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

Marketing reports

Two marketing reports were reviewed today in other blogs.
Stefan Pollard writes at the Merkle report showing that recipients really will add a sender’s address to their address book, but that they are picky about which senders they do this for. His article also provides a number of suggestions for how to be a sender that is added to the address book.
Meanwhile, Matt Vernhout discusses the Retail Welcome Email Benchmark Study published by Smith Harmon. Unsurprisingly, the study found that welcome emails were very important to future deliverability.
Happy Friday!

Read More

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

Reputation

Reputation is the buzzword in delivery these days. Everyone talks about building a good reputation and how to do it. Makes sense, the ISPs are always hammering on reputation and how critical reputation is. The more I talk with delivery folks on the ESP side of thing, the move I realize that there is a fundamental disconnect between what the ESPs mean when they say reputation and what the ISPs mean when they say reputation.
Many people handling delivery think that the bulk of reputation is wrapped up in complaint rates and bounce rates. I think they know the ISPs measure more than just complaints and bounces (spamtraps!) but really believe that most of developing a good reputation is all about keeping those complaints low.
This perspective may have been true in the past, but is becoming less true as time goes on. There are a lot of very smart people managing incoming mail at the ISPs and they are constantly looking for ways to better meet the desires of their customers. Lest we forget, their customers are not the senders, their customers are the end users. Their customers are not senders.
Part of meeting the needs of end users means actually giving them a way to provide feedback. AOL started the trend with the this-is-spam button, and other ISPs (ones that controlled the user interface at least) followed suit. For a very long time, reputation was dominated by complaint percentages, with modifiers for number of spamtrap addresses and number of non-existent users.
The problem is, these numbers were easy to game. Spammers could modify their metrics such that their email would end up in the inbox. In response, the ISPs started measuring things other than complaints, bounces and spamtraps. These other measurements are strong modifiers to complaints, such that mailers with what used to be acceptable complaint rates are seeing their mail end up bulked or even rejected.
Recently, AOL seems to have made some subtle modifications to their reputation scores. The result is mailers who have previously acceptable complaint rates are seeing delivery problems. When asked, AOL is only saying that it is a reputation issue. Lots of senders are trying to figure out what it is that is more important than complaints.
Tomorrow, I will talk about what I think AOL could be measuring.

Read More