Recent Posts

Gmail and the bulk folder

Earlier this week Gmail announced they were providing reasons for why they delivered a particular mail to the bulk folder. I’m sure a lot of senders are rejoicing over the clear feedback. After all this is exactly what they’ve been asking for “tell us why you’re filtering our mail and we’ll fix it.”
I am not sure, however, that this is going to help the majority of senders seeing mail going to the bulk folder. On the Gmail support pages, they list a number of the explanations they’re be providing.

Read More

Delivery challenges increasing

Return Path published their most recent Global Deliverability report this morning. (Get the Report) This shows that inbox placement of mail has decreased 6% in the second half of 2011. This decrease is the largest decrease Return Path has seen in their years of doing this report.
To be honest, I’m not surprised at the decrease. Filters are getting more sophisticated. This means they’re not relying on simply IP reputation for inbox delivery any longer. IP reputation gets mail through the SMTP transaction, but after that mail is subject to content filters. Those content filters are getting a lot better at sorting out “wanted” from “unwanted” mail.
I’m also hearing a lot of anecdotal reports that bulk folder placements at a couple large ISPs increased in the first quarter of 2012. This is after the RP study was finished, and tells me increased bulk folder placement is more likely to be a trend and not a blip.
One of the other interesting things from the RP study is that the differences are not across all mail streams, but are concentrated in certain streams and they vary across different regions.

Read More

Why complain now?

There’s a concert promoter in London that’s been spamming me for years and years. Most of the time my spam filters take care of it and I never see their mail. Every once in a while, though, one of emails gets through and ends up in my inbox. Usually I move it to junk, curse at my filters for not getting it right and just go on with whatever I’m doing.
I suspect this is more common than not with most people. Those lucky enough to have a “this is spam” button can make the mail stop by clicking it. Others, like me, just have to delete it and move on.
Sometimes, though, I get to the point where I’ve had enough. I’ll send in a complaint to the sender or their provider.
I have to wonder, though, how many people react to email negatively and hit “this is spam” when they’ve been ignoring mail for a while. This can complicate the lives of senders (what doesn’t?) because the “this is spam” isn’t in reaction to a specific email, but happens due to circumstances outside of the sender’s control.
Delivery is an ever changing field, and it’s just getting more complex and harder as receiver tools get more sophisticated.

Read More

Proxy registrations and commercial email

Yesterday the law firm Venable, LLP published a document discussing the recent California appellate court decision in Balsam v. Trancos. Their take is that commercial email that contains a generic from line and is sent from a proxied domain is a violation of the California Business and Professions Code § 17529.5(a)(2).

Read More

Lasting effects from aggressive marketing

Return Path has an interesting post on the lasting effects of aggressive holiday marketing.

Read More

Canadian Anti-Spam Law

A few years ago, Canada passed an anti-spam law (CASL). In the time since then, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commissions (CRTC) have been working to establish the regulations to implement the law. Those regulations appear to have been published recently. Matt Vernhout, a email expert and Canadian citizen, published a link to the regulations and a summary of the rules.
There still doesn’t seem to be a firm date for when CASL will be enforced law. Matt says he’s hearing that the date will be around October. We’ll see if it slips from that.
 

Read More

Comcast changes

I updated the Wiki a few weeks ago when I heard, but don’t think I posted anything here. Comcast has changed their delisting form page to http://postmaster.comcast.net/block-removal-request.html. The old form is currently non-functional. You can fill it in, but it’s unconnected to anything on the back end and it won’t result in an IP being delisted from the various Comcast blocklists.
My understanding is that the old form may come back to life at some point, but it’s much safer to use the new form and the new Comcast Postmaster Site.

Read More

Less can be more and more can be more

The Wall Street Journal reports that some large retailers are scaling back their email marketing. Benefits of sending less mail include higher open rates, lower unsubscribe rates and an increase in sales.

Read More

Targeted?


I think Newegg missed a critical bit of information when trying to entice a new purchase.

Read More

CA court requires sender identification on emails

Venkat analyzes the appeals court decision in Balsam v. Trancos, Inc.. In this case the appeals court decided that emails have to identify some actual person or entity they are sent by or from. Emails that do not identify the sender are in violation of the California anti-spam statute.
Venkat talks about all the reasons he thinks this is a problematic ruling, and the CA courts and anti-spam activists certainly have their share of bad rulings. I’m less convinced. The crux of the case seems to be that the advertiser used a number of random domains to hide the responsible party for an email. Rotating domains is a very, very common spammer tactic that is specifically a way to avoid domain based filters.
I understand Venkat’s concern but as someone who gets a lot of these spams I think the court is certainly ruling within the spirit of the CA statute. These mailers are using random domains to avoid filters and mislead recipients as to the source of the mail. Even if the domains are legitimately owned by the advertiser, they are usually hidden behind privacy protection and give the recipient no real information about who is sending the mail.
Another interesting point is the court speaking out against privacy registration. Personally, I don’t think any business should ever hide their domain registration behind privacy protection. If you’re a business, then you should stand up and give real contact information. I know it can be scary, particularly for people working out of their home, but if you’re a real business, you need to have an address registered with your state. Furthermore, if you’re a business sending email, all that email must contain a physical postal address. Your address already needs to be public, and including that in whois records isn’t actually going to change anything.

Read More
Categories
Tags