Recent Posts

More on spamfiltering feedback

Al wrote a post commenting on my post from last Thursday on spamfilters talking to senders who are being filtered. I think his take on it is close to mine. I would point out that Google has a pretty opaque system and no feedback to senders, but a lot of people seem to think their filters are accurate and do a good job.
Overall, I think there is room for discussion and feedback between senders and recipients, but on both sides the goal needs to be improving the enduser experience.

Read More

Sender complaints about spamfiltering

JD posed a question in my post about Postini and trying to sort out a customer getting marked as spam by their filtering mechanism and I think it bears more discussion than can be done in comments.

Read More

AOL publishes sender recommendations

In a blog post on April 28, AOL pointed to their new Sender Best Practices document. These are not things a sender must do in order to get mail delivered to AOL, but rather things that will help improve your reputation at AOL.
The recommendations are what I have been recommending for a while and there is nothing overly surprising in the recommendations.

Read More

Spammers in the news

Eddie Davidson was sentenced yesterday to 21 months in jail for falsifying headers and tax evasion.
Sanford Wallace (the spammer that prompted me to start figuring out how to read headers) lost his suit with MySpace for failure to comply with court orders and failing to turn over documents.
Scott and Steve Richter are in the Washington Post today in an article discussing hijacked IP space. Reading the Post article, though, it appears that Scott legitimately bought a business with a /16 and there is no hijacking going on. Spammers have hijacked IP space illegitimately in the past, but this does not seem to be the case.

Read More

Troubleshooting a Postini block

Mail from one of my clients is being filtered at Postini and they asked me to look into this. Not that there is anything that can be done, of course. Even before they were bought out by Google, they were the poster child for a spam filtering company that believed they could do no wrong. It was difficult, if not impossible to get a straight answer from Postini about filtering, and the only statement they would ever make in regards to blocking problems was ‘have the recipient whitelist your mail.’
It is not just that Postini will not talk with people who are blocked, they will not talk to their own customers, either. Many years ago, I was dealing with another Postini issue for a customer. This customer was a Postini customer and was sending mail to themselves to test their new ESP. Postini was blocking the mail and the customer wanted me to find out why. After a couple days of digging I did actually find a really-o truly-o human at Postini. [1] He explained to me that a single line of text, followed by an unsubscribe link was spam, always spam and nothing but spam. He also explained that the only way for that mail to be let through, was for my customer to turn off his Postini filters.
Fast forward 4 years and I once again have a customer blocked by Postini.  Usually, I tell customers there is nothing to be done for Postini blocks and that no one can find any information about them, but this customer is insistent. This particular customer has extremely clean mailing practices, sends highly relevant and wanted mail and consistently gets 95+% inbox delivery. They are not spammers, not even a little bit. Because I know this customer is so clean, I poked around a little to find some information about them. They do use the ReturnPath Mailbox Monitor so I have a copy of the headers Postini is adding. I also discovered that Postini is now providing a decoder service for their headers at https://www.postini.com/support/header_analyzer.php
The response you get back from pasting in a header is not that useful if you have found any of the numerous explanations of Postini headers, but it does show some willing. Note, there is no way to ask a question or provide feedback to Postini on the listing.
There is not much that can be done to deal with Postini filtering your email. The best you can do is have your recipients whitelist you.
[1] I believe I am the only person on the delivery end that has ever been able to actually talk to a live human at Postini, and I think that is only because I called them from the same area code they are in and some engineer decided to return the message I left on their corporate voicemail.

Read More

Legal filings this week

It has been one of those weeks here and there have been a couple legal things that have come up that I have not had the time to blog about.
One is a post over on Eric Goldman’s blog by Ethan Ackerman discussing the Jeremy Jaynes case. It is quite an info heavy post, but well worth a read.
In addition to not having the time to fully read Ethan’s post and understand the legal subtleties he is discussion, I have not quite had the time to blog about two e360 filings that showed up this week.
The first is a filing by Spamhaus’ lawyers asking for the judge to compel e360 to participate in the discovery process. If you remember e360 won a default judgment against Spamhaus for over $11M. Spamhaus filed an appeal and the Seventh Circuit Court upheld the judgment but vacated damages. Spamhaus and e360 were ordered to conduct discovery on the damages.
I would assume that e360 would be eager to demonstrate the amount of damages Spamhaus caused them, but it appears this is not the case. According to the filing e360 has been missing deadlines and even skipped a planned deposition. The exhibits show numerous email conversations between the lawyers, with e360’s lawyers making repeated promises to deliver, and then failing to follow through.
There are a couple statements in the filing that stood out. First, this paragraph which contains a statement that should have e360’s lawyers shaking in their shoes.

Read More

Categories of email

The question came up on a mailing list about how senders classify email. Steve came up with the following list of email types from the recipient (not sender) perspective

Read More

Forgery and spamware

Recently there has been a massive uptick in forgeries. I have been seeing hundreds of bounce back messages, peaking at more than 1000 in an hour. I have been talking about this with people who monitor large spamtrap feeds, large MTAs and spamfilters and it seems this is not an isolated experience. The consensus seems to be that there is new spamware out there which is using email addresses on the spam list as a From: address
The volume itself is annoying. Thousands of messages a day from “mailer-daemon” telling me that the mail I sent with the subject line “Get a longer tool” cannot be delivered to some random address some where. These are coming to at least 3 separate email addresses. One of them was given to Intuit back in 2001/2002 when I registered a copy of Quicken, and ended up leaked to loan spammers and is all over spam lists. The other two are addresses scraped from websites. Same spammer has them, same spammer is using them as part of his spam run.
Even more annoying than the volume, though, is the challenge/response emails. “Your email to jobobjimbo@example.com cannot be delivered until you click this link.” I have been adding every domain I can find that is using c/r to my filters, and just discarding the c/r emails so I do not have to deal with them. That is not my ideal solution, it does mean that if someone using c/r ever tries to contact me I will not see the challenge and our communications cannot happen.
Some people have recommended that the right way to deal with challenges from forged spam are actually to answer the challenges. As the reasoning goes, if someone using c/r is going to outsource their spam filtering to a victim of spam forgery, then they should expect that the “spam filter” may have a different opinion than they do. While I always sympathized with this viewpoint, I was not sure I would ever confirm spam forgeries. The sheer volume of c/r stuff I have received in the last few weeks has almost convinced me that people who use c/r deserve every bit of spam they get. If a c/r filter lets in spam, then perhaps they will reconsider their choice to spew challenges out to forged email addresses.
The amount of c/r spam I am getting as part of the forgery runs is decreasing, I think I have finally managed to block the primary sources. It does mean I will not be able to communicate with people who use c/r in the future, but I find this a small price to pay for not having to be an outsourced spam filter. I get enough of my own spam, I really do not want to have to deal with yours.

Read More

Finding your relevancy

Ken Magill reported today that Responsys has unveiled a tool to measure the relevancy of email marketing programs. This tool is intended to help marketers implement the advice “be more relevant.”

Read More

That's spammer speak

I’ve been hearing stories from other deliverability consultants and some ISP reps about what people are telling them. Some of them are jaw dropping examples of senders who are indistinguishable from spammers. Some of them are just examples of sender ignorance.
“We’re blocked at ISP-A, so we’re just going to stop mailing all our recipients at ISP-A.” Pure spammer speak. The speaker sees no value in any individual recipient, so instead of actually figuring out what about their mail is causing problems, they are going to drop 30% of their list. We talk a lot on this blog about relevancy and user experience. If a sender does not care about their email enough to invest a small amount of time into fixing a problem, then why should recipients care about the mail they are sending?
A better solution then just throwing away 30% of a list is to determine the underlying reasons for  delivery issues, and actually make adjustments to  address collection processes and  user experience. Build a sustainable, long term email marketing program that builds a loyal customer base.
“We have a new system to unsubscribe people immediately, but are concerned about implementing it due to database shrink.” First off, the law says that senders must stop mailing people that ask. Secondly, if people do not want email, they are not going to be an overall asset. They are likely to never purchase from the email, and they are very likely to hit the ‘this is spam’ button and lower the overall delivery rate of a list.
Let people unsubscribe. Users who do not want email from a sender are cruft. They lower the ROI for a list, they lower aggregate performance. Senders should not want unwilling or unhappy recipients on their list.
“We found out a lot of our addresses are at non-existent domains, so we want to correct the typos.” “Correcting” email addresses is an exercise in trying to read recipients minds. I seems intuitive that someone who typed yahooooo.com meant yahoo.com, or that hotmial.com meant hotmail.com, but there is no way to know for sure. There is also the possibility that the user is deliberately mistyping addresses to avoid getting mail from the sender. It could be that the user who mistyped their domain also mistyped their username. In any case, “fixing” the domain could result in a sender sending spam.
Data hygiene is critical, and any sender should be monitoring and checking the information input into their subscription forms. There are even services which offer real time monitoring of the data that is being entered into webforms. Once the data is in the database, though, senders should not arbitrarily change it.

Read More
Categories
Tags