Recent Posts

Fixing mistakes

At BeRelevant Kath posts about common mistakes mailers make and how to recover from them.

Techcrunch50 is going on currently. There are a three email related businesses that have been pitched.
AdRocket: Technology to insert contextual text ads, on a per subscriber basis, into existing newsletters.
OtherInbox: A service allowing individuals to have their own subdomain for email, and an endless supply of email addresses at that domain.
Postbox: A new way to organize, manage and annotate email.
EDIT: Comments closed due to excessive spam

Lashback tackles opt-in fraud

Last week Lashback posted a three part series on opt-in fraud.
One of the issues they commented on is that suppression lists are being passed around and some mailers are actually spamming them. This is something that used to be common, where spammers were harvesting email addresses from opt-out forms and then spamming the addresses or selling them to other mailers. This is why some ISPs and anti-spammers recommend recipients not unsubscribe from mail that they never subscribed to.
In the last few years there has been conflicting data on the prevalence of harvesting unsub or suppression lists. The FTC determined that there was no risk to recipients from unsubscribing. Lashback is now seeing some spam coming into their test addresses.
Overall, there are people who will continue to be suspicious of unsubscribing from mail they do not expect. This will drive up spam complaints and lower delivery. While responsible mailers are not the cause of the negative perception of email, they are competing with the spammers and scammers and sometimes recipients may not draw distinctions. This is why building relationships and trust over email marketing campaigns is such a critical part of delivery.

Alphabetical spammers

There have been a couple posts recently about a paper presented at the Fifth Conference on Email and Spam (CEAS). The paper showed how addresses beginning with different letters get different volumes of spam.
But this post is not really about the paper, although it is an interesting academic review of spam, it is more about a memory that the discussions triggered.
Long ago I was handling the abuse desk at the very large network provider. This was in the days before Feedback loops, so every complaint was an actual forwarded email from a recipient. Generally, we saw a couple dozen complaints about any individual spam problem. Not a huge volume by any means, but that meant that any volume of complaints was significant.
One afternoon I started seeing a spike in complaints about a customer who never received complaints before. I started looking a little deeper and discovered we had around 50 complaints about this mailing, many from people I knew, and all from individuals at domains that started with A. This was one of the few times we actually pulled the plug in the middle of a mailing.
I still remember going to my boss suggesting this was something to take action on now because we had over 50 complaints and they were still in the A‘s! The customer was mortified that the guaranteed opt-in list they purchased was so bad and promised never to spam again.
Have a good weekend everyone.

Results based email marketing

Two articles showed up in my RSS feed in the last 24 articles that touched on different aspects of the same issue. Senders should improve their email marketing program even when they are working well.
Stephanie Miller over at ReturnPath addresses the lost revenue from current programs.

Opt-in Reconfirmation in the Wild

What’s an opt-in reconfirmation email? Also called, as fellow blogger Al
Iverson mentioned lately, a re-engagement email, or a permission pass email.
Al links to DJ Waldow’s write up on Shop.org’s recent re-engagement
strategy, and today I see that Janine Popick, CEO of VerticalResponse,
talking about Coach’s turn at culling their list through this process. What’s interesting here is that, according to Janine, Coach didn’t target this reconfirmation email only at recipients who never open or click. She says she does both, regularly, and received this email message anyway. Another friend of mine, who is also a Coach subscriber, reports to me that she receives regular emails from them (most recently as just about
ten days ago), but that she did not receive this reconfirmation email message.

Garbage in… garbage out

Ken Magill (hereafter known as Mr. Stupid Poopypants) has a follow up article today on his article from last week about the Obama campaign’s mailing practices. While poking Dylan a bit, his message is that marketers really need to look harder at double opt-in.

Yet more data verification

Friday Al posted about data verification, building on discussions last week about Mr. Poopyhead’s article on open signup forms. He has a very insightful analogy, that I like and I am going to steal (emphasis from the original).

A whole year?

It is, in fact, one year today that I started blogging. My first real post came on August 30, 2007… discussing the e360 v. Spamhaus case. And look, here I am, a year later still discussing the e360 v. Spamhaus case. The end of that first post said:

Spamhaus files for dismissal of e360 case

Spamhaus filed a motion today asking the judge to dismiss the e360 v. Spamhaus case for contempt. Mickey, as usual, has the docs up.
I have not posted much on the case recently, as there was only legal wrangling about discovery going on. The biggest problem being that e360 has dragged their feet, stalled and avoided discovery for the last 8 months. They have missed deadlines, turned over incomplete documents and ignored depositions. Since I last wrote about this case, discovery has been extended multiple times, the judge has compelled e360 to turn over docs and information and he sanctioned e360 for their failures to comply.
From my perspective, Spamhaus’ lawyers have been setting the stage for this motion for the last 4 – 5 months. Their interactions with e360’s lawyers, their motions to compel and their motion for sanctions have all formed a narrative of how e360 is stonewalling discovery.
This particular motion is only about 8 pages long, but references a 125 page exhibit. The very large exhibit is mostly documents that have been published before in the “Motion for Various relief due to Persistent Discovery Defaults” filed in July.
In the July motion, Spamhaus’ lawyers detail their repeated efforts to get discovery from e360, and the utter lack of cooperation. One of my favorite bits is that e360 responded (weeks late) to some of the initial interrogatories with (paraphrased), “It is too hard to write all this down, but we will tell you about it in the depositions.” My understanding of the law is that this is, in and of itself, a bit of a no-no. What really puts the icing on the cake, though, is that e360 then skipped 2 properly noticed depositions. They just did not appear, thus making their answers to the interrogatories utterly meaningless.
Spamhaus requested that the Judge impose sanctions on e360 for failing to appear at 2 depositions, not complying with the judge’s previous orders and generally being unable to actually produce any documentation that is complete or on time. Even better, when e360 did manage to produce a thumb drive it contained multiple email conversations between Mr. Linhardt and his lead counsel. This little oops happened because no one at the law firm bothered to actually examine any of the files before handing over the thumb drive. In fact, they only became aware of their error when opposing counsel notified them of the files. When e360 asked for the information back, Spamhaus’ lawyers refused pointing out that they handed over all the information willingly and that their failure to actually examine the files does not constitute an inadvertent disclosure.
The judge did sanction e360, although not with the severity that Spamhaus’ lawyers requested. He also ordered full discovery and documents turned over by August 15th. Based on my reading of the transcript (exhibit 4) the Judge sounds like he is tired of having to tell the e360 lawyers to do their jobs. The judge lectured e360 on their failure to get thing resovled.