Blocked for phishing

A couple clients recently have had bounces from different places indicating that their mails were caught by the recipients’ anti-virus filter. These are some of my better clients sending out daily newsletters. They’ve been mailing for years and I know that they are not phishing. They asked me to investigate the bounce messages.
The information I had to work with was minimal. One bounce said:

The AntiVirus server has detected the Phishing.Heuristics.Email.SpoofedDomain virus in an email sent to you, allegedly sent by bounces*@customer.example.com. This email address may, or may not, be the originating source, as some viruses can hijack address books and in turn, send email with any of those addresses. Please take note that this virus has been destroyed and this email is a notification of virus activity and is itself virus free.

The other bounce said:

The message senders were
bounce*@bounce.example.com
Today@example.com.com

and they have been notified that they have sent a potential virus.
The message title was Customer: Subject line from email. The message date was Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:16:13 – The virus or unauthorized code identified in the email is >>> Possible MalWare ‘Exploit/Phishing-amazon-04ee’ found in ‘5832897_2X_PM2_EMQ_MH__message.htm’. Heuristics score: 202
The real clue came when I looked at the emails that triggered the bounce. In both cases, my clients were linking to Amazon.com with a re-director link. There are many filters out there that look at the visible text of a link and compare it with the link target. If the link points to one domain like a re-director but the visible text points to another, this may trigger some spam or virus filters to intercept the email.
My experience suggests this happens more often when the domain used in the visible text is one of those domains that are heavily phished: amazon.com, ebay.com, bank websites, etc. The solution is to not include a domain name in the visible text portion of a link. Instead of “Go buy the DVDs at <a href=”http://www.example.com/linkdomain/”>Amazon.com</a>,” change the link to “Go <a href=”http://www.example.com/linkdomain/”>buy the DVDs</a> at Amazon.com.”  Same content, same call to action, but no chance of the email getting caught in a phish filter.

Related Posts

Winning friends and removing blocks

I do a lot of negotiating with blocklists and ISPs on behalf of my clients and recently was dealing with two incidents. What made this so interesting to me was how differently the clients approached the negotiations.
In one case, a client had a spammer slip onto their system. As a result the client was added to the SBL. The client disconnected the customer, got their IP delisted from the SBL and all was good until the spammer managed to sweet talk the new abuse rep into turning his account back on. Predictably, he started spamming again and the SBL relisted the IP.
My client contacted me and asked me to intercede with Spamhaus. I received a detailed analysis of what happened, how it happened and how they were addressing the issue to prevent it happening in the future. I relayed the info to Spamhaus, the block was lifted and things are all back to normal.
Contrast that with another client dealing with widespread blocking due to a reputation problem. Their approach was to ask the blocking entity which clients they needed to disconnect in order to fix the problem. When the blocking entity responded, the customer disconnected the clients and considered the issue closed. They didn’t look at the underlying issues that caused the reputation problems, nor did they look at how they could prevent this in the future. They didn’t evaluate the customers they disconnected to identify where their processes failed.
The first client took responsibility for their problems, looked at the issues and resolved things without relying on Spamhaus to tell them how to fix things. Even though they had a problem, and is statistically going to have the occasional problem in the future, this interaction was very positive for them. Their reputation with the Spamhaus volunteers is improved because of their actions.
The second client didn’t do any of that. And the people they were dealing with at the blocking entity know it. Their reputation with the people behind the blocking entity was not improved by their actions.
These two clients are quite representative of what I’ve seen over the years. Some senders see blocking as a sign that somehow, somewhere there is a flaw in their process and a sign they need to figure out how to fix it. Others see blocking as an inconvenience. Their only involvement is finding out the minimum they need to do to get unblocked, doing it and then returning to business as usual. Unsurprisingly, the first type of client has a much better delivery rate than the second.

Read More

Yahoo fixed erroneous rejection problem

Yahoo announced over the weekend that they fixed their rejection problem. It may take some time to filter out to all their MTAs, but they do believe the issue is resolved.

Read More

Links Post

Lifecycle Marketing on Bronto Blog. A good summary of issues in marketing to customers as they move through a relationship with recipients.
Blocked email: why me? on Cloudmark’s blog. A good introduction to blocking issues.
Tamara’s links for 4/16. She’s found a lot of good posts here, including multiple posts about unsubscribes and others on improving your email marketing program.
Speaking of unsubscribes, Loren McDonald discusses how the location of the unsubscribe link can affect reputation and email performance.

Read More