Is purging always effective?

 

Dear Laura,
I sometimes get in arguments with clients where I say, “your open rate is 3%, you need to do some list pruning” and they say, “my recipient list is 100% b2b, and b2b filters don’t care about engagement, so it doesn’t matter if my list is really old and unengaged.” This is wrong in cases where the business is using Outlook or Gsuite, both of which are going to care if they see no-one opening your messages, but what about all the corporate domains using barracuda, mimecast, or even proofpoint? Is engagement a factor with these filters? Do they care if you are sending to a list that is not opening your messages?
Sincerely,
Not a Fighter

Dear Not a Fighter,
As with most answers related to deliverability, details matter. You are correct that many businesses are now hosting their email at Office365 and Gmail. Both of these organizations have filters that do measure engagement and use that information to make decisions on where to deliver email. From what I’ve observed, though, mail is still handled differently
The clearest example of this for the same filter using different inputs is is the SCL (spam confidence level) and BCL (bulk confidence level) used by Microsoft. Every message coming into Microsoft’s MXs gets a SCL and a BCL score. However, one score is used solely for filtering of Office365 mail and the other is used for filtering of consumer webmail.
Your clients are right, though, about other business filters like mimecast, barracuda and proofpoint not monitoring engagement. They don’t. There are multiple reasons they don’t from they technically don’t have the access, through to engagement is irrelevant to businesses. If a company provides an appliance or even a hosted service, it’s likely their setup doesn’t allow access to user specific data on a regular basis.
This doesn’t mean, however, that addresses should never be purged from B2B lists. Hygiene is critical for delivery no matter where you’re sending to. People move jobs and change companies all the time. Sometimes those addresses are turned off, sometimes they’re forwarded to a mailbox no one looks at, sometimes they’re forwarded to another person inside the company, sometimes they’re handed over to a reputation company to be used as a spamtrap. The sender has no way of knowing which thing will happen. The other issue is that companies have a lot of direct control over their spam filters. Employees can ask for certain sources of email to be blocked and technical staff are often empowered and entrusted with the ability to act on those requests.
Being blocked at a company, not a filter provider, is nearly impossible to reverse. Senders trying to get blocks lifted, when that block is imposed by the company itself, discover very quickly that unless the company finds value in the mail, they don’t care if it gets delivered. That’s why engagement matters, sending mail that annoys the individual employees is a fast path to never being able to contact any employee at the company in the future.
Hygiene is an overall good. Companies that value contacting people, rather than just sending as much email as possible, understand this.
Happy cleaning,
laura

Confused about delivery in general? Trying to keep up on changing policies and terminology? Need some Email 101 basics? This is the place to ask. We can’t answer specific questions about your server configuration or look at your message structure for the column (please get in touch if you’d like our help with more technical or forensic investigations!), but we’d love to answer your questions about how email works, trends in the industry, or the joys and challenges of cohabiting with felines.

Related Posts

The cycle goes on

Monday I published a blog post about the ongoing B2B spam and how annoying it is. I get so many of these they’re becoming an actual problem. 3, 4, 5 a day. And then there’s the ongoing “drip” messages at 4, 6, 8, 12 days. It is getting out of control. It’s spam. It’s annoying. And most of it’s breaking the law.
But, I can also use it as blog (and twitter!) fodder.

Read More

Permission and B2B spam

Two of the very first posts I wrote on the blog were about permission (part 1, part 2). Re-reading those posts is interesting. Experience has taught me that recipients are much more forgiving of implicit opt-in than that post implies.
The chance in recipient expectations doesn’t mean, however, that permission isn’t important or required. In fact, The Verge reported on a chatbot that will waste the time of spammers. Users who are fed up with spam can forward their message to Re:Scam and bots will answer the mail.
I cannot tell you how tempted I am to forward all those “Hey, just give me 10 minutes of your time…” emails I get from B2B spammers. I know, those are actually bots, but there is lovely symmetry in bots bothering one another and leaving us humans out of it.

Speaking of those annoying emails, I tweeted about one (with horrible English…) last week. I tagged the company in question and they asked for an example. After I sent it, they did nothing, and I continued to get mail. Because of course I did.
These types of messages are exactly why permission is so critical for controlling spam. Way more companies can buy my email address and add me to their spam automation software than I can opt-out of in any reasonable time frame. My inbox, particularly my business inbox, is where I do business. It’s where I talk with clients, potential clients, customers and, yes, even vendors. But every unsolicited email wastes my time.
It’s not even that the mail is simply unwanted. I get mail I don’t want regularly. Collecting white papers for my library, RSVPing to events, joining webinars all result in me getting added to companies’ mailing lists. That’s fair, I gave them an email address I’ll unsubscribe.
The B2B companies who buy my address are different. They’re spamming and they understand that. The vendors who sell the automation filters tell their customers how to avoid spam filters. Spammers are told to use different domains for the unsolicited mail and their opt-in mail to avoid blocking. The software plugs into Google and G Suite account because very few companies will block Google IPs.
I’ve had many of these companies attempt to pay me to fix their delivery problems. But, in this case there’s nothing to fix. Yes, your mail is being blocked. No, I can’t help. There is nothing I can say to a filtering company or ISP or company to make them list that block. The mail is unwanted and it’s unsolicited.
The way to get mail unblocked is to demonstrate the mail is wanted. If you can’t do that, well, the filters are working as intended.
 

Read More

Ask Laura: Is the SmartScreen Filter Really Smart?

AskLaura_Heading3

Read More