Recent Posts

12% of email recipients respond to spam

Twitter and some of the other delivery blogs are all abuzz today talking about the consumer survey released by MAAWG (pdf link, large file) looking at end user knowledge and awareness of email security practices.
The survey has a lot of good data and I strongly encourage people to look at the full report. There are a couple of results that are generating most of the buzz, including the fact that nearly half of the respondents have clicked on a link or replied to a spam email. Additionally, 17% of respondents said they made a mistake when they clicked on the link.
The magic statistic, though, is that 12% of the respondents said that they responded to spam because they were interested in the products or services offered in the spam. This, right there, is one of the major reasons why spam continues and is a growing problem. Out of 800 people surveyed, almost 100 of them were interested enough in the products sold by spam to respond positively. There are roughly 1.6 billion people on the Internet, which gives spammers a market of 200 million people for their spam.
Other studies have seen similar responses, that is consumers do respond to spam. Most surveys don’t define spam, however, and given a lot of consumers call “mail I don’t like” or “all commercial email” as spam it’s hard to know what the respondents are responding too. In some studies, some respondents even defined mail from companies that they had given their email address to, but had not explicitly asked for email from as spam.  In this study MAAWG did request how the respondent defined spam. Of the respondents, 60% say spam is mail they did not solicit, and 41% say spam is mail that ends up in the spam folder. Given that 60% of respondents define spam as “unsolicited email” it is possible that some people are responding to mail they never requested.
Sad news for those of us who were hoping that lack of consumer response would make spamming unprofitable enough that spammers would stop.
The crosstab between “how do you define spam” and “how do you react to spam” may be an interesting data set to see.

Read More

Yahoo delivery problems

Al writes about a Yahoo delivery problem where they have identified a particular Yahoo MX that is falsely returning “mail blocked due to XBL.” The IPs in question are not on the XBL. Yahoo is aware of the issue and are working on a resolution. If you are seeing these bounces, Yahoo is aware of the issue. Exacttarget has worked around the issue by suspending deliveries to the affected MX.

Read More

Troubleshooting Yahoo delivery

Last week Jon left a comment on my post Following the Script. He gives a familiar story about how he’s having problems contacting Yahoo.

Read More

Unsubscribe rates as a measure of engagement.

Over at Spamtacular Mickey talks about the email marketers’ syllogism.

  1. Anyone who doesn’t want our mail will opt-out.
  2. Most people don’t opt-out.
  3. Therefore, most people want our mail.

This clearly fallacious reasoning is something I deal with frequently with my clients, particularly those who come to me for reputation repair. They can’t understand why people are calling them spammers, because their unsubscribe rates and complaint rates are very low. The low complaints and unsubscribes must mean their mail is wanted. Unfortunately, the email marketers’ syllogism leads them to faulty conclusions.
There are many reasons people don’t opt-out of mail they don’t want. Some of it may be practical, the mail never hits their inbox, either due to ISP level filters or their own personal filters. Some people take a stance that they do not opt out of mail they did not opt-in to and if they don’t recognize the company, they won’t opt-out.
In any case, low levels of opt-outs or even this-is-spam hits does not mean that recipients want that mail. The sooner marketers figure this out, the better for them and their delivery.

Read More

CAN SPAM compliance information in images

A fellow delivery specialist sent me a question this morning.

Read More

Links for 7/8/9

With all the traveling I did last month, I’m still not back to full blogging speed. I have been slowly reading through the backlog of unread posts from my RSS feeds and there was lots of good stuff published.
Three myths about DKIM by John Levine. A very good explanation taking down some of the myths of DKIM. Also on the DKIM front, RFC 5585 DKIM Service Overview was published last month. According to Cisco, DKIM adoption is climbing. More information about DKIM is available at dkim.org and our own dkimcore.org.
The always awesome guys at Mailchimp have embraced twitter as part of their platform. Not only have they  set up their own service for link shortening so that links can be tweeted, but have also incorporated twitter stats into their mail dashboard.
Al has an insightful post on delivery, spam filtering vendors and the differences (or lack thereof) between B2C and B2B marketing. As I tell my customers, there is no switch inside the filtering scheme for “I know this person, they’re OK, let the mail in.”
Terry Zink has started a series about blacklists triggered by the recent SORBS announcement.  His first post, My take on blacklists, part 2, discusses how some people go about building a blocklist from scratch.
Happy 7-8-9 everyone.

Read More

Aiding and abetting violations of CAN SPAM

The US DOJ announced today the guilty plea of David Patton. Patton was charged with “aiding and abetting violations of the CAN SPAM act. Software written by Patton’s company provided the ability to modify email headers and use open proxies to disguise the source of the email.
The Ralsky convictions are, to the best of my knowledge, the first criminal prosecution for CAN SPAM violations and so far 9 of the 12 defendents charged have pled guilty.

Read More

Thoughts on transactional mail

I mentioned a few weeks ago about a conversation I’d had at MAAWG about transactional email and opened up the conversation to readers here. Mike proposed a definition.

Read More

Modifying RP managed FBLs

I was recently pointed out the FBL support pages for those feedback loops hosted by ReturnPath. Clicking around, they have the framework and the beginnings of a good source of information for their services. You can also open support tickets for questions and services that are not covered in their knowledge base.

Read More

Bad subject lines

I tend not to blog too much on subject lines as they are really a marketing issue and a subscriber relationship issue. The subject lines a particular mailer uses should be directed and developed with an eye towards making the mail relevant and useful to the recipient.
What subject lines shouldn’t be is deceptive, either intentionally or inadvertantly. How can a subject line be inadvertantly deceptive? Take this: “Today only! One day sale!” The email in question was a printable coupon to get a discount at a bookstore. Unfortunately, the sales was not “Today” – the day the email was received.
On the one hand, I can sympathize with the sender. Sometimes email takes a while to get delivered, particularly for large mail drops. So you want to send before the mail needs to be in the inbox and in front of the recipient. But, that means that some of your recipients may get the email before “Today.” A much better subject line would have been “Friday only! One day sale!”

Read More
Categories
Tags