Ask Laura: Should we allow tagged addresses?

AmsCanal1

Hi Laura,
First of all, I’d like to thank you for the amazing blog. It helps me a lot and I have much fun to read it.
Now I have a question to the google alias addresses.
As you must have known, Google offers alias addresses and you can put any thing between the local part and @gmail.com with a “+” sign
What do you think, what should the onlineshops deal with such address for newsletters?
Should they be acceptable globally? Even “+trash”? Or better we do not use it?
Thanks in advance and best wishes from Germany.
Trash the Tags

Hi, Tags
Thanks for your kind words and for being a loyal blog reader.
Tagged addresses are a subject near and dear to my heart. I’ve been using tagged addresses for almost 20 years now and I love how they help me manage my incoming email and my online identity. I have found so many advantages to using tagged addresses, I can’t imagine ever not using them.

  • Tagged addresses let me filter mail effectively. In this case, they make sure I don’t lose mail I want. Every few weeks I go through my inbox and look at what tags are delivering there. I pull them out and update my filters so those messages will bypass spam assassin and my mail client filters and be delivered exactly where I want them to be. Newsletters go into one folder, marketing goes into another, social media notifications go into a third, different mailing lists go into their respective folders. I could not do this as effectively as I do without tags.
  • Tagged addresses let me identify phishing. All of my online accounts have tagged addresses. If I get mail “from” that online service and it’s not to that tagged address I know it’s not legitimate and I should not give them any information or click any links.
  • Tagged addresses let me keep an eye on spam. There are tagged addresses that I used and stopped using for various reasons. Some were scraped from websites, some were leaked by vendors, others were stolen from ESPs, the list goes on. If I get messages to certain groups of addresses I can monitor a small part of the spam ecosystem. I can see who is scraping the web, buying stolen lists, or other nefarious behavior.

To answer your question, I absolutely think that tagged addresses should be globally acceptable, even when they’re things like +trash. This goes back to senders respecting recipients and being aware that email is a very personal way of interacting with customers. You’re entering their home and their inbox, treat the space with respect.
When people hand over email addresses, the permission that they’re giving you is tied directly to that email address. Permission isn’t transitive. While it may sound appealing, stripping the tag is the same as creating a different address for that person. It’s not a good idea to assume you know better about that person than they do.
You can think about it as compared to phone numbers. I contact your sales team and ask some questions. I leave my work number for followup discussions. An aggressive sales person decides that he isn’t satisfied with talking to me during business hours. Instead, he goes out and discovers my home phone number. Now he starts calling me at home at dinner time to discuss his offer.  Most folks would consider that extremely rude, right? Same thing with tagged addresses. I gave you this address to contact me, don’t make changes to it or attempt to contact me at another address.
The other thing to think about is that often folks who use tagged addresses are the most sensitive to spam. They’re reasonably technically savvy, enough to know tagged addresses are a thing and how to use them. If you strip the tag they are not going to treat it very well. I know for me, whenever I get a message to an untagged address I immediately view it as spam. If someone is mailing an untagged address they don’t have permission and they’re spamming. If I received mail at a provider with a “this is spam” button I would hit it. That dings the sender’s reputation and, if enough people do it, can affect inbox delivery.
Respect the tags,
Laura

Related Posts

Do system administrators have too much power?

Yesterday, Laura brought a thread from last week to my attention, and the old-school ISP admin and mail geek in me felt the need to jump up and say something in response to Paul’s comment. My text here is all my own, and is based upon personal experience as well as those of my friends. That said, I’m not speaking on their behalf, either. 🙂
I found Paul’s use of the word ‘SysAdmin’ to be a mighty wide (and — in my experience — probably incorrect) brush to be painting with, particularly when referring to operations at ISPs with any significant number of mailboxes. My fundamental opposition to use of the term comes down to this: It’s no longer 1998.
The sort of rogue (or perhaps ‘maverick’) behavior to which you refer absolutely used to be a thing, back when a clean 56k dial-up connection was the stuff of dreams and any ISP that had gone through the trouble to figure out how to get past the 64k user limit in the UNIX password file was considered both large and technically competent. Outside of a few edge cases, I don’t know many system administrators these days who are able to (whether by policy or by access controls) — much less want to — make such unilateral deliverability decisions.
While specialization may be for insects, it’s also inevitable whenever a system grows past a certain point. When I started in the field, there were entire ISPs that were one-man shows (at least on the technical side). This simply doesn’t scale. Eventually, you start breaking things up into departments, then into services, then teams assigned to services, then parts of services assigned to teams, and back up the other side of the mountain, until you end up with a whole department whose job it is to run one component of one service.
For instance, let’s take inbound (just inbound) email. It’s not uncommon for a large ISP to have several technical teams responsible for the processing of mail being sent to their users:

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

Facebook blocking spam: parallels to email filtering

Last month a Dangerous Minds posted numbers that indicated their Facebook posts were reaching fewer users.  They suggested that this was a conspiracy by Facebook to make more money and soak small publishers with “exorbitant” advertising fees. I didn’t pay that much attention to it. I use Facebook to communicate with friends. The only commercial entities I “like” or are “friends” with are small local businesses that I shop at.
Today, I see a tweet from Ben Chestnut that looked intriguing.

Read More