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

Change is coming…

A lot of email providers are rolling out changes to their systems. Some of these changes are so they will comply with GDPR. But, in other cases, the changes appear coincidental with GDPR coming into effect.
It seems, finally, some attention is being paid to the mail client. Over the last few years the webmail providers have tried to upgrade their interface.  Many of the upgrades are about managing high volumes of email in a more efficient manner. Google uses tabs while Microsoft has sweep and focused inbox.
It’s about time the mail client got an overhaul. My Apple mail client doesn’t look all that different from the desktop client I was using back in the late 90s on OS/2 Warp back in the late 90s. In some ways the OS/2 client was actually more functional. And, well, I do miss a lot of the flexibility of mutt in the shell.
Today, Google announced to Google Suite administrators that they would be rolling out a major client overhaul. G Suite admins who want to can join the early adopter program in the coming week. Techcrunch has a sketch of what the new mailbox layout looks like, done by someone who says they saw a Google engineer working on a train.
What’s interesting about the sketch is it seems tabs are going away. Given how many senders hate tabs I’m sure this is a welcome relief. We’ll see, though, if there’s not more inbox management built into the new client or not. The nifty new features are “snooze” – hide this email for some period of time and bring it back at some point in the future. The other big thing is calendar access right from the mail client.
I expect, too, that as OATH: brings the Yahoo and AOL mailboxes under one banner, there will also be some changes there. All of this amounts to more uncertainty in the email delivery space. But we’ll get through, we always do.

Read More

What kind of mail do filters target?

All to often we think of filters as a linear scale. There’s blocking on one end, and there’s an inbox on the other. Every email falls somewhere on that line.
Makes sense, right? Bad mail is blocked, good mail goes to the inbox. The bulk folder exists for mail that’s not bad enough to block, but isn’t good enough to go to the inbox.
Once we get to that model, we can think of filters as just different tolerances for what is bad and good. Using the same model, we can see aggressive filters block more mail and send more mail to bulk, while letting less into the inbox. There are also permissive filters that block very little mail and send most mail to the inbox.
That’s a somewhat useful model, but it doesn’t really capture the full complexity of filters. There isn’t just good mail and bad mail. Mail isn’t simply solicited or unsolicited. Filters take into account any number of factors before deciding what to do with mail.

Read More

SNDS issues and new Gmail

A bunch of folks reported problems with Microsoft’s SNDS page earlier today. This afternoon, our friendly Microsoft rep told the mailop mailing list that it should be fixed. If you see problems again, you can report it to mailop or your ESP and the message will get shared to the folks who can fix it.
The other big thing that happened today was Gmail rolled out their new inbox layout.
It’s… nice. I’ll be honest, I am not a big gmail user and have never been a huge fan. I got my first account way-back-during-the-beta. I used it to handle some of my mailing list mail. I could never work out how to get it to stop breaking threads by deciding to put some mail into the junk folder. I just gave up and went back to my shell with procmail (now sieve) scripts. I still have a couple lists routed to my gmail account, and the filtering is much improved – I can at least tell it to never bulk folder certain email.
The feature I’m really interested in is the confidential, expiring email. I’m interested in how that’s going to work with non-Gmail accounts. Within Gmail makes perfect sense, but I don’t think Gmail can control mail once it’s off their system.

My best guess is that Gmail will end up sending some type of secure link to recipients using non-Gmail mail servers. The message itself will stay inside Google and recipients will only be able to view mail through the web. That’s how the vast majority of secure mail systems work.
If anyone has the secure message already, feel free to send me a secure message. I’ll report back as to how it works.

Read More