Misdirected email


While this does seem to be more common with gmail addresses, it’s not solely limited to gmail. I’ve written about this frequently.

There are a lot of cases we hear about where personal information is leaked through misdirected email. Consider how often it happens and no one hears about it.
For marketers, the biggest risk with misdirected email is sending spam to someone who can get that mail blocked by an ISP, major spamfiltering company or blocklist. For companies using email addresses as primary keys for customer databases, the risk is exposing customer information to the wrong people.
I get that address verification is hard. I get it is friction in the signup process. But that shouldn’t really matter when you’re discussing PII.
 

Related Posts

Gmail says no expectation of privacy, kinda.

Consumer Watch put out a press release yesterday about a court filing made by Gmail that says Gmail users have no expectation of privacy. I pulled a bunch of the docs yesterday, but have had no real time to read or digest them.
For recap users everything I pulled (and stuff other people have pulled) are available at Archive.org.
The initial complaint was filed under seal at the request of Google. The redacted complaint doesn’t tell us a lot, but it’s available for people to read if they’re interested.
The doc everyone is talking about is Google’s Motion to Dismiss. Everyone is up in arms about Google saying, in that filing, “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” (page 28, line 9). What no one seems to have mentioned is that this is actually a quote from a case that Google is referencing. The whole paragraph may lead one to a different conclusion.

Read More

Email verification – what are we verifying

One of the ongoing discussions in the email space is the one about address verification. Multiple companies have sprung up to do “real time” email address verification. They ensure that addresses collected at the point of sale are valid.
But what does valid mean? In most of these contexts, valid means that the addresses don’t bounce and aren’t spam traps. And that is one part of validating email addresses.
That isn’t the only part, though. In my opinion, an even more important thing to validate is that the email address belongs to the person giving it to you. The Consumerist has had an ongoing series of articles discussing people getting mis-directed email from various companies.
Today the culprit is AT&T, who are sending a lot of personal information to an email address of someone totally unconnected to that account. There are a lot of big problems with this, and it’s not just in the realm of email delivery.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that AT&T is exposing personally identifiable information (PII) to third parties. What’s even worse, though, is that AT&T has no process in place for the recipient to correct the issue. Even when notified of the problem, support can’t do anything to fix the problem.

Read More

Yahoo retiring user IDs: why you shouldn't worry

A couple weeks ago, Yahoo announced that they were retiring abandoned user IDs. This has been causing quite a bit of concern among email marketers because they’re not sure how this is going to affect email delivery. This is a valid concern, but more recent information suggests that Yahoo! isn’t actually retiring abandoned email addresses.
You have to remember, there are Yahoo! userIDs that are unconnected to email addresses. People have been able to register all sorts of Yahoo! accounts without activating an associated email account: Flickr accounts, Yahoo groups accounts, Yahoo sports accounts, Yahoo news accounts, etc,. Last week, a Yahoo spokesperson told the press that only 7% of the inactive accounts had associated email addresses.
Turning that around, 93% of the accounts currently being deactivated and returned to the user pool have never accepted an email. Those addresses will have hard bounced every time a sender tried to send mail to that address.
What about the other 7%? The other 7% will have been inactive for at least a year. That’s a year’s worth of mail that had the opportunity to hard bounce with a 550 “user unknown.”
If you’re still concerned about recycled Yahoo userIDs then take action.

Read More