Recent Posts

e360 sues a vendor

As if suing themselves out of business by going after Comcast and Spamhaus weren’t enough, e360 is now suing Choicepoint for breach of contract and CAN SPAM violations. As usual, Mickey has all the documents (complaint and answer) up at SpamSuite.
This may actually be an interesting case. On the surface it is a contractual dispute. Choicepoint sold e360 40,000,000 data records containing contact information including email addresses, snail mail addresses and phone numbers. Some of the records were marked “I” meaning they could be used for email. Some of the records were marked “O” meaning they could not be used for email.
Despite these terms being reasonably well defined in the contract, e360 sent email to addresses in records marked “O.” Some of those addresses resulted in e360 being sued by recipients. During the course of the suit, e360 contacted Choicepoint and asked for indemnification. Choicepoint refused for a number of reasons, including the fact that Choicepoint told e360 the addresses were not for mailing. In response, e360 filed suit.
The interesting and relevant part of this case is the CAN SPAM violation that e360 alleges.

Read More

Delivery lore

Number of people believing outrageous statements on the Internet
(Image from Bad Astronomy)
Almost every delivery consultant, delivery expert or deliverability blog offers their secrets to understanding spam filters. As a reader, though, how do you know if the author knows what they’re talking about? For instance, on one of the major delivery blogs had an article today saying that emails with a specific subject line will not get past spam filters.
This type of statement is nothing new. The lore around spam filters and what they do and do not do permeates our industry. Most of the has achieved the status of urban legend, and yet is still repeated as gospel. Proof? I sent an email with the subject line quoted in the above blog post to my aol, yahoo, gmail and hotmail accounts. Within 3 minutes of sending the email it was in the inbox of all 4 accounts
I can come up with any number of reasons why the email ended up in my inbox, rather than being caught by spam filters as the delivery expert originally claimed. But none of those reasons really matter. The expert in question is spreading delivery lore that is demonstrably false. Emails with that subject line will get through spam filters. I even added an extra 4 exclamation points in the subject line.
Not all delivery lore is true. In fact, most lore involving “always” “all” “never” or “none” is not going to be true. Just because you read it on the internet, and because it came from someone claiming to know what they’re talking about does not absolve individual senders from critically thinking about the information.

Read More

Email frequency vs. Response

Mark Brownlow has a great post today detailing how response to a marketing campaign changes with the frequency of a campaign and the value of the campaign.

Read More

Images in email

It can be very hard to create engaging graphics and layout that work in all email programs. Each has it’s own quirks and weirdness in interpreting the underlying HTML code. Today, while investigating an issue for a client, I learned that some versions of Lotus Notes don’t display images in PNG format. Magilla Marketing addresses the same issue today.

Read More

The great debate

While surfing around last night, I discovered that the email experience council is running a poll. “The Great Email Debate Topic #2 – Single Opt-In or Double Opt-In?”
The email blogs have been discussing the question for a few weeks now, since one ClickZ columnist decided to stir controversy by claiming that “it is impossible to grow a list using double opt-in.” The original column inspired many other people to comment on the issue.
This is really a tempest in a teapot. There are situations where no address should be added to a mailing list without some sort of confirmation or verification step. Senders must protect themselves from bad subscription requests and double opt-in is one way to do this. Likewise, there are situations where a single opt-in with good list management will create a very clean list. Double opt-in isn’t necessary to stop spam.
Senders who think that they can’t grow their list with double opt-in are already behind the 8-ball in terms of list management. Yes, lists will grow slower. In the present environment, many users are very used to submitting a registration to a web page and then looking in their mailbox for an email to complete the process. No longer is “double opt-in” a foreign concept. Social networking sites, web forums and mailing lists commonly use double opt-in.
The challenge is for marketers to construct a signup process that is engaging enough to convince users to check their mailbox and click on the link. Senders with good marketing strategy will be able to do this, when it’s necessary.
Not every mailing list has to be double opt-in, but every engaging list could be without decreasing the number of subscribers.

Read More

Not all email is created equal

I have been dealing with a client delivery issue at a major ISP recently. During the course of troubleshooting my client tested mail delivery using a personal email account. This client noticed that email was delivered promptly. He then asked me if it was possible to get the ISP to prioritize his bulk mail over personal email. The short answer is no, ISPs do prioritize one-to-one email over bulk email.
Answering the question for him crystallized some vague thoughts that ended up running through my head at the conference last week. During the conference, and similar email conferences, conference call and any discussion that involves senders and receivers, there is usually little discussion of end users.
End users. Those people who are recipients of the emails that senders send. Those people who are customers of the nreceiver ISPs. End users who are almost never involved in the conversation, but without whom there would not be a conversation. These are the people that really matter. These are who senders need to engage. These are who the receivers need to keep happy.
It is, in fact, the end users who want one-to-one email more than they want bulk mail. Even the best bulk mail is not as engaging as that email from your best friend, or the problem solving with a colleague, or the latest gossip. ISPs know this, and they do not prioritize bulk mail, no matter how well managed and how engaging, over one-to-one mail.

Read More

Link Roundup

Why email marketers are hated. A group of Ontario spammers finds Ken Magill’s email address and spams him. Repeatedly.
New docs in e360 v. Spamhaus. The judge threw out the after-the-fact affidavit from e360, but did not grant Spamhaus’ motion for summary judgment. Looks like this might end up at trial after all.
Oral arguments in Zango v. Kaspersky. I have been following this a little because SamSpade for Windows was classified as malware by one vendor a long time ago.
New books on email marketing.
Anything interesting people have seen that I missed?

Read More

MAAWG Senders

Last week at MAAWG a number of members asked me about signing up for the MAAWG senders’ list. I have instructions for how to do so. If you would like a copy, email me at laura-maawg at wordtothewise dotcom.
Note: ONLY MAAWG members are eligible for any of the discussion lists or working groups.

Read More

Jon Leibowitz: New FTC chair

Jon Leibowitz is slated to be appointed the new chair of the FTC as reported by Bloomberg and CNet. This may mean tougher regulations online. In the past Mr. Leibowitz has advocated that online advertisers move to opt-in for website cookies. This may signal his intention to put more control in the hands of the consumer. According to Bloomberg, Mr. Leibowitz has also “advocated more aggressive enforcement by the FTC.” We may see more CAN SPAM prosecutions as a result.

Read More

Soft bounces and rate limiting

What is your policy for handling soft bounces? What do you consider a soft bounce? What is the right thing to do about soft bounces?
The first step in talking about soft bounces is to define them. When I talk about soft bounces, I mean mail that has been rejected with a 4xx response during the SMTP transaction. As described by RFC5321, when a recipient MTA responds with a 4xx it is telling the sending MTA “Wait! I can’t take this mail right now. Come back a little later and try again.” The sending MTA will then continue to attempt to deliver the message until either it is delivered or until it hits the max delivery time, usually 3 – 5 days.
In a well behaved and RFC compliant MTA, messages that have reached the maximum time without delivery due to 4xx rejections will be converted to permanent rejections (5xx). With a correct MTA, this means too many emails in a row timing out shoud result in an email address being removed from future mailings.
For a number of reasons some ISPs, notably Yahoo, are using 4xx responses to slow down mail from some senders. Many senders treat this as a inconvenience and a frustration and try to figure out how to get around the rate limiting. The UK DMA published an article on soft bounces with the following words of wisdom.

Read More
Categories
Tags