Recent Posts

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.

Data Integrity, part 2

Yesterday I blogged about eROIs contention that consumers should not be wasting the time of lead gen companies by filling in fake data. There were lots of good comments on the post, and I strongly encourage you to go read them if you are interested in different perspectives on the data issue.
One of the arguments I was making is that people are only going to give accurate information if they trust the website that is collecting information. I do, strongly, believe this. I also believe very strongly that websites collecting information need to do so defensively. It is the only way you can get good information.
This ties in with an earlier post about a website that collects email addresses from any visitor, then turns around and submits those addresses to webforms. Hundreds of mailing lists have already been corrupted by this group. They are a prime reason companies must design address collection process defensively. There are people who do bad things, who will take an opportunity to harass senders and recipients. This company is not the first, nor will they be the last to commit such abuses.
Taking a stand against abusive companies and people may be useful, but that will not stop the abuse. It is much easier to design process that limits the amount of abuse. For lead gen, in particular, confirmed opt-in is one way to limit the amount of bad data collected. As a side effect, it also results in less blocked mail, fewer complaints and better delivery.

Who is responsible for data integrity

Yesterday, Ken Magill wrote about his experience with the Obama campaign’s open and unconfirmed marketing list. Ken, to see just how open the Obama subscription form was, subscribed using a valid email address but the name of Stupid Poopypants. As expected, mail to Ken from the Obama campaign was addressed to Stupid.
eROI uses this as an example of people who ruin their ROI by filling fake data into forms and ends their post by addressing Ken as follows:

Collecting information from subscribers

VerticalResponse Blog has a post up about collecting information from subscribers to mailing lists. Go check it out.

Interview with Matt Blumberg

Mark Brownlow posted an interview with Matt Blumberg, CEO of ReturnPath, about the merger with Habeas. It is well worth a read.
I have not yet commented on the merger and how this is going to affect the delivery industry because I am not sure how it will. Some of the effect is dependent on what ReturnPath does with the two companies and how their policies change. Here at Word to the Wise, we have known the folks at both companies for a very long time.
One thing that strikes me about this merger is that it means there are few direct competitors left in the delivery market. Everyone currently in the whitelist / delivery certification market seems to have a slightly different target audience and slightly different business model.
ReturnPath has SenderScore Certified and the Safelist. To get on these lists senders must meet criteria that, while filtered through ReturnPath, are set by the ISPs. Many senders find that they can get consistently high inbox delivery just by meeting the ISP standards, even if they are not SenderScore Certified or on the Safelist. However, certification does provide senders with an assurance that they are meeting standards.
Goodmail has their CertifiedEmail product. While certified senders must also meet criteria, they are also paying ISPs for delivery. I have always seen the Goodmail product as more focused on and more valuable for transactional senders rather than other senders. This slightly overlaps with ReturnPath’s target market, but the senders in this market do have different needs pressures.
ISIPP has their SuretyMail product. This provides a framework for senders to make statements about the email they send in a way that receivers can reliably query. This is a slightly different approach, in that ISIPP does not classify mail for their customers, but allows customers to self-classify. The benefit of ISIPP is that the ISIPP framework is trusted by their receiver-users and can push back on ISIPP if customers incorrectly self-classify.
Different markets, different business models, different approaches.

Challenge/Response

Christopher Breen at Macworld posts about a major pet peeve of mine.

EmailAppenders

Al points out that EmailAppenders are possibly trying to change their online reputation. To bad their “suggestion” does not work.