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

Content based filters

Content based filters are incredibly complex and entire books could be written about how they work and what they look at. Of course, by the time the book was written it would be entirely obsolete. Because of their complexity, though, I am always looking for new ways to explain them to folks.
Content based filters look at a whole range of things, from the actual text in the message, to the domains, to the IP addresses those domains and URLs point to. They look at the hidden structure of an email. They look at what’s in the body of the message and what’s in the headers. There isn’t a single bit of a message that content filters ignore.
Clients usually ask me what words they should change to avoid the filters. But this isn’t the right question to ask. Usually it’s not a word that causes the problem. Let me give you a few examples of what I mean.
James H. has an example over on the Cloudmark blog of how a single missing space in an email caused delivery problems for a large company. That missing space changed a domain name in the message sufficiently to be caught by a number of filters. This is one type of content filter, that focuses on what the message is advertising or who the beneficiary of the message is. Some of my better clients get caught by these types of filters occasionally. A website they’re linking to or a domain name they’re using in the text of the message has a bad reputation. The mail gets bulked or blocked because of that domain in the message.
One of my clients went from 100% inbox every day to random failures at different domains. Their overall inbox was still in the 96 – 98% range, but there was a definite change. The actual content of their mail hadn’t changed, but we kept looking for underlying causes. At one point we were on the phone and they mentioned their new content management system. Sure enough, the content management company had a poor reputation and the delivery problems started exactly when they started using the content management. The tricky part of this was that the actual domains and URLs in the messages never changed, they were still clickthrough.clientdomain.example.com. But those URLs now pointed to an IP address that a lot of spammers were abusing. So there were delivery problems. We made some changes to their setup and the delivery problems went away.
The third example is one from quite a long time ago, but illustrates a key point. A client was testing email sends through a new ESP. They were sending one-line mail through the ESPs platform to their own email account. Their corporate spamfilter was blocking the mail. After much investigation and a bit of string pulling, I finally got to talk to an engineer at the spamfiltering company. He told me that they were blocking the mail because it “looked like spam.” When pressed, he told me they blocked anything that had a single line of text and an unsubscribe link. Once the client added a second line of text, the filtering issue went away.
These are just some of the examples of how complex content based filters are. Content is almost a misnomer for them, as they look at so many other things including layout, URLs, domains and links.

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

Change is required

I get a lot of calls from senders who tell me that they have not changed what they were doing, but all of a sudden their mail isn’t performing the way it used to. Sometimes it’s simply less effective marketing, but more often than not the issue is mail being blocked or filtered to the bulk folder.
What worked today won’t work tomorrow. Spammers are forever evolving new techniques to get past spam filters. ISPs are forever evolving new techniques to stop them.
One of the current driving forces for spam filter development is focused on the individual recipients. Recipient wants and needs are king in the world of ISP mail filtering. Much of that is driven by the underlying business models of the free ISPs. They are selling eyeballs to their advertisers and that relies on keeping as many eyeballs around for as long as possible.
An early version of the recipient driven filtering was “add to your address book” where individual users could over ride ISP delivery decisions by actively adding a From: address to their address book. The ISPs have been refining this over time. For instance, if you reply to an email in some clients, you are prompted to add that address to your address books. If you take an email out of your bulk folder and move it to your inbox then that address is automatically added to your address book.
But the refinements haven’t stopped there. ISPs are now making smart decisions about what emails a particular recipient will want to receive. This raises a number of challenges to senders. How do you send email to ten thousand or a hundred thousand or a million people and make it relevant to all of them?
Smart senders will take the individual delivery challenge in stride. They will change along with the ISPs, to send mail that their recipients want to receive. Change is inevitable and required.

Read More