn=20
available for download anywhere?

11) You regularly post alleged logs of your procmail recipe autodeleting =
a=20
bunch of irrelevant mail that you've received. Why, and who exactly do y=
ou=20
believe is interested in your mail logs?

12) How exactly do you "enforce" an "order" to stay out of your mailbox,
supposedly (http://tinyurl.com/cs8jt)? Since you issue this "order" abou=
t
every week, or so, apparently nobody wants to follow it. What are you go=
ing
to do about it?

13) What's with your fascination with shit? (also http://tinyurl.com/cs8j=
t)?

14) You complain about some arch-nemesis of yours always posting forged
messages in your name. Can you come up with even a single URL, as an exa=
mple
of what you're talking about?

15) You always complain about some mythical spammers that pretend to be
spamfighters (http://tinyurl.com/br4td). Who exactly are those people, a=
nd
can you post a copy of a spam that you supposedly received from them, tha=
t
proves that they're really spammers, and not spamfighters?


--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-1077-1134314435-0001
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDnEPDx9p3GYHlUOIRAlEGAJ4jApY0tctNGgTYD4IbQmGh/LHLwQCe KWX3
/G5vY46tTiKHZBYed7UezK4=
=rue0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-1077-1134314435-0001--

Re: FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.50) (was Re: Reccomendatio

Sam wrote:
> Usenet Beavis writes:
>
> > On comp.mail.misc, in <1134266906.755107.73080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "sean@areb.net" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Send it to me.
>
> You stupid Beavis. How did you know what his message said, if the body of
> the alleged message is ?not downloaded??

You'll have to do better than that. After all, the "Subject:" which is
not in the body, said "Subject: Re: Reccomendations for sending bulk or
mass email", so whether you/I/'we' like it or not, you haven't proven
that he downloaded/read the body.

[rest deleted]

Re: FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.50) (was Re: Reccomendatio

Frank Slootweg wrote on 12 Dec 2005 11:14:06 GMT:

Frank, would you send me your email address, please?

> [rest deleted]

What do you mean. There's _no_ rest for the wicked!

--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").