Recent Posts

Report spam button broken: an ISP perspective

This press release has been discussed in a lot of groups and sites I read. One of my favorite comments comes from one of the filter developers at a large ISP. He was asked “does the overuse/misuse of the this-is-spam button significantly affect the ability to do your job?” His response, reposted with permission,

How do you use bounce data?

AOL is looking for input from ISPs and ESPs to better understand how you handle data sent to you by AOL.

Report spam button broken

Q Interactive and Marketing Sherpa published a press release today about how fundamentally broken the “report spam” button is. They call for ISPs to make changes to fix the problem. I think the study on recipient perceptions is useful and timely. There is an ongoing fundamental paradigm shift in how ISPs are handling email filters. ISPs are learning how to measure a senders collective reputation with end users, and, more importantly integrate that reputation into the equation used to determine how to filter and deliver incoming email.
Q Interactive and Marketing Sherpa acknowledge this change in the report:

How much mail?

Yesterday I had a call with a potential new client. She told me she had a list of 4M Yahoo addresses and she wanted to mail them twice a day. Her biggest concern was that this volume would be too much for Yahoo and her mail would be block solely on volume. As we went through the conversation, she commented that this list is also being used by someone else she knows and they were getting inbox delivery at Yahoo on every mailing.
From other bits of the conversation, I suspect that these are not the only two people using this list, but I have no feel for the volume. But how much email is each person on that list receiving a day?
I have a current client who is in a similar field to the above potential client. I signed up for their list back in December. Since then I have received 1728 emails to the address I used on their site. 4 of those emails have actually been from my clients, the rest were stolen by a partner of theirs and sold off to all sorts of mailers. Yesterday I received 40 emails.
I just cannot see how this is a valid, long term business model. The bulk of these mails are advertising payday and other kinds of loans. Some of them are duplicate offers from the same senders (judged by CAN SPAM addresses) using different From: lines. The mailbox these mails are filtered into is completely useless, it has been swamped by loan offers. I cannot imagine that anyone, even someone looking for a loan, is receptive to this much email. The only thing I can figure is that the mailers believe that if their email is the one at the top of the mailbox at the exact moment the recipient gets most desperate for money in their bank account tomorrow they will make the sale and get paid.
This model is going to be less and less viable as time goes on.
On the permission level, there really is no permission associated with that email address. Sure, I could call up the former client of mine who mailed that address today and challenge them to show me where they got the address and they would probably tell me they bought it from that company over there. But when I submitted my email address to my client’s site, I did not expect to receive offers for Mickey Mouse Collectible Watches. It certainly is not what I signed up for.
Not only is the permission tenuous, but ISPs are moving away from a permission based model for access to their subscribers. What they really care about now is how recipients react to email. An email marketing model based on getting as much email in front of the recipient as possible will be harder and harder to be profitable as ISPs get better at measuring how much their subscribers want email. The mailers who get good delivery are those are able to make the mail interesting, wanted and relevant to recipients.
It is difficult for me to imagine a case where you can make 2 emails a day relevant to 4 million recipients.

e360 v. Comcast: part 4

Today I have a copy of the e360 briefing on Comcast’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
On a superficial level, the writing of e360’s lawyers not as clear or concise as that of the Comcast lawyers. When reading Comcast’s writings it is clear to me that the lawyers have a story to tell and it has a beginning, a middle and an end. They take the reader through the setup, then through the evidence and case law, then proceed to the remedies requested. There is a clear narrative and progression and it all makes sense and the reader is never left standing. This briefing meanders hither and yon, prompting one person to ask was this written on the back of a placemat in crayon.
I still think e360 is misunderstanding or misstating some crucial facts in this case.
e360 argues that because they comply with CAN SPAM, then their mail is therefore not spam. This is not true (see Al’s post, and my post and John’s post). Complying with CAN SPAM does not mean you are not sending spam. I will go even farther to say that sending super-duper-double-confirmed-with-a-cherry-on-top-opt-in email does not mean you will always get through an ISPs filters. The ISPs have moved away from being in the position of having to decide between a mailer who insists a recipient opted in and a recipient who marks mail as spam. Now, the ISPs look at complaints and if you annoy your recipients, then the ISP is going to filter that mail. It is all about relevancy. It is all about not sending mail that is going to make those users hit the “this is spam” button. And endusers have never cared about permission, spam is email they do not want and if you send it, they will complain about it.
They also seem to have this impression that Comcast is letting all e360’s competitors send email to Comcast. Again, it is all about relevancy. If e36o’s competitors are sending mail that users do not complain about then yes, that mail is going to get through. The problem here is not that Comcast is picking and choosing which ESP gets to mail the users, it is that the recipients are choosing which emails they do not object to. Send emails recipients find useful and relevant, and it does not matter that you scraped their address off a website, they will not report it as spam.
Comcast points out that under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) they are not liable for blocking content. The CDA provides for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of content under 2 separate circumstances: 230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2). 230(c)(1) says

e360 v. Comcast: part 3

A couple weeks ago I posted about e360 suing Comcast. The short version is that e360 filed suit against Comcast to force Comcast to accept e360’s email. Comcast responded with a motion for judgment on the proceedings. This motion asked the judge to rule on e360’s case without going through the process of discovery or depositions or all the normal wrangling associated with a legal case. Comcast appears to be saying to the judge even if everything e360 alleges is true, we have done nothing wrong.
The judge asked for each party to prepare full briefs on the motion. e360’s response is due tomorrow and the Comcast reply to that is due on March 27.
Comcast does not appear to be content with just having the case dismissed. Today they filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint. The counterclaim is against e360, the third-party complaint incorporates David Linhardt, Maverick Direct Marketing, Bargain Depot Enterprises, Northshore Hosting, Ravina Hosting, Northgate Internet Services and John Does 1-50. Docs are up over on SpamSuite.
Comcast states the nature of the action in 4 short paragraphs.

Affiliates: what is a company's responsibility

Many of my clients come to me when they end up with delivery problems due to the actions of affiliates. These can either be listings in some of the URL blocklists (either public or private) or escalations of IP based listings. In many of the cases I have dealt with affiliates, the affiliates have sloppy mailing practices or are out and out spammers.
Recently the FTC settled with Cyberheat over their liability for the behaviour of their affiliates. In this settlement Cyberheat is required to monitor their affiliates as follows:

Yahoo, part 5…

… wherein I rename this blog “What change did Yahoo make today.” No, really, I like the guys at Yahoo a lot, but really, occasionally I would like to blog about something different!
Today’s change, actually yesterday’s, is that Yahoo has closed their beta FBL program to changes or additions. It is a beta program, this is not unexpected. They will be making changes based on the results of that program and will open it up sometime in the future.
Yahoo!’s announcement

What to expect from your delivery consultant

Every once in a while I get a phone call asking me what delivery consultant do. What can I do for them? How can I help them? Delivery consulting is a very new field and it is understandable a lot of people do not know what we do.
The overall delivery consulting process here a Word to the Wise involves collecting detailed information about your mailing program and your technical setup, like:

Yahoo delays, part 4: Yahoo blogs

Yahoo posted some suggestions about contacting their postmaster group over on the ymail blog. They also explained what they were doing to solve the problems with response delays.
Some of the problem is being caused by excessive follow-up emails, either because senders did not provide all the necessary information initially or because they are asking why they have not heard anything. Each of these requires more work on the part of Yahoo and throws the queues into further disarray and puts everyone even more behind.
Yahoo asks that people be patient, they are working through things. On their end, they have added more staff to the postmaster team. They also suggest senders can help by providing ALL the information they ask for at http://postmaster.yahoo.com/ before submitting the request. Incomplete requests contribute even more to the backlog as Yahoo employees have to chase down senders to get their full information.