I do not think that means what you think it means

Yesterday, I looked at the analysis of ESP delivery done by Mr. Geake. Today we’ll look at some of his conclusions.
“Being blacklisted most likely suggests that sender IP either sends out to a great deal of unknown or angry recipients.” That’s not how most blocklists work. Most blocklists are driven by spam traps or by the personal mailboxes of the list maintainers. The only blocklist that took requests from the public was the old MAPS RBL, and I don’t believe that is the case any longer.
Blocking at ISPs is often a sign of sending out a lot of mail to unknown or angry / unengaged recipients. But most ISPs don’t make their lists public. Some allow anyone to look up IP addresses, and if we had the IPs we could check. But we don’t, so we can’t.
“[…] if you share this IP with Phones4U then only 62% of your emails will be accepted by a recipient’s email server. That’s before they hit the junk filter. I wouldn’t want to pay for that.” This conclusion relies on the Sender Score “accepted rate” number. Accepted Rate is a figure I don’t rely on for much. I’ve never been able to reconcile this number with what client logs tell me about accepted rate. For instance, I have one IP address that has a 4.4% acceptance rate. But I know that 19 out of 20 emails from this IP do not bounce. In fact, it’s rare to see any mail from this IP bounce.
The one thing that Mr. Geake gets right, in all of this, is that if you’re on a shared IP address with a poor sender, then you share that sender’s reputation. Their reputation can hurt your delivery.
But a dedicated IP isn’t always your best bet, either.  Smaller senders may not have the volume or frequency required to develop and keep a good reputation on an static IP. In these cases, sharing an IP address with similar senders may actually increase delivery.
For some senders outsourcing the email expertise is a better use of resources than dedicating a person to managing email delivery. For other senders, bringing mail in house and investing in staff to manage email marketing is better.
Tomorrow: how do you really evaluate an ESP?

Twisting information around
Just go read here…

Related Posts

Blocklist BCP

As many of you may be aware there is a draft document working its way through the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) discussing best common practices for blocklists. The IRTF is a parallel organization to the IETF and is charged with long term research related to the Internet. The Anti-Spam Working Group was chartered to investigate tools and techniques for dealing with spam.
Recently the ASRG posted a draft of a best practices document aimed at those running blocklists (draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07). This document has been under development for many years. The authors have used this document to share their experiences with running blocklists and their knowledge of what works and what doesn’t.
Best practices documents are never easy to write and consensus can be difficult. But I think that the authors did a good job capturing what the best practices are for blocklists. I do support the document in principle and, in fact, support many of the specific statements and practices outlined there. As with any best practices documents it’s not perfect but overall it reflects the current best practices for blocklists.
Ken Magill’s article about the BCP
Anti-Abuse buzz article about the BCP

Read More

Twisting information around

One of my mailing lists was asking questions today about an increase in invitation mailings from Spotify. I’d heard about them recently, so I started digging through my mailbox to see if I’d received one of these invites. I hadn’t, but it clued me into a blog post from early this year that I hadn’t seen before.
Research: ESPs might get you blacklisted.
That article is full of FUD, and the author quite clearly doesn’t understand what the data he is relying on means. He also doesn’t provide us with enough information that we can repeat what he did.
But I think his take on the publicly available data is common. There are a lot of people who don’t quite understand what the public data means or how it is collected. We can use his post as a starting off point for understanding what publicly available data tells us.
The author chooses 7 different commercial mailers as his examples. He claims the data on these senders will let us evaluate ESPs, but these aren’t ESPs. At best they’re ESP customers, but we don’t know that for sure. He claims that shared IPs means shared reputation, which is true. But he doesn’t claim that these are shared IPs. In fact, I would bet my own reputation on Pizza Hut having dedicated IP addresses.
The author chooses 4 different publicly available reputation services to check the “marketing emails” against. I am assuming he means he checked the sending IP addresses because none of these services let you check emails.
He then claims these 4 measures

Read More

Blocklist changes

Late last year we wrote about the many problems with SORBS. One of the results of that series of posts was a discussion between a lot of industry professionals and GFI executives. A number of problems were identified with SORBS, some that we didn’t mention on the blog. There was an open and free discussion about solutions.
A few months ago, there were a bunch of rumors that GFI had divested themselves from SORBS. There were also rumors that SORBS was purchased by Proofpoint. Based on publicly available information many of us suspected that GFI was no longer involved in SORBS. Yet other information suggested that Proofpoint may truly have been the purchaser.
This week those rumors were confirmed.

Read More