Politics and Delivery

Last week I posted some deliverability advice for the DNC based on their acquisition of President Obama’s 2012 campaign database. Paul asked a question on that post that I think is worth some attention.

I am fascinated by the ramifications of email deliverability for political donations.
Are there sysadmins at the big ISPs who make human decisions on deliverability issues anymore? The power they have to make one candidate’s mail get delivered over another candidate’s mail is enormous. Paul Rydell

There are a lot of issues inside his questions, all of which deserve some discussion.
The first is who makes deliverability decisions inside ISPs. My experience is that it isn’t really sysadmins who do that. Even in the early days (late 90s) most of the delivery decisions were made by someone other than the sysadmins, at least at the big consumer ISPs. In the early 2000s most blocking decisions were handled by humans, making decisions based on data from their internal tools. As the tools became better, the decisions were handled automatically. By the mid to late 2000s, many systems were handling blocks and bans without a human having to review and allow them.
I don’t believe at most of the consumer ISPs and webmail providers that there is any single person with the authority to block mail. There are multiple people who are permitted to block mail that meets the criteria for blocking. But, those criteria are based on performance, not based on message. I’ve written about this many times before. (The Perils of Politics, Censorship, Email and Politics, They’re not blocking you because they hate you, It really can be your email, More on Truthout, Another perspective on the politico article).
There’s also an implication that one person “a sysadmin” shouldn’t have the ability to make decisions about what traffic is OK and what traffic isn’t. Except that’s exactly how it is. Sysadmins have a lot of access to our private data. Some of them can even read our email. Many sysadmins, particularly those who herd large numbers of machines, are very careful about respecting recipient needs, wants and privacy. I was once working with a friend who was a sysadmin at supernews to try and troubleshoot some USENET problems I was having. He made very sure to get direct permission from me to actually look at my account and log information.
Do I think every sysadmin is a bastion of integrity? Of course not. No group of people is perfect all the time. But I do think those individuals who have the power to block messages “follow the rules” when making blocking decisions. Those rules are written by the ISP management team, and people who block traffic have to answer to their manager (and manager’s manager) when they violate the internal processes and block things for reasons that are not behavior based. Everyone who has the power to block mail has a management chain that enforces behavior based blocking.
Then there’s the complexity of what a sysadmin is and what their job is. I asked Mary, who was a sysadmin at a giant consumer ISP in the late 90s, to talk about her experiences as a sysadmin and blocking issues.
Finally, there’s an implication that ISPs have a responsibility to accept and deliver every piece of email sent to them. It’s been established case law, for almost 20 years now, that ISPs do not have to accept and deliver every piece of mail (Cyberpromo v. AOL). If recipients are complaining about mail, there is no obligation for the ISP to deliver it.
Now, Paul and I have had these discussions before. We’ve worked together to address deliverability challenges for political mailers. Some of that work inspired some of my earlier posts on political mail and blocking. A lot of people really believe that email is a public channel, after all most of the public can use it. But it’s not a public channel. Most of the internet, in fact, is privately owned. The owners have a lot of authority to only allow certain traffic on their networks, and blocking email is in that realm of authority.

Related Posts

The long tail of domains

I frequently get clients telling me that they have about 15 (20, 30) major domains on their list, and then a long tail of domains with only a couple of recipients. If you sort simply by the left hand side of the @, that’s true.
When you’re sending email, it’s not just the domain in the email address that is important. Of equal importance is the MX. The MX is what actually handles the mail and where many filters are applied. Sorting by MX, instead of simply recipient domain, can identify that most of your small business clients are hosted at a particular provider. The number of subscribers behind that filter may be enough to push that filter into your top 10 or even top 5 recipient domains.
There’s a much smaller tail when grouping recipients by MX domain. It makes it much easier to understand where blocks are happening. I have even seen cases where clients didn’t realize they were blocked at a commercial provider because they only saw the “onesie twosie” domains as undeliverable. They missed a real problem with blocking because they were looking at the wrong data.
I sometimes get the side eye from some ISP folks if I use the term receiver (because, well, they’re senders as much as they are receivers). But I use receiver to help distinguish between the recipient domain and the actual domain handling the email.
When was the last time you looked at your delivery by filter or MX rather than by recipient domain? What did you find?

Read More

Email filtering: not going away.

VirusBlockI don’t do a whole lot of filtering of comments here. There are a couple people who are moderated, but generally if the comments contribute to a discussion they get to be posted. I do get the occasional angry or incoherent comment. And sometimes I get a comment that is triggers me to write an entire blog post pointing out the problems with the comment.
Today a comment from Joe King showed up for The Myth of the Low Complaint Rate.

Read More

Content based filtering

Content filtering is often hard to explain to people, and I’m not sure I’ve yet come up with a good way to explain it.
A lot of people think content reputation is about specific words in the message. The traditional content explanation is that words like “Free” or too many exclamation points in the subject line are bad and will be filtered. But it’s not the words that are the issue it’s that the words are often found in spam. These days filters are a lot smarter than to just look at individual words, they look at the overall context of the message.
ISP_tolerances
Even when we’re talking content filters, the content is just a way to identify mail that might cause problems. Those problems are evaluated the same way IP reputation is measured: complaints, engagement, bad addresses. But there’s a lot more to content filtering than just the engagement piece. What else is part of content evaluation?

Read More