Recent Posts

When the script doesn't work

DJ asks in the comments of Friday’s post:

As Seth said, great reminder. For those that have great processes/channels in place, I’ve found incredible success. However, sometimes I’ve found my answer on Twitter (i.e., @godaddyguy). Also, there have been times where I’ve gone through the script (i.e., shaw.ca) and have never heard back. What then?
Read More

Yesterday I talked about breaking through the script in order to escalate an issue. I briefly mentioned that I always start out following the script and using the channels ISPs have provided. There are a number of reasons to do this all of which benefit you, the sender.
First off, when you use the designated communication pathway at an ISP there is a record of your contact. There are procedures in place to make sure your communication is addressed and you get a response. When you’re escalating to an individual, you’re using their communication channel. IMs get lost, email ends up buried in the pile, other things come up and a week later you’re still waiting for your answer.
Secondly, when you use the designated communication pathway at an ISP your contact is logged and tracked. This means that if the person you’re used to dealing with gets another job, moves on or otherwise isn’t able to communicate with you any longer you have a history with that ISP. The next person to move into the position and deal with issues can see that you’re a legitimate sender with a history of dealing fairly and professionally with ISPs.
Thirdly, handling direct and personal escalations are often outside the official job description the people directly contacted. This means that when they come up for review, the work they’re doing for people who won’t use channels is not as important as the other work they do. Sure, they may get some credit for helping people with problems, but they may not get the review they should get. This hurts not just the senders who believe they shouldn’t have to follow channels but also those of us who do follow channels, particularly in the current business climate. Do you really want to lose that awesome person you use because some dork thought they were too good, too important to use the provided form and that awesome person lost their job because they didn’t meet their official work goals?
Fourth, you’re not the only one escalating. I had the opportunity to visit my friend Anna from AOL a few years ago. One morning both of us had to actually get some work done, so we were parked in her living room on laptops. I was astonished at the number of IM windows she was juggling constantly. We’re talking 20 – 30 separate windows open at once, many of them troubleshooting sender issues. After seeing that I do as much as possible through the official channels that AOL has provided. She is my friend, and a very good one, and I still avoid using her as a contact point unless there is some emergency.
Remember this next time you are searching for that email address of the person from that ISP that’s currently blocking your mail. Use the official communication channels where possible, and always use them first. Using back channels for issues where the intended workflow works causes a lot of overhead and doesn’t scale at all well.

Breaking through the script

In handling day to day issues I use the ISP designated channels. This means I frequently get dragged into long conversations with people, probably outsourced to the far east, who can do nothing beyond send me a boilerplate.
This can be a frustrating experience when the issue you’re trying to deal with is not handled by the script. Generally, by the time someone has come to me for help, they are “off script” and I do need to actually talk to a human to get resolution.
With Hotmail, I’ve found that persistent repeating of very simple phrases will eventually get the issue kicked up to someone who can respond with something beyond another boilerplate. This can take days, but it is possible.
I’ve recently run into a Yahoo issue where I am trying to punch through the script, but have so far been unable to.
One of the services Word to the Wise offers is whitelisting. I collect info from customers, verify that what they’re doing will get them whitelisted at the ISPs that offer it, and then submit the information to the ISPs. Yahoo has recently moved to an online submission form for their whitelisting process, which is great for me. No more creating a giant document and then cutting and pasting the document into an email and then mailing it off.
The problem is, there seems to be a minor problem with the Yahoo Whitelisting submission form. When submitting an online application to Yahoo, they respond with a message that says “this application is not complete.”
I’ve been attempting to break through the script in order to find out what about the application is not complete. The webform has data checking, and you cannot submit a form while leaving any of the questions blank. Asking “what is wrong” when the application is kicked back has resulted in me having multiple copies of the whitelisting submission form.
It’s gotten so frustrating that I’ve escalated to personal contacts, but they can’t explain what’s not complete about the application as submitted online, either.
Has anyone had any success breaking through the Yahoo script? Has anyone managed to get IP addresses whitelisted through Yahoo using the online form?

AOL Postmaster Support down Jan 16th through Jan 20th

AOL just posted that the backend of their postmaster support ticketing system will be down over the from January 16th through January 20th. This means that while new tickets can be opened, work will not proceed on them until the system is back up on Jan 20th. I expect this also means that any tickets in the system might be delayed as well.

Opt-in is dead! Long live opt-in.

This week there has been an ongoing discussion on one of my mailing lists about spam, definitions, use of the this-is-spam button and permission. One small part of the discussion centers around the definition of spam. Is spam unwanted email or is it unasked for email? If a sender doesn’t have permission from recipients to send mail, but the sender manages to keep their reputation at major ISPs clean enough to get good delivery, is the sender doing anything wrong?
My own answers really sidestep the question. I believe spam as a term is so ill-defined as to be meaningless. I try not to use “spam” when describing any mail. Even mail that comes to my own personal spamtraps and spammer-created email addresses, if I’m describing it to people I try to be more descriptive than just “spam.”
Coincidentally, Ken had an article in his newsletter today pointing out that the term opt-in has been rendered meaningless. First, he points out that all lists should be opt-in. Marketers shouldn’t have to describe a list as opt-in, it should just be opt-in. He then goes on to tell a story about an email marketer, who bought or purchased a list with Ken’s email address on it. The marketer claims the mail is opt-in, but it’s not. Ken ends the article with some advice to marketers.

Google Apps – where's my abuse@

Most ISP feedback loops require you to demonstrate that you’re really responsible for your domain before they’ll start forwarding reports to you. The usual way that works is pretty similar to a closed-loop opt-in signup for a mailing list – the ISP sends an email with a link in it to the abuse@ and postmaster@ aliases for your domain, and you need to click the link in one or both of the emails to continue with the feedback loop signup process.
That’s mostly there to protect you, by making sure that someone else can’t get feedback loop messages for your domain. And it’s not too difficult to do, as you should already have an abuse@ and postmaster@ alias set up, and have someone reading the abuse@ alias.
But maybe you’re using Google Apps to host your corporate email, and that’s the domain you need to use for your feedback loops. So you go to create abuse and postmaster users, but it won’t let you – you just get the error Username is reserved for email list only. Uhm, what?
Google want to police use of domains hosted on their service, so they automatically set up abuse and postmaster aliases for your domain, and any mail sent to them is handled by Google support staff. You may well be happy with Google snooping on your abuse role account, but you really need to be able to read the mail sent to it yourself too.
So what to do? Well, the way Google set things up they actually create invisible mailing lists for the two role accounts, and subscribe Google Support to the lists. In older versions of Google Apps you could make those mailing lists visible through the user interface by trying to create a new mailing list with the same name, then simply add yourself to the mailing list and be able to read your abuse@ email.
But Google broke that functionality in the latest version of the Google Apps control panel, when they renamed email lists to “groups”. If you try and create a new group with the email address abuse@ your domain you’ll get the error Email already exists in this domain, and no way to make that list visible.
So, what to do?
Well, there’s a workaround for now. If you go to Domain Settings you can select the “Current Version” of the control panel, rather than the “Next Generation” version. That gives you the old version of the control panel, where all this worked. Then you can go to User Accounts, create a new email list delivering to abuse@ and add one of your users to the mailing list. You can then set the control panel back to “Next Generation” and have access to the mailing lists via Service Settings → Email → Email Addresses.
Hopefully Google will fix this bug, but until they do here’s the step-by-step workaround:

Subvert the dominant paradigm

I am very slowly getting back into the swing of work and reconnecting with colleagues and other delivery folks, both on the sending and receiving side. On the sending side, there are multiple discussions happening about how senders can best communicate with receivers how much spam blocking by ISPs impacts legitimate businesses.
This is one of those perpetual issues, popping up usually around the time of conferences where both senders and receivers pop up. Senders are frustrated by the amount of their mail that is blocked, receivers are frustrated by the amount of mail that isn’t blocked and by the complaints from their users. The sender solution is to attempt a dialog with receivers, where they can tell the receivers how much legitimate mail is blocked. Receivers respond by avoiding senders as much as possible.
The impasse annoys everyone and doesn’t do anything to get mail delivered. I challenge both senders and receivers to find a new way to relate to each other this year

MAAWG agenda published

For those of you who are MAAWG members, the agenda for the February meeting in San Francisco has been published. Who is planning on attending?

Legitimate list vendors

In this week’s Magilla newsletter, Ken provides a number of ways to identify a bad email list vendor. His suggestions are not only appropriate for list vendors, but are also a good way to screen mail partners, customers or even vendors.

Court rules for Reunion.com

Today a California judge ruled against plaintiffs suing reunion.com. Venkat has blogged about the case previously, and has an analysis of the ruling. The crux of the case is reunion.com requesting users provide passwords to email accounts and then sending mail claiming to be from the user to all the addresses in the users address book.
According to Mediapost: