Poisoning Spamtraps

Today’s question comes from Dave in yesterday’s comment section.

I wonder if spammers might submit harvested addresses to big-name companies known to not use confirmed opt-in just to poison what they believe might be spamtraps?

It’s certainly possible that people submit addresses to forms and big-name companies. But I don’t really think that poisons the spamtrap.
Depending on who is running the trap a couple of things can happen.

  1. The big company is added to a blocklist. I have dealt with SBL listings of multiple Fortune 50 companies and a host of other national and international brands. Major brands do get blocked and blocklisted repeatedly for sending to trap addresses. And in many cases they’ve had to implement confirmed opt-in to get delisted. In a couple cases, the solution involved corporate wide changes in database and email address handling.
  2. The trap is part of a scoring system and the other mail from that same sender doesn’t result in blocking. For instance, Yelp has been spamming the address of mine harvested off the blog. Other people have mentioned they’re getting Yelp mail to trap addresses. But the vast majority of Yelp’s mail is legitimate and the recipients want it. At most places they won’t be blocked for mailing to that address.

In all cases, it is the responsibility of the sender to verify they have permission to mail an address. If they fail to do that, and end up adding a spamtrap (or other address that doesn’t belong to the submitter) to their mailing list, they are not sending permission email. For many trap maintainers this is enough evidence to drive an entry on a blocklist. For scoring systems, it’s more about the overall mail stream than one or two trap hits.
I’d say that the only thing that can really poison a trap is revealing it or publicly admitting a particular address is a trap. Even in those cases I’m not really sure that’s true, though. My own experience suggests that many spammers, particularly the affiliate types, are too incompetent to suppress trap addresses. In a couple of instances, I’ve been working with clients who have delivery problems related to their use of affiliates. Often I will dig into my own spam corpus for examples of spam pointing to my company. I do turn over trap addresses to the spammers. They still send those addresses spam.
===
Have a question you want answered? Tweet them to wise_ laura or send them to laura-questions@wordtothewise.com.
 
 
 

Related Posts

Can I assume consumer and business filtering is the same?

Today’s question comes from Steve B.

I wondered if you know much about hosted email providers such as google apps, Microsoft and yahoo.
I have seen a rise in number of people using them to provide their corporate email service.   I am using the same logic that the rules governing delivery to gmail will effect those using google hosted email for example.  For Microsoft i have  been using Hotmail due to the SmartScreen filters.  Would you agree with that logic?

Read More

Handling replies to bulk mail

This week’s Wednesday question comes from Ryan W.

I’ve been noticing a few e-mail accounts who reply to our e-mail sends with spammy type replies such as, “hey this is intense…..(link)” what do you think should we be removing those e-mails from our mailing?

Read More

Dear Email Address Occupant

There’s a great post over on CircleID from John Levine and his experience with a marketer sending mail to a spam trap.
Apparently, some time back in 2002 someone opted in an address that didn’t belong to them to a marketing database. It may have been a hard to read scribble that was misread when the data was scanned (or typed) into the database. It could be that the person didn’t actually know their email address. There are a lot of ways spamtraps can end up on lists that don’t involve malice on the part of the sender.
But I can’t help thinking that mailing an address for 10 years, where the person has never ever responded might be a sign that the address isn’t valid. Or that the recipient might not want what you’re selling or, is not actually a potential customer.
I wrote a few weeks back about the difference between delivery and marketing. That has sparked conversations, including one where I discovered there are a lot of marketers out there that loathe and despise delivery people. But it’s delivery people who understand that not every email address is a potential purchaser. Our job is to make sure that mail to non-existent “customers” doesn’t stop mail from actually getting to actual potential customers.
Email doesn’t have an equivalent of “occupant” or “resident.” Email marketers need to pay attention to their data quality and hygiene. In the snail mail world, that isn’t true. My parents still get marketing mail addressed to me, and I’ve not lived in that house for 20+ years. Sure, it’s possible an 18 year old interested in virginia slims might move into that house at some point, and maybe that 20 years of marketing will pay off. It only costs a few cents to keep that address on their list and the potential return is there.
In email, though, sending mail to addresses that don’t have a real recipient there has the potential to hurt delivery to all other recipients on your list. Is one or two bad addresses going to be the difference between blocked and inbox? No, but the more abandoned addresses and non-existent recipients on a list there are on a list, the more likely filters will decide the mail isn’t really important or wanted.
The cost of keeping that address, one that will never, ever convert on a list may mean losing access to the inbox of actual, real, converting customers.
 

Read More