Recent Posts

Losing friends and influencing people

I download a lot of ESP white papers. Not because I’m looking for an ESP, but because I think it’s important to know what’s happening in the industry and what topics people think are important. I understand fully that white papers are a lead generation tool and I can expect followup from sales people at the places I download papers from. This is all well and good.
Generally the emails I get are polite, introduce the company to me, and ask if I have any questions or would like to talk. I tend to respond that I’m not looking for an ESP, and that I appreciate their contact. If I’ve blogged about said white paper, I will mention that and give a link to the post. I don’t want to waste a sales person’s time when said person can be working with potential customers.
Overall, these interactions have been pleasant and cordial. That makes the unpleasant few stand out even more.
There’s one memorable case where the first email from the sales rep had the subject line, “Meeting Time Tomorrow at 10am.” Wait. What? As I was checking email from bed before getting up, that subject line had me dashing out of bed to figure out what I had forgotten and work out how badly my schedule was messed up. Thankfully, my schedule wasn’t messed up, this was just an aggressive sales person optimistically claiming we had a meeting set. The email assured me that said sales person would continue to follow up with me until “we were able to connect.”
There is a place for aggressive selling techniques. This is the kind of sales drive that will work in certain situations. But I’m not sure it’s the appropriate opening when nothing is known about the target. In this case it certainly wasn’t a good opening. A number of companies ask me for ESP recommendations, and I tend to recommend those I know. I don’t think I’ll be recommending the above ESP to any customer. Their sales process was just that off putting.
Not quite the result Mr. Over Eager Sales Person expected.

This month in email: September 2013

Looking back through the month of September there were a couple things talked about on the blog.

Google wiretapping case, what the judge ruled

Yesterday I reported that the judge had ruled on Google’s motion to dismiss. Today I’ll take a little bit deeper look at the case and the interesting things that were in denial of the motion to dismiss.
Google is being sued for violations of federal wiretapping laws, the California invasion of privacy act (CIPA) and wiretapping laws in Florida, Pennsylvania and Maryland. This lawsuit is awaiting class certification for the following groups.

Judge sides with plaintiff, refuses to dismiss wiretapping suit against Google

Judge Koh published her ruling on Google’s motion to dismiss today.
It’s a 43 page ruling, which I’m still digesting. But the short answer is that Google’s motion was denied almost in total. Google’s motion was granted for two of the claims: that email is confidential as defined by the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA, section 632) and dismissal of a claim under Pennsylvania law.

Yahoo trying to cope with misdirected email

Techcrunch says Yahoo is announcing a new “this is not me” button for email sent to recovered addresses.

Recycled Yahoo addresses and PII leaks

Infoweek interviewed a number of people who acquired new Yahoo addresses during Yahoo’s address recycling and reuse process. It seems that at least for some small percentage of former Yahoo users, there is a major risk of information going to the wrong people.

Does mail volume contribute to blocking?

There are two extreme opinions I see among marketing agencies and email senders when it comes to volume.
One group seems to think that volume alone triggers blocks. Another group thinks volume never affects delivery.
As with many things in delivery reality is at neither extreme.
Sending lots of mail isn’t the problem. Sending lots of mail your recipients aren’t interested in getting is the problem. Last year during the US political elections the Obama campaign, for instance, sent lots and lots of mails. Their list was an order of magnitude larger than the Romney campaign and there were days they were sending 10s of mails per subscriber. It was a deluge. But they were smart, and they did a lot of data mining and they did it in a way that got recipients to act on the mail. That mail was a deluge, but it was a wanted deluge by most of the receivers.
For a lot of vendors, too, increasing volume does increase response and revenue and all the things you want to drive with email marketing. But there will be people who don’t like the increase in volume. If they’re not valuable customers, no great loss. If they are valuable customers, then the increase in volume may drive a decrease in revenue.
In terms of inbox delivery, it’s not the volume it’s how wanted the mail is. Send wanted, interesting and engaging mail, you can send dozens of times a day.
No, volume alone doesn’t contribute to delivery problems.

Ad-hoc analysis

I often pull emails into a database to analyze them, but sometimes I want something simpler. Emails are typically stored in one of two ways: mbox format, where an entire mailbox is stored in a single file, and maildir format, where a mailbox is a directory with one file in it for each email.
My desktop mail application is Mail.app on OS X, and it stores messages in a maildir-ish format, so I’m going to work with that here. If you’re using mbox format mailboxes it’s a little trickier (but you can use a tool called formmail to split an mbox style format into a maildir directory and go from there).
I want to gather some statistics on mail I’ve sent to abuse desks, so the first thing I do is open up a terminal window and change directory to where my “Sent Messages” mailbox is:
cd Library/Mail/V2/IMAP-steve@misc.wordtothewise.com/Sent Messages.mbox
(Tab completion is really useful for navigating through the mailbox hierarchy.)
Then I need to go through every email (file) in that directory, for each file find the “To:” header and check to see if it was sent to an abuse desk. If it was sent to an abuse desk I want to find the email address for each one, count how many times I see that email address and find the top twenty or so abuse desks I send reports to. I can do all that with a single command line:
find . -type f -exec egrep -m1 '^To:' {} ; | egrep -o 'abuse@[a-zA-Z0-9._-]+' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -20
(Enter that all as a single line, even though it’s wrapped into two here).
That’s a bit much to understand all at once, so lets redo that in several stages, with an intermediate file so we can see what’s going on.
find . -type f -exec egrep -m1 '^To:' {} ; >tolines.txt
The find command finds all the files in a directory and does something with them. In this case we start looking in the current directory (“.”), look just for files (“-type f”) and for each file we find we run that file through another command (“-exec egrep -m1 ‘^To:’ {} ;”) and write the result of that command to a file (“>tolines.txt”). The egrep command we run for each file goes through the file and prints out the first (“-m1”) line it finds that begins with “To:” (“‘^To:'”). If you run that and take a look at the file it creates you can see one line for each message, containing the “To:” header (or at least the first line of it).
The next thing to do is to go through that and pull out just the email addresses – and just the ones that are sent to abuse desks:
egrep -o 'abuse@[a-zA-Z0-9._-]+' tolines.txt
This uses egrep a second time, this time to look for lines that look like an email address (“‘abuse@[a-zA-Z0-9._-]+'”) and when it finds one print out just the part of the line that matched the pattern (“-o”).
Running that gives us one line of output for each email we’re interested in, containing the address it was sent to. Next we want to count how many times we see each one. There’s a command line idiom for that:
egrep -o 'abuse@[a-zA-Z0-9._-]+' tolines.txt | sort | uniq -c
This takes all the lines and sorts (“sort”, reasonably enough) them – so that identical lines will be next to each other – then counts runs of identical lines (“uniq -c”). We’re nearly there – the result of this is a count and an email address on each line. We just need to find the top 20:
egrep -o 'abuse@[a-zA-Z0-9._-]+' tolines.txt | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -20
Each line begins with the count, so we can use sort again, this time telling it to sort by number, high to low (“sort -nr”). Finally, “head -20” will print just the first 20 lines of the result.
The final result is this:

SpamArrest Loses in Court

Internet law expert Eric Goldman points out that winning anti-spam lawsuits is hard. SpamArrest just learned that the hard way, he explains. If you weren’t aware, SpamArrest (whose website proclaims “SPAM ARREST WORKS!”) is a vendor of a Challenge/Response-based anti-spam filtering system. The way that works is, if you’re using a C/R-based system, any time somebody sends you an email, the system sends the person back a “challenge” email that the sender must now respond to, usually by clicking on a link. By engaging in this “response,” the sender is proving that they’re not a robot. The theory being that by doing so, the sender must not be a spammer. It’s a flawed system, for multiple reasons. First, the internet is global, and it’s possible for bad guys to very cheaply hire people from a far away land to click these links all day long, every day. Even worse, legitimate senders aren’t going to take the time to bother to click through these links; they’re going to write it off as too time intensive. Do you really think Amazon is going to bother responding to challenge requests, to push through your shipping notification? For years, I’ve been telling senders to ignore C/R challenge emails, because it’s a self resolving problem, those people don’t want to receive emails, so let those people not get their emails. Even worse than that, those of us who actually care about the email ecosystem find C/R abhorrent because of its inherent backscatter problem. Spammers forge sending addresses. C/R systems send challenge emails back to those forged sending addresses. Thus, unrelated people often receive C/R challenge emails, when they didn’t even initiate the original message. It doesn’t solve the spam problem; it just exchanges spam mail for misdirected junk mail. I’m not a fan of SpamArrest, but I’m also not a fan of anything that makes it hard to use legal means to go after people sending unsolicited email. So my emotions are mixed on this one. Regardless, I wouldn’t be happy if I were one of the 600 SpamArrest users who received the alleged spam message in question. And with regard to the rest of their users, I worry that bad guys will now interpret the court’s ruling as making it acceptable to set up “C/R approval farms” and respond to every challenge message received. This would seriously undermine both SpamArrest’s business strategy and anti-spam strategy. And to the rest of the anti-spam community, allow me to echo something Eric says in his article: Anti-spammers don’t win in court just by showing up.

Things real people don't say about advertising

My favorite is about the call to action, but it’s probably not quite safe for work.
Sadly, I do sometimes try and figure out what segment I’m in that caused me to get a particular ad.