Marking mail as spam says what?

I wear a number of hats and have a lot of different email addresses. I like to keep the different email addresses separate from each other, “don’t cross the streams” as it were.

 

Recently I’ve been getting spam to my womenofemail.org address asking about the wordtothewise.com website.

I’m not sure where Ms. Catherine Metcalf bought my Women of Email address or how she connected it with a post written by Steve here on the WttW website. But it did bring up an interesting question I don’t necessarily have an answer to.

A little background. Women of Email hosts email on G Suite. Unlike most of my accounts, my “this is spam” reports actually are measured for reputation purposes. I can report this as spam, Google will take action and I won’t have to see mail from Ms. Metcalf (and ideally bluelabellabs.net) ever again. But then I started thinking. The only URL in the message posts to my website.

My question is: if I click “this is spam” on the above message will Google knock my reputation? How much mail is sent to Google on any given day mentioning WttW links and websites?

This is, of course, a question that proves I’m a little too focused on reputation. No normal person would consider whether or not to report this as spam. They’d just hit this is spam and assume it will only hurt the sender’s reputation, not affect the reputation of anything in the message. But I know that every link in a message has its own reputation.

I suspect there wouldn’t be a huge amount of fallout. Gmail looks at every “resource combination” (to use their term) when making decisions. Yes, a t-i-s click is likely to be a minor tick against “wordtothewise.com” in general. But only a minor one. It’s likely to be a bigger tick against mail from catherine.metcalf@bluelabellabs.net that mentions wordtothewise.com.

Looking at the even bigger picture. Google knows that Catherine Metcalf is sending out a lot of mail mentioning different URLs. They have to, she’s using Google to send them. But they can also see that a subset of the recipients delete the mail without opening, or report the message as spam. They probably can even tell that she’s using some sort of automated software to send the mail, rather than typing each message herself. If enough people report the message as spam, Google is smart enough to spam folder her mail. Given they’re handling her outgoing messages, it would be nice if they could block it on the outbound, but we can’t have everything.

 

 

Related Posts

Gmail survey rough analysis

I closed the Google Postmaster Tools (GPT) survey earlier today. I received 160 responses, mostly from the link published here on the blog and in the M3AAWG Senders group.
I’ll be putting a full analysis together over the next couple weeks, but thought I’d give everyone a quick preview / data dump based on the analysis and graphs SurveyMonkey makes available in their analysis.
Of 160 respondents, 154 are currently using GPT. Some of the folks who said they didn’t have a GPT account also said they logged into it at least once a day, so clearly I have some data cleanup to do.
57% of respondents monitored customer domains. 79% monitored their own domains.
45% of respondents logged in at least once a day to check. Around 40% of respondents check IP and/or domain reputation daily. Around 25% of respondents use the authentication, encryption and delivery errors pages for troubleshooting.
10% said the pages were very easy to understand. 46% said they’re “somewhat easy” to understand.
The improvements suggestions are text based, but SurveyMonkey helpfully puts them together into a word cloud. It’s about what I expected. But I’ll dig into that data. 
10% of respondents said they had built tools to scrape the page. 50% said they hadn’t but would like to.
In terms of the problems they have with the 82% of people said they want to be able to create alerts, 60% said they want to add the data to dashboards or reporting tools.

97% of respondents who currently have a Google Postmater Tools account said they are interested in an API for the data. I’m sure the 4 who aren’t interested won’t care if there is one.
47% of respondents said if there was an API they’d have tools using it by the end of 2017. 73% said they’d have tools built by end of Q1 2018.
33% of respondents send more than 10 million emails per day.
75% of respondents work for private companies.
70% of respondents work for ESPs. 10% work for retailers or brands sending through their own infrastructure.
That’s my initial pass through the data. I’ll put together something a bit more coherent and some more useful analysis in the coming week and publish it. I am already seeing some interesting correlations I can do to get useful info out.
Thank you to everyone who participated! This is interesting data that I will be passing along to Google. Rough mental calculation indicates that respondents are responsible for multiple billions of emails a day.
Thanks!

Read More

Google makes connections

One of the client projects I’m working on includes doing a lot of research on MXs, including some classification work. Part of the work involves identifying the company running the MX. Many of the times this is obvious; mail.protection.outlook.com is office365, for instance.

There are other cases where the connection between the MX and the host company is not as obvious. That’s where google comes into play. Take the domain canit.ca, it’s a MX for quite a few domains in this data set. Step one is to visit the website, but there’s no website there. Step 2 is drop the domain into google, who tells me it’s Roaring Penguin software.
In some cases, though, the domain wasn’t as obvious as the Roaring Penguin link. In those cases, Google would present me with seemingly irrelevant hosting pages. It didn’t make sense until I started digging through hosting documentation. Inevitably, whenever Google gave me results that didn’t make sense, they were right. The links were often buried in knowledge base pages telling users how to configure their setup and mentioning the domain I was searching for.
The interesting piece was that often it was the top level domain, not the support pages, that Google presented to me. I had to go find the actual pages. Based on that bit of research, it appears that Google has a comprehensive map of what domains are related to each other.
This is something we see in their handling of email as well. Gmail regularly makes connections between domains that senders don’t expect. I’ve been speaking for a while about how Gmail does this, based on observation of filtering behavior. Working through multiple searches looking at domain names was the first time I saw evidence of the connections I suspected. Gmail is able to connect seemingly disparate hostnames and relate them to one another.
For senders, it means that using different domains in an attempt to isolate different mainstreams doesn’t work. Gmail understands that domainA in acquisition mail is also the same as domainB in opt-in mail is the same as domainC in transactional mail. Companies can develop a reputation at Google which affects all email, not just a particular mail stream. This makes it harder for senders to compartmentalize their sends and requires compliance throughout the organization.
Acquisition programs do hurt all mail programs, at least at Gmail.
 

Read More

August 2014: The Month in Email

Isn’t August the month where things are supposed to slow down? We’re still waiting for that to happen around here… it’s been great to be busy, but we’re hoping to continue to carve out more time for blogging as we move into the fall.
August
As usual, we reported on a mix of industry trends and news, the persistence of spam, and did a deep dive into an interesting technical topic. Let’s start there: Steve wrote a post explaining Asynchronous Bounces (yes, it’s a GNFAB), with some examples of how they’re used and how they can cause operational problems.
In industry news, we did a roundup post of some Gmail changes and a followup post on security issues with non-Latin characters in addresses. We also celebrated the long-awaited release of a wonderful resource from MAAWG that I am very proud to have helped author, the white paper Help! I’m on a Blocklist! (PDF link). We receive dozens of these calls every week, and though we are always happy to help people solve urgent delivery crises, we spend most of our consulting time and attention working with people to build sustainable email programs, so this document is a great “self-service” resource for people looking to troubleshoot blocklist issues on their own.
In other industry and MAAWG-related news, we noted that the nomination period for the J.D. Falk award has opened (you have just a few more days, procrastinators) and took a moment to reminisce about our friend J.D. and his incredible contributions to the field.
On the topic of creating, sending, and reading more attractive email, we posted some  resources from Mailchimp and crowdsourcing templates from Send With Us. We also incorrectly reported on a not-actually-new interface from AOL, Alto. Interesting to note that there’s been so little followup from AOL (and almost no post-launch coverage) in the two years since launch.
We also touched on a few myths: email saves trees and low complaint volume is good.
And finally, in November of 2013, I unsubscribed from every possible email I received on a specific account. I followed up on that briefly in a Part 2 post, and this month went back and wrote a Part 3 followup. Spoiler alert: spam is still a problem. Of course, we got some comments that we were probably doing it wrong, so Unsubscribe Barbie showed up to add her thoughts. We try not to be snarky around here, but sometimes we just don’t try very hard.

Read More