When large mail providers ignore abuse, everyone pays the price.
One of the biggest myths in email is that most spam comes from small hosting companies or "spam gangs." That is not what we see.
On our network, a large percentage of the spam, phishing attempts, and other unwanted email we receive originates from some of the biggest names in the industry, including Gmail, Outlook, and Aliyun. Day after day, these networks account for much of the abuse directed at our mail systems.
At some point, the industry needs to stop pretending this is someone else's problem.
These companies have enormous resources, massive engineering teams, and billions of dollars at their disposal. Yet the volume of abuse coming from their networks remains staggering. While they certainly take some action against bad actors, the results speak for themselves. The abuse continues, and the rest of the Internet is left to deal with it.
When a provider becomes known for generating large amounts of spam, mail operators have little choice but to respond. Filters become stricter. Reputation systems become more aggressive. More mail is delayed, flagged, or rejected. That is not because receiving networks want to make life difficult. It is because they are forced to protect their users.
Part of the problem is that some reputation providers give special treatment to the largest networks. If services such as Spamhaus or UCEPROTECT began listing abusive ranges from Gmail, Outlook, Aliyun, and other major providers using the same standards applied to everyone else, there would undoubtedly be backlash at first. However, it would also create pressure for those providers to address abuse more aggressively and improve the quality of traffic leaving their networks.
Instead, many large providers benefit from reputation advantages that smaller providers do not receive. That creates an uneven playing field where abuse from a major platform is often tolerated far longer than it would be from a smaller operator. In the long run, this does a disservice to the very community that relies on reputation systems to identify and reduce abuse.
The unfortunate result is that legitimate businesses become collateral damage. A company may be sending perfectly valid email, but if it is coming from a network with a poor reputation, delivery problems become more likely.
Reliable email delivery starts with responsible network management. Providers that are unwilling or unable to control abuse on their own networks should not be surprised when other mail operators treat their traffic with greater scrutiny.
If your business depends on email, choose your provider carefully. The cheapest or most popular option is not always the most reliable. A provider that takes abuse seriously and maintains a strong reputation will often deliver better results than a giant platform that allows spam to flow freely.
Reputation matters. Trust matters. Until the largest sources of abuse are held to the same standards as everyone else and take meaningful action to reduce the spam originating from their networks, delivery problems will continue to affect both the Internet and their own customers.
One of the biggest myths in email is that most spam comes from small hosting companies or "spam gangs." That is not what we see.
On our network, a large percentage of the spam, phishing attempts, and other unwanted email we receive originates from some of the biggest names in the industry, including Gmail, Outlook, and Aliyun. Day after day, these networks account for much of the abuse directed at our mail systems.
At some point, the industry needs to stop pretending this is someone else's problem.
These companies have enormous resources, massive engineering teams, and billions of dollars at their disposal. Yet the volume of abuse coming from their networks remains staggering. While they certainly take some action against bad actors, the results speak for themselves. The abuse continues, and the rest of the Internet is left to deal with it.
When a provider becomes known for generating large amounts of spam, mail operators have little choice but to respond. Filters become stricter. Reputation systems become more aggressive. More mail is delayed, flagged, or rejected. That is not because receiving networks want to make life difficult. It is because they are forced to protect their users.
Part of the problem is that some reputation providers give special treatment to the largest networks. If services such as Spamhaus or UCEPROTECT began listing abusive ranges from Gmail, Outlook, Aliyun, and other major providers using the same standards applied to everyone else, there would undoubtedly be backlash at first. However, it would also create pressure for those providers to address abuse more aggressively and improve the quality of traffic leaving their networks.
Instead, many large providers benefit from reputation advantages that smaller providers do not receive. That creates an uneven playing field where abuse from a major platform is often tolerated far longer than it would be from a smaller operator. In the long run, this does a disservice to the very community that relies on reputation systems to identify and reduce abuse.
The unfortunate result is that legitimate businesses become collateral damage. A company may be sending perfectly valid email, but if it is coming from a network with a poor reputation, delivery problems become more likely.
Reliable email delivery starts with responsible network management. Providers that are unwilling or unable to control abuse on their own networks should not be surprised when other mail operators treat their traffic with greater scrutiny.
If your business depends on email, choose your provider carefully. The cheapest or most popular option is not always the most reliable. A provider that takes abuse seriously and maintains a strong reputation will often deliver better results than a giant platform that allows spam to flow freely.
Reputation matters. Trust matters. Until the largest sources of abuse are held to the same standards as everyone else and take meaningful action to reduce the spam originating from their networks, delivery problems will continue to affect both the Internet and their own customers.