Just give it up already

I have a mail system totally separate from my inbox to use when I’m testing signup forms. Some of them are client, some of them are vendors my clients are thinking about using. In any case, it’s mail I’m seriously concerned won’t stop just by me opting out of it.
The server hosting that mail system has been flakey lately, and needs to be hard power cycled to make it come back. We had a major power glitch this morning and so ended up down at the colo and power cycled that box while we were there.
This box was last working February 4th. It’s been off the internet for almost 2 months now. It wasn’t answering on port 25. It was dead. No mail here. And, yet, a bunch of legitimate email marketers are still attempting to send those addresses mail.
Really. Dead for 2 months and the senders keep trying to mail to those addresses. The server came back about 2 1/2 hours ago. I already have 6 emails from two different senders.
Seriously. If you can’t deliver a mail to someone for TWO MONTHS just give it up already. I am sad that even companies that get the best advice I can give them still can’t get the simple things right.
And, really, don’t argue “but it came back! Clearly we should keep trying!” Yes, it came back. But in all the years I’ve had this disposable email system I have not opened a single image. I’ve not purchased a single thing. I’ve never shown any sign of life on any of those addresses. The mailserver has been down for months at a time. There is no value to continuing to send mail to those addresses. And, yet, people still do it.
Why? WHY!?

News about the Rustock takedown
Does your unsubscribe process work? Are you sure?

Related Posts

Relevance or Permission

One of the discussions that surrounds email marketing is whether relevance trumps permission or permission trumps relevance. I believe this entire discussion is built on a false dichotomy.
Sending relevant email is important. Not only do recipients expect mail to be relevant, but the ISPs often make delivery decisions on how relevant their users find your mail. Marketers that send too much irrelevant mail find themselves struggling to get inbox placement.
Permission makes sending relevant mail all that much easier. Sure, really good marketers can probably collect, purchase, beg, borrow and steal enough information to know that their unsolicited email is relevant. But how many marketers are actually that good?
My experience suggest that most marketers aren’t that good. They don’t segment their permission based lists to send relevant mail. They’re certainly not going to segment their non-permission based lists to send relevant mail.
Macy’s, for instance, decided that I would find their Bloomingdales mail relevant. I didn’t, and unsubscribed from both publications, after registering a complaint with their ESP. Had Macy’s asked about sending me Bloomies mail I wouldn’t have opted-in, but I probably wouldn’t have unsubbed from Macy’s mail, too.
So what’s your stand? Does relevance trump permission? Or does permission trump relevance? How much relevant, unsolicited mail do you get? How much irrelevant permission based mail do you get? And what drives you to unsubscribe from a permission based list?

Read More

20% of email doesn't make it to the inbox

Return Path released their global delivery report for the second half of 2009. To put together the report, they look at mail delivery to the Mailbox Monitor accounts at 131 different ISPs for 600,000+ sends. In the US, 20% of the email sent by Mailbox Monitor customers to Return Path seed accounts doesn’t make it to the inbox. In fact, 16% of the email just disappears.
I’ve blogged in the past about previous Return Path deliverability studies. The recommendations and comments in those previous posts still apply. Senders must pay attention to engagement, permission, complaints and other policy issues. But none of those things really explain why email is missing.
Why is so much mail disappearing? It doesn’t match with the philosophy of the ISPs. Most ISPs do their best to deliver email that they accept and I don’t really expect that ISPs are starting to hard block so many Return Path customers in the middle of a send. The real clue came looking at the Yahoo numbers. Yahoo is one of those ISPs that does not delete mail they have accepted, but does slow down senders. Other ISPs are following Yahoo’s lead and using temporary failures as a way to regulate and limit email sent by senders with poor to inadequate reputations. They aren’t blocking the senders outright, but they are issuing lots of 4xx “come back later” messages.
What is supposed to happen when an ISP issues a 4xx message during the SMTP transaction is that email should be queued and retried. Modern bulk MTAs (MessageSystems, Port25, Strongmail) allow senders to fine tune bounce handling, and designate how many times an email is retried, even allowing no retries on a temporary failure.
What if the missing mail is a result of senders aggressively handling 4xx messages? Some of the companies I’ve consulted for delete email addresses from mailing lists after 2 or 3 4xx responses. Other companies only retry for 12 – 24 hours and then the email is treated as hard bounced.
Return Path is reporting this as a delivery failure, and the tone of discussion I’m seeing seems to be blaming ISPs for overly aggressive spamfiltering. I don’t really think it’s entirely an ISP problem, though. I think it is indicative of poor practices on the part of senders. Not just the obvious permission and engagement issues that many senders deal with, but also poor policy on handling bounces. Perhaps the policy is fine, but the implementation doesn’t reflect the stated policy. Maybe they’re relying on defaults from their MTA vendor.
In any case, this is yet another example of how senders are in control of their delivery problems. Better bounce handling for temporary failures would lower the amount of email that never makes it to the ISP. This isn’t sufficient for 100% inbox placement, but if the email is never handed off to the ISP it is impossible for that email to make it to the inbox.

Read More

Change is required

I get a lot of calls from senders who tell me that they have not changed what they were doing, but all of a sudden their mail isn’t performing the way it used to. Sometimes it’s simply less effective marketing, but more often than not the issue is mail being blocked or filtered to the bulk folder.
What worked today won’t work tomorrow. Spammers are forever evolving new techniques to get past spam filters. ISPs are forever evolving new techniques to stop them.
One of the current driving forces for spam filter development is focused on the individual recipients. Recipient wants and needs are king in the world of ISP mail filtering. Much of that is driven by the underlying business models of the free ISPs. They are selling eyeballs to their advertisers and that relies on keeping as many eyeballs around for as long as possible.
An early version of the recipient driven filtering was “add to your address book” where individual users could over ride ISP delivery decisions by actively adding a From: address to their address book. The ISPs have been refining this over time. For instance, if you reply to an email in some clients, you are prompted to add that address to your address books. If you take an email out of your bulk folder and move it to your inbox then that address is automatically added to your address book.
But the refinements haven’t stopped there. ISPs are now making smart decisions about what emails a particular recipient will want to receive. This raises a number of challenges to senders. How do you send email to ten thousand or a hundred thousand or a million people and make it relevant to all of them?
Smart senders will take the individual delivery challenge in stride. They will change along with the ISPs, to send mail that their recipients want to receive. Change is inevitable and required.

Read More