The sledgehammer of confirmed opt-in

We focused Monday on Trend/MAPS blocking fully confirmed opt-in (COI) mail, because that is the Gold Standard for opt-in. It is also Trend/MAPS stated policy that all mail should be COI. There are some problems with this approach. The biggest is that Trend/MAPS is confirming some of the email they receive and then listing COI senders.
The other problem is that typos happen by real people signing up for mail they want. Because MAPS is using typo domains to drive listings, they’re going to see a lot of mail from companies that are doing single opt-in. I realize that there are problems with single opt-in mail, but the problems depends on a lot of factors. Not all single opt-in lists are full of traps and spam and bad data.
In fact, one ESP has a customer with a list of more than 50 million single opt-in email addresses. This sender mails extremely heavily, and yet sees little to no blocking by public or private blocklists.
Trend/MAPS policy is singling out senders that are sending mail people signed up to receive. We know for sure that hard core spammers spend a lot of time and money to identify spamtraps. The typo traps that Trend/MAPS use are pretty easy to find and I have no doubt that the real, problematic spammers are pulling traps out of their lists. Legitimate senders, particularly the ESPs, aren’t going to do that. As one ESP rep commented on yesterday’s post:

I work for an ESP and we don’t suppress domains like this, based on the theory that if a client is hitting spamtraps, we want to know so we can sanction or terminate them. But if Trend are acting in bad faith here, I guess my best bet is just to suppress any domain of theirs I can find (and it took about 30 seconds to find 2700 of them).   Another Anon

That’s a sentiment I heard over and over again from companies listed by Trend/MAPS. The companies are happy to force their customers to clean up their acts.  They want reports of bad behaviour by customers, but Trend/MAPS policy of forcing confirmations is taking a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

I think we have a reputation of being a bit harsh on customers, and we’re honestly a little proud of that. But I’m most proud of the fact that we are always fair and honest, even with the bad people.
We tell people what they need to change. The bad people who won’t take our advice are easy to kick out after that.
In this particular situation, we don’t have any advice to give. We don’t have a way to tell people “go do this.” Because it would be a lie. “Go remove inactives” won’t help. “Go re-confirm inactives” won’t help. Even “Go use double opt-in” won’t help if MAPS is clicking and opening everything.
And because MAPS is who they are, we can’t provide a lot of detail to customers, either.  An ESP Executive

COI is a tool. It is occasionally a good tool for keeping lists clean. But I’ve worked with dozens of senders over the year that aren’t using COI and are still keeping their lists clean because they have other processes in place to do so.

A Disturbing Trend
Don't think bounce handling is important?

Related Posts

How not to build a mailing list

I mentioned yesterday one of the major political blogs launched their mailing list yesterday. I pointed out a number of things they did that may cause problems. Today, I discovered another problem.
This particular blog has been around for a long time, probably close to 10 years. It allows anyone to join and create their own blogs and comment with registered users. As part of their new mailing list, they added everyone who has ever registered to their mailing list. They did not send a “we have a new list, want to join it?” email, they added every registered user to the list and said “you can opt out if you want.”
This is such a bad idea. My own account was used once, to make one comment, back in 2005. Yes, 2005. It’s been almost 5 years since I last logged into the site. Sure, I have email addresses that go back that far, but not everyone does. That list is going to be full of problems: dead addresses, spamtraps, duplicates, unengaged and uninterested.
Seriously, they’re adding people who’ve not logged into their site in 5 years to a mailing list. How can this NOT go horribly wrong?
My initial thought was this was going to blow up in a week. I’m now guessing they’ll start seeing delivery problems a lot sooner than that.

Read More

A brief guide to spamtraps

“I thought spamtraps were addresses harvested off webpages.”

“I thought spamtraps were addresses that were valid and now aren’t.”

Read More

Feedback loops

There are a lot of different perspectives on Feedback Loops (FBLs) and “this is spam” buttons across the email industry.
Some people think FBLs are the best thing since sliced bread and can’t figure out why more ISPs don’t offer them. These people use use the data to clean addresses off their lists, lower complaints and send better mail. They use the complaints as a data source to help them send mail their recipients want. Too many recipients opted out on a particular offer? Clearly there is a problem with the offer or the segmentation or something.
Other people, though, think the existence of “this is spam” buttons and FBLs is horrible.  They call people who click “this is spam” terrorists or anti-commerce-net-nazis. They want to be able to dispute every click of the button. They think that too many ISPs offer this is spam buttons and too many ESPs and network providers pay way to much attention to complaints. The argue ISPs should remove these buttons and stop paying attention to what recipients think.
Sadly, I’m not actually making up the terminology in the last paragraph. There really are who think that the problem isn’t with the mail that they’re sending but that the recipients can actually express an opinion about it and the ISPs listen to those opinions. “Terrorists” and “Nazis” are the least of the things they have called people who complain about their mail.
One of the senior engineers at Cloudmark recently posted an article talking about FBLs and “this is spam” buttons. I think it’s a useful article to read as it explains what value FBLs play in helping spam filters become more accurate.

Read More