Recent Posts

TWSD: I can haz ethix marketing

I’m getting slammed by spam advertising URLs at http://perfectdeliveries.com/ from
Ethix Marketing LLC
711 S. Carson Street Suite 4
Carson City, Nevada 89701
The kicker? They’re violating CAN SPAM while they’re doing it. Seriously, sending mail out through open relays and proxies with forged From: addresses is a violation of CAN SPAM. And they’re spamming for ambulance chasers.
Spammers, eh?

Read More

Skywriting to market email?

I’m so busy today getting caught up from the whirlwind of cousins this week. Yesterday, we took them to SF to do some touristy stuff. While sitting outside having some food and a drink, we noticed a ton of people staring up into the sky.
Livingsocial had hired some (very talented pilots) to do dot matrix skywriting as advertising.
Skywriting for living social It was quite impressive, actually. Mostly because the pilots were so technically precise, but also because they were conveying useful information in short phrases.
Besides the “Livingsocial loves you” shown here, we also saw deals and even a URL at one point. There was enough breeze over the bay that messages didn’t hang around long (the blur going from top left to bottom right is writing from the pass about 5 minutes earlier). But it was eye catching and there were tons of people taking photos.
It would be interesting to hear how effective a campaign this is. Does Livingsocial see signups as a result of skywriting? Or is this just general brand awareness on their part?
As an aside, the cousins said they received emails from both Livingsocial and Groupon, but that Groupon just sent so much mail it was getting annoying.

Read More

The perfect email

Email is a fluid and ever changing landscape of things to do and not do.
Over the years my clients have frequently asked me to look at their technical setup and make sure that how they send mail complies with best practices. Previously, this was a good way to improve delivery. Spamware was pretty sloppy and blocking for somewhat minor technical problems was a great way to block a lot of spam.
More recently filter maintainers have been able to look at more than simple technical issues. They can identify how a recipient interacts with the mail. They can look at broad patterns, including scanning the webpages an email links to.
In short, email filters are very sophisticated and really do measure “wanted” versus “unwanted” down to the individual subscriber levels.
I will happily do technology audits for clients. But getting the technology right isn’t sufficient to get good delivery. What you really need to consider is: am I sending email that the recipient wants? You can absolutely get away with sloppy technology and have great inbox delivery as long as you are actually sending mail your recipients want to receive.
The perfect email is no longer measured in how perfectly correct the technology is. The perfect email is now measured by how perfect it is for the recipient.

Read More

Still futile

As I mentioned last Thursday, both Yahoo and Microsoft filed oppositions to Holomaxx’s opposition to dismissal. Let me ‘splain… no, there is too much, let me sum up.
Holomaxx sued both Microsoft and Yahoo to force MS and Yahoo to stop blocking mail from Holomaxx.
The judge dismissed the initial complaint with leave to amend.
Holomaxx filed a first amended complaint.
Microsoft and Yahoo both argued that the first amendment complaint should be dismissed because it wasn’t fixed.
Holomaxx filed a motion in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Their arguments were reasonably simple.

Read More

Whatcounts acquires Blue Sky Factory

As has been announced across the email industry, Whatcounts has acquired Blue Sky Factory.

Read More

New FBLs

There are two new FBLs in production. Synacor and Fastmail.fm. I’ll be updating the Wiki and FBL page today.

Read More

Gathering data from PACER

I had someone ask on Facebook about getting some documents off of Pacer. I thought the information may be of use to other people out there.
PACER (public access to court electronic records) provides access to public documents filed in the Federal court system. Each court has their own website, but there is one login and the search and document display are the same. Documents cost 8 cents a page, capped at $2.40 for a single document.
Access to PACER isn’t always immediate. When I signed up there was a 7 – 10 day delay as usernames and passwords were sent by mail. There does seem to be a way now to get a password faster, for those of you who want data NOW!
Once you’ve got a username and password now you’re in business and can start digging up all these documents.
The first step is determining which court website to check. Generally, I’m looking for details because I saw a news report that does mention what court the case was filed in. So I just plug the court name (Northern District of California) in a search window and go from there. PACER also provides the facility to look up where a case is on their website. This wasn’t an option when I signed up for PACER so I’ve never used it, but it is there.
The court websites are often not very flashy (Web 0.5!) but there will be a link to retrieve documents or view documents through PACER. This is the link that will take you to the login page.  Put in your username and password and click go. If you’re not filing, you don’t need to bother with the checkbox for the Notice of Redaction Responsibility to get in, nor do you need to add a client code.
Once you’re logged in you’ll notice a blue bar across the top of the page. This is your (web 0.5!) navigation bar. Click on Query to bring up the case search window. If you have the actual case number, you can put that in the top box and hit search. Otherwise, you can enter in a party name. For my recent research, I just enter “holomaxx” in the box marked Last/Business Name and click Search. Being web 0.5! you have to actually click the button, pressing enter doesn’t work.
That will take you to the Select a Case window. In this case, Holomaxx is a safe search because it brings up exactly the two cases I’m interested in: Holomaxx v. Yahoo and Holomaxx v. Microsoft. Clicking on the case number brings up a window with some basic information (the judge, last filing date) and a number of links.
The link that will show you documents is, unsurprisingly, History/Documents. Click there, and click again on All events to bring up a list of documents filed with the court.
The first column is a clickable link that lets you look at the document. The second column is that date it was filed. The third column is the title of the document. Generally when I’m looking at a new case I grab something that looks like “complaint” or “motion” to orient myself.
When I’m looking at PACER I tend to download everything I look at on a case, just so I only have to pay for it once. I also make extensive use of tabs and new windows, so I don’t have to reload the case page.
Download names vary by the actual court. For instance, the Northern California court gives me all the documents with the same name: show-temp.pl. But other courts give names like 384972395.pdf. In either case, you’re going to want to rename the documents to something useful before you have a disk full of show-temp-*.pl files. In some cases, there are documents and exhibits in a single filing. You will be asked if you want to download everything as a .zip file. I suggest you do this.
For a while I was trying to name things intuitively but then gave up because it gets too confusing. My current organizational technique is to set up a directory with the case name HolomaxxvYahoo_4926 and HolomaxxvMS_4924. The numbers are the last 4 digits of the case number and are there to make it easier to file and sort documents.
If you download a zip file, it opens up a directory containing all the files. The courts name these pretty simply: documentnumber-main.pdf, documentnumber-1.pdf, documentnumber2.pdf. The document numbers correspond to the order the documents were filed with the court. Once the file is unzipped, I copy the files into the directory I’ve set up for that case.
Now that you have the documents somewhat organized, you can shut PACER down and go read at your leisure. If you spend more than $10.00 on documents in a quarter, then you will get a bill from the Federal court system. If you haven’t spent that much, the court doesn’t bother billing you that quarter.
Some state courts have similar systems, but not all of them do and you can’t use a PACER login to access them.
In the course of writing this, I discovered new documents filed in the Holomaxx case filed by the defenands. Tune in tomorrow. Same bat-time. Same bat-blog.

Read More

Who leaked my address, and when?

Providing tagged email addresses to vendors is fascinating, and at the same time disturbing. It lets me track what a particular email address is used for, but also to see where and when they’ve leaked to spammers.
I’d really like to know who leaked an email address, and when.
All my inbound mail is sorted into “spam” and “not-spam” by a combination of SpamAssassin, some static sieve rules and a learning spam filter in my mail client. That makes it fairly easy for me to look at my “recent spam”. That’s a huge amount of data, though, something like 40,000 pieces of spam a month.
Finding the needle of interesting data in that haystack is going to take some automation. As I’ve mentioned before you can do quite a lot of useful work with a mix of some little perl scripts and some commandline tools.
I’m interested in the first time a tagged address started receiving spam, so I start off with a perl script that will take a directory full of emails, one per file, find the ones that were sent to a tagged address and print out that address and the time I received the email. I can’t rely on the Date: header, as that’s under the control of the spammer, and often bogus. But I can rely on the timestamp my server adds when it receives the email – and it records that in the first Received: header in the message.

Read More

The weak link in security

Terry Zink posts about the biggest problem with security: human errors. Everyone who is looking at security needs to think about the human factor. And how people can deliberately or accidentally subvert security.

Read More

Holomaxx doubles down

Holomaxx has, as expected, filed a motion in opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by both Yahoo (opposition to Yahoo motion and Hotmail (opposition to Microsoft motion). To my mind they still don’t have much of an argument, but seem to believe that they can continue with this.
They are continuing to claim that Microsoft is scanning email before the email gets to Microsoft (or Yahoo) owned hardware.

Read More
Categories
Tags