Yahoo Mail Deliverability FAQ Updated

Yahoo has updated their FAQ and listed out a number of factors they use to determine if a mail message is spam.

  • IP Address Reputation
  • URL Reputation
  • Domain Reputation
  • Sender Reputation
  • DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) signatures
  • DMARC authentication
  • Autonomous System Number (ASN) reputation

Autonomous System Number (ASN) is a globally unique number that is assigned to a group of IP networks operated by one or more network operators. Think of an ASN as having a unique number assigned to your neighborhood.  Your neighborhood would build a reputation based on the people who live there and what types of emails they send.
Even with positive sending history, users can still mark your messages as spam and that will affect your reputation too.  The key is to only send relevant mail to users who have opted-in and want that mail.
Yahoo also includes a number of actions senders can take to improve their delivery:

  1. Utilize the Yahoo Complaint Feedback Loop to automatically unsubscribe users who have marked your message as spam.
  2. Use separate IP addresses and mail streams for different type of content.
  3. Sign with DKIM. DKIM defines who is responsible for sending the message and has reputation tied to the DKIM domain.
  4. Be consistent with your mailings and watch for throttling.
  5. Don’t ignore the subject line. Email subject lines are important because users will make a decision based on them and if messages are being deleted without being read, that will hurt your sending reputation.
  6. Make sure you have PTR records setup for your sending IP addresses.

If your domain is prone to being spoofed, Yahoo does honor your DMARC policy.
h/t to Udeme for the heads up on the updated FAQ page!

Related Posts

Delivery and engagement

Tomorrow is the webinar Mythbusters: Deliverability vs. Engagement. This webinar brings together the ISP speakers from EEC15, plus Matt from Comcast, to expand on their comments. There’s been some confusion about the impact of engagement on delivery and whether or not senders should care about recipient engagement.
My opinion on the matter is well known: recipient engagement drives delivery to the inbox at some providers. I expect tomorrow we’ll hear a couple things from the ISPs.

Read More

Yahoo China Email Services Shut Down

Via mailing lists and Al Iverson’s Spamresource blog, Yahoo China domains (yahoo.com.cn and yahoo.cn) are no longer accepting email.  Yahoo announced in April of 2013 they are shutting down their email services in August of the same year and advises users to create new accounts with Alibana.  While the domains still have valid MX records, they are no longer accepting mail.  There is no direct mapping from Yahoo China addresses to Alimail (Alibana’s email service).
When attempting to send emails to these two domains, the reject will be a “550 relaying denied” message.  Now would be a good time to update your lists and remove any yahoo.com.cn and yahoo.cn addresses.

Read More

How to send better emails: engagement

Today Direct Marketing News hosted a webinar: ISP Mythbusters: How to Send Better Emails. The speakers were Matt Moleski, the Executive Director of Compliance Operations from Comcast and Autumn Tyr-Salvia, the Director Of Standards And Best Practices from Message Systems.
The webinar went through a series of myths. After Autumn introduced the myth, Matt commented on it and explained why the statement was, or was not, a myth. Throughout the webinar, Matt clearly explained what does, and does not, get mail delivered. Don’t let the Comcast after Matt’s name fool you. He is very active in different fora and discusses filtering strategies with experts across the ISP industry. His insight and knowledge is broadly applicable. In fact, many of the things Matt said today were things I’ve heard other ISPs say over and over again.
One of the very first things he said was that ISPs want to deliver mail their customers want. They want to give customers the best inbox experience possible and that means delivering mails customers want and keeping out mails customers don’t. He also pointed out that recipients complain to the ISPs when they lose wanted mail, perhaps even more than they complain about spam.
He also touched on the topic of engagement. His message was that absolutely engagement does matter for inbox delivery and that engagement is going to matter more and more as filtering continues to evolve. There has been some discussion recently about whether or not engagement is an issue, with some people claiming that some ISP representatives said engagement doesn’t matter. The reality is, that engagement does matter and Matt’s words today only reinforce and clarify that message.
Matt did say is that ISPs and senders have a bit of a disconnect when they are speaking about engagement. ISPs look at engagement on the “macro” level. They’re looking to see if users delete a mail without reading it, file it into a folder, mark it spam or mark it not spam. Senders and marketers look at engagement on a much more finite level and look at interactions with the specific emails and links in the email.
When discussing the relationship between senders and ISPs, he pointed out that both senders and ISPs have the same goal: to personalize the customer experience and to give customers a great experience. As part of this, ISPs are mostly aligned when it comes to blocking principles, but each ISP responds slightly differently. ISPs do adhere to best practices for handling incoming email, but those practices are implemented based on the individual company  and handles incoming mail in ways that better supports their company specifically.
Matt talked about Comcast’s Postmaster pages and says they try to give feedback to senders before putting a block in place. He mentions that invalid recipients and poor list hygiene as the fastest way to be blocked or throttled when sending to Comcast. He also said that the core filtering rules at Comcast are static. Changes are mostly “tweaks around the edges.”
During the Q&A portion, Matt took a number of questions from the audience.

Read More