TWSD: Dumb and dumber

I recently received a spam offering to get one of my personal websites listed in foreign search engines.  Harvesting addresses off websites is dumb. Even dumber is sending a followup a week later with a notice at the top.

Did you receive the e-mail which I sent to you recently (copied here-below)? Please confirm since I have had problems lately with emails intercepted by spam-filters set too high.

No, really, my spam filter isn’t set too high. In fact, given this spam hit my inbox, I would say my spam filter is set too low.
Hey, spam filters are a problem for lots of people. But when you’re actually harvesting addresses from websites and spamming, you don’t get to complain that filters are accurate enough to catch your spam.
This is something I talk with clients about frequently. If their mail is getting caught in spam filters it’s bad, but it’s usually because something they are doing makes their mail appear to be spam to recipients. The solution is to send mail that does not look like spam, not to expect recipients to change their spam filtering schemes.
Coping with spam filters is challenging. Good senders do get caught by spam filters and have to compensate and make changes in their own processes. It’s not fair, it’s not ideal, it’s not what anyone wants. Unfortunately, that’s one of the costs of doing business using email and not one I see decreasing any time soon.

Related Posts

How Spamfilters Work

AllSpammedUp has a post describing the primary techniques anti-spam filters use to identify mail as spam or not spam. While is this not sender or delivery focused knowledge, it is important for people sending mail to have a basic understanding of filtering mechanisms. Without that base knowledge, it’s difficult to troubleshoot problems and resolve issues.

Read More

TWSD: breaking the law

I tell my clients that they should comply with CAN SPAM (physical postal address and unsubscribe option) even if the mail they are sending is technically exempt. The bar for legality is so low, there is no reason not to.
Sure, there is a lot of spam out there that does not comply with CAN SPAM. Everything you see from botnets and proxies is in violation, although many of those mails do actually meet the postal address and unsubscribe requirements.
One of my spams recently caught my eye today with their disclaimer on the bottom: “This email message is CAN SPAM ACT of 2003 Compliant.” The really funny bit is that it does not actually comply with the law. Even better, the address it was sent to is not published anywhere, so the company could also be nailed for a dictionary attack and face enhanced penalties.
It reminds me of the old spams that claimed they complied with S.1618.

Read More

Delivery lore

Number of people believing outrageous statements on the Internet
(Image from Bad Astronomy)
Almost every delivery consultant, delivery expert or deliverability blog offers their secrets to understanding spam filters. As a reader, though, how do you know if the author knows what they’re talking about? For instance, on one of the major delivery blogs had an article today saying that emails with a specific subject line will not get past spam filters.
This type of statement is nothing new. The lore around spam filters and what they do and do not do permeates our industry. Most of the has achieved the status of urban legend, and yet is still repeated as gospel. Proof? I sent an email with the subject line quoted in the above blog post to my aol, yahoo, gmail and hotmail accounts. Within 3 minutes of sending the email it was in the inbox of all 4 accounts
I can come up with any number of reasons why the email ended up in my inbox, rather than being caught by spam filters as the delivery expert originally claimed. But none of those reasons really matter. The expert in question is spreading delivery lore that is demonstrably false. Emails with that subject line will get through spam filters. I even added an extra 4 exclamation points in the subject line.
Not all delivery lore is true. In fact, most lore involving “always” “all” “never” or “none” is not going to be true. Just because you read it on the internet, and because it came from someone claiming to know what they’re talking about does not absolve individual senders from critically thinking about the information.

Read More