Filters working as intended

One of the toughest deliverability problems to deal with is when mail is blocked or going to spam because the filters are working as intended. Often the underlying issue is a lack of permission.

In the consumer space there are some thing the sender can do to change their metrics and get to the inbox. The reality is that a lot of companies who send to consumers can get good delivery even when they don’t have clear permission from the recipients. With the right offer, there is going to be some percentage of people who want, or at least don’t mind, the email. Focusing on these people and dropping the unengaged users can make even purchased lists look good and reach the inbox. Couple that with the hygiene many list sellers do clean their lists and remove any addresses that might react badly to email and even purchased lists can reach the inbox. Focusing on sending to engaged users works to fix poor delivery to consumer ISPs even when the list is purchased.

In the B2B space, though, things are very different. For businesses, email is a tool. Filtering is about keeping the mailbox useable. Much of the business relevant mail doesn’t have images. There aren’t links to click.  The folks maintaining the spam filters don’t have the access to track engagement, nor do they really care if a particular end user wants the mail. In the business space, engagement doesn’t matter. The tactics consumer senders use to deliver aren’t effective in the business space.

There have been multiple cases where employees of filtering companies have indicated their business users have a much lower tolerance for unsolicited emails than consumers do. There was the M3AAWG conference where an filter company employee said their users were asking for a way to block all mail from ESPs. In the last year an employee of a different filter commented on Mailop that their business users wanted their filters to be much more aggressive than their consumer customers did.

One of the use cases potential clients bring me is B2B mail where they are acquiring addresses from conference lists, or LinkedIn or Zoominfo or any of a dozen other avenues. There isn’t anything to do. Business filters are getting a lot more aggressive about blocking these kinds of mail, and they’re getting better at it. What worked a year ago isn’t working now. And most employees and their management don’t like this mail. The mail isn’t wanted.

The filters are working as intended. And they don’t want your mail.

Related Posts

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

Want some history?

I was doing some research today for an article I’m working on. The research led me to a San Francisco Law Review article from 2001 written by David E. Sorkin. Technical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Electronic Mail (.pdf link). The text itself is a little outdated, although not as much as I expected. There’s quite a good discussion of various ways to control spam, most of which are still true and even relevant.

From a historical perspective, the footnotes are the real meat of the document. Professor Sorkin discusses many different cases that together establish the rights of ISPs to filter mail, some of which I wasn’t aware of. He also includes links to then-current news articles about filtering and spam. He also mentions different websites and articles written by colleagues and friends from ‘back in the day’ discussing spam on a more theoretical level.
CNET articles on spam and filtering was heavily referenced by Professor Sorkin. One describes the first Yahoo spam folder. Some things never change, such as Yahoo representatives refusing to discuss how their system works. There were other articles discussing Hotmail deploying the MAPS RBL (now a part of Trend Micro) and then adding additional filters into the mix a few weeks later.
We were all a little naive back then. We thought the volumes of email and spam were out of control. One article investigated the effectiveness of filters at Yahoo and Hotmail, and quoted a user who said the filters were working well.

Read More

Is purging always effective?

 

Read More