Recent Posts

Consent and laws

Derek Harding wrote an article at ClickZ talking about consent and how the email marketing industry hasn’t yet learned that consent is important.

Read More

Solving delivery problems

“The only solution to our delivery problems isn’t double opt-in, is it?” A question I get quite frequently from clients and potential clients. In the vast majority of cases the answer is no, confirmed (double) opt-in [1] is not the only solution to delivery problems. In fact, there are delivery issues that confirmed opt-in will do nothing to solve.
Many other delivery sites and deliverability experts will tell clients that the solution to their deliverability problems is to switch to confirmed opt-in as a method to collect email addresses. This overly simplistic solution only treats one possible source of delivery problems, the collection of addresses. It does not address data hygiene issues, technical delivery issues or complaints.
While address collection is important, the best address collection processes on the planet cannot fix sloppy data handling, failure to unsubscribe recipients, or non-existent bounce handling. All of these factors play a role in delivery. It is critical to identify the underlying source of delivery problems before advising anyone on how to fix it.
Over the course of the next few blog posts, I am going to take a look at the various issues that affect delivery: permission, data hygiene, bounce handling, complaints and authentication. I’ll talk about what is important and what senders need to look for and be aware of when they’re trying to troubleshoot delivery issues.
[1] There is some disagreement between senders and anti-spammers about the correct terminology to use. Senders use double opt-in to describe the process, anti-spammers use confirmed opt-in. I am using both terms here to mean the same process.

Read More

7th circuit court ruling in e360 v. Spamhaus

Mickey has some commentary and the full ruling up on Spamsuite. In short the appeals court affirmed the default judgment, vacated the judgment on damages and remanded the case back to the lower court to determine appropriate damages.
There are a couple bits of the ruling that stand out to me and that I think are worthy of comment.
Spamhaus made a very bad tactical decision by initially answering and then withdrawing that answer. The appeals court ruled that action signaled that Spamhaus waived their right to argue jurisdiction and that they submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Based on this, the appeals court upheld the default judgment against Spamhaus. Not necessarily the outcome any of us wanted, but that doesn’t set any precedent for future cases unless defendants answer and then withdraw the answer. Specifically on page 12 of the ruling the court says:

Read More

First Post

Everybody’s doing it, blogging I mean. It struck me this was a good place to write about delivery issues I encounter in my job and solutions I’ve found for the problems my clients have. This would also be a place to comment on new issues I’ve seen from ISPs.I’ve listed a couple delivery blogs I read over on the blogroll. I’ll also be updating that with some marketing related blogs I’ve found useful.Thanks for stopping by!

Read More
Categories
Tags