Can we put the FREE!!! Myth to bed?

Really. Single words in the subject line don’t hurt your delivery, despite many, many, many blog posts out there saying they do. Filters just don’t work that way. They maybe, sorta, kinda used to, but we’ve gotten way past that now.
In fact, I can prove it. Recently I received an email from Blizzard. The subject line:
Laura — Last Chance to Claim Your FREE Copy of Warlords of Draenor — Including Level 90 Boost! Offer Expires Monday! Last Chance to Claim Your FREE Copy of Warlords of Draenor — Including Level 90 Boost! Offer Ends Monday!
We have an email with

… two instances of FREE in all caps

… 4 different exclamation points

… Offer Expires

… Last Chance

… Unsubscribe

all right there in the subject line.
And what does Spamassassin say about the mail?

X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.193 tagged_above=-999
required=6.31 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.556, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE=-2,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.428, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
autolearn_force=no

See that first line? X-Spam-Flag: NO
See the next line: score=-7.193. Notice the negative? That’s almost 14 points less than what is needed for our installation of SpamAssassin to mark a message as spam.
Words in the subject line are not used for filtering in any sane filter.
Exclamation marks don’t trigger filters. 
FREE does not trigger filters. 
It’s time to retire the myth that spam filters pay any special attention to the subject line. They don’t. In fact, to a mail server the Subject line is just another bit of content. One that is only special because it starts with a defined field name (Subject), has a colon and contains a line terminated by CRLF. In fact, a subject line isn’t required for an email.

The only required header fields are the origination date field and the originator address field(s). All other header fields are syntactically optional. More information is contained in the table following this definition. Section 3.6, RFC5322

Section 3.6, RFC5322

Filters don’t treat the subject line any differently than the rest of the email content.
(For the Horde.)

Related Posts

Horses, not zebras

I was first introduced to the maxim “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras” when I worked in my first molecular biology lab 20-some-odd years ago. I’m no longer a gene jockey, but I still find myself applying this to troubleshooting delivery problems for clients.
It’s not that I think all delivery problems are caused by “horses”, or that “zebras” never cause problems for email delivery. It’s more that there are some very common causes of delivery problems and it’s a more effective use of time to address those common problems before getting into the less common cases.
This was actually something that one of the mailbox provider reps said at M3AAWG in SF last month. They have no problem with personal escalations when there’s something unusual going on. But, the majority of issues can be handled through the standard channels.
What are the horses I look for with delivery problems.

Read More

Are you blocking yourself?

One thing that catches me up with clients sometimes is their own spam filters block their own content. It happens. In some cases the client is using an appliance. The client’s reputation is bad enough that the appliance actually blocks mail. Often these clients have no idea they are blocking their own mail, until we try and send them something and the mail is rejected.
stop_at
Typically, the issue is their domains are the problem. We mention the domains in email, and the filters do what filters do. We work around this by abbreviating the domains or calling, it’s not a big deal.
It’s a great demonstration of content filters, though. The content (the client’s domain) is blocked even when it comes from an IP with a good reputation. In fact, with Gmail I can often tell “how bad” a domain reputation is. Most mail I send from WttW to my gmail address goes to the inbox, even when the client is reporting bulk foldering at Gmail. But every once in a while a domain has such a bad reputation that any mail mentioning that domain goes to bulk.
Most folks in the deliverability space know the big players in the filtering market: Barracuda, Cloudmark, ProofPoint, etc. Those same people have no idea what filters their company uses and have never even really thought about it.
Do you know what filter your company is using to protect employees from spam?
 
 
 

Read More

Dodging filters makes for effective spamming

Spam is still 80 – 90% of global email volume, depending on which study look at. Most of that spam doesn’t make it to the inbox; ISPs reject a lot of it during the SMTP transaction and put much of rest of it in the bulk folder. But as the volumes of spam have grown, ISPs and filters are relying more and more on automation. Gone are the days when a team of people could manually review spam and tune filters. There’s just too much of it out there for it to be cost effective to manually review filters.
In some ways, though, automatic filters are easier to avoid than manual filters. Take a spam that I received at multiple addresses today. It’s an advertisement for lists to “meet my marketing needs.” I started out looking at this mail to walk readers through all of the reasons I distrusted this mail. But some testing, the same sorts of testing I do for client mails, told me that this mail was making it to the inbox at major ISPs.
What told me this mail was spam? Let’s look at the evidence.
listsellingspam_thumb

Read More