Blogging will probably be light next week. Steve and I are both headed to MAAWG SF. Steve will be presenting training on Monday and at one of the later sessions, too. I managed to get out of having to work this conference, so no presenting for me.
We’re both looking forward to seeing everyone. Drop by and say hi.
I am still catching up from being away at MAAWG last week, and have not had much time to blog or even follow other blogs enough to link to what people are saying.
I would encourage those of you who are not MAAWG members to consider joining the organization. MAAWG has been working hard on putting together sender training courses. I gave part of one of them. I also attended all the other training sessions and learned quite a bit from those sessions as well.
MAAWG, as its name suggests, is a working group. There are opportunities for everyone to teach, participate and learn. The next meeting, is in San Francisco next February.
Twitter and some of the other delivery blogs are all abuzz today talking about the consumer survey released by MAAWG (pdf link, large file) looking at end user knowledge and awareness of email security practices.
The survey has a lot of good data and I strongly encourage people to look at the full report. There are a couple of results that are generating most of the buzz, including the fact that nearly half of the respondents have clicked on a link or replied to a spam email. Additionally, 17% of respondents said they made a mistake when they clicked on the link.
The magic statistic, though, is that 12% of the respondents said that they responded to spam because they were interested in the products or services offered in the spam. This, right there, is one of the major reasons why spam continues and is a growing problem. Out of 800 people surveyed, almost 100 of them were interested enough in the products sold by spam to respond positively. There are roughly 1.6 billion people on the Internet, which gives spammers a market of 200 million people for their spam.
Other studies have seen similar responses, that is consumers do respond to spam. Most surveys don’t define spam, however, and given a lot of consumers call “mail I don’t like” or “all commercial email” as spam it’s hard to know what the respondents are responding too. In some studies, some respondents even defined mail from companies that they had given their email address to, but had not explicitly asked for email from as spam. In this study MAAWG did request how the respondent defined spam. Of the respondents, 60% say spam is mail they did not solicit, and 41% say spam is mail that ends up in the spam folder. Given that 60% of respondents define spam as “unsolicited email” it is possible that some people are responding to mail they never requested.
Sad news for those of us who were hoping that lack of consumer response would make spamming unprofitable enough that spammers would stop.
The crosstab between “how do you define spam” and “how do you react to spam” may be an interesting data set to see.
Things are going well, if busy, here at the conference. I am attending lots of sessions and continuing to edit my talk for tomorrow. I thought I would list some random links that have come up here recently.
Lashback is advertising a joint webinar with Habeas, Publishers Clearinghouse and Lashback on how to protect brands and increase revenues with reputation management.
Terry Zink explains the new Microsoft advertising campaign. There are actually quite a few Microsoft people here at the conference, including the brain behind SNDS. We ran into each other yesterday evening, his room is right next to mine.
Ken Magill has an ongoing series of articles investigating Email Appenders, and all their various incarnations. This is an example of the confused jumble of connections that some companies use in order to hide.
Speaking of companies with bad reputations, the NY Times reports on Intercage’s loss of hosting. Atrivo/Intercage are notorious amongst the folks who fight malware and bots and have been called the American version of the Russian Business Network.