Contacting an ISP that doesn't have a postmaster page

How do you contact an ISP about a block that doesn’t have a postmaster page? While there’s no one answer, I do have some suggestions.
Start by contacting the postmaster@ or abuse@ addresses. For smaller ISPs, the same people handling outbound abuse are the people handling inbound filtering.
When you contact them have the following:

  • What IPs you’re sending from.
  • What the rejection message is (or if it’s not a rejection message, that the mail is undelivered or going to bulk).
  • The recipient you’re sending to.
  • The type of message.

Keep the message short and sweet. Do not send 5 paragraphs about your business model. I’ve been on the receiving end of the 5 paragraphs of your business model, as have so many of the ISPs that it’s turned into a joke among delivery: “Let me tell you about my business model…” They don’t care, they just want to know what the problem.
The message should have 3 (short!) sections.

  1. State the problem: “Mail I am sending from IP address is consistently going to the bulk folder. These are [sales receipts / tickets / bills / newsletters].”
  2. State what you’ve done to fix it:”We have changed our delivery in X fashion” (limited connections, improved data hygiene, stopped mailing very old addresses, fired the idiot sales guy who decided spamming was a good idea, whatever it is).
  3. Ask for a resolution: We’d like to know what you are seeing from our mail server that’s causing you to think this mail is unwanted by your recipients. I’ve attached a copy of the blocked / bulked message.

You MUST include the sending IP address in all correspondence. I can’t emphasize this enough. Without the IP, no one can help you. Without the IP they may even not bother to answer you. Without the IP the only response you will get it “what’s the IP?”
Also, don’t try and call. I know a lot of people prefer using phone to email, but in this case, use email. Calls are mostly useless.
The biggest issue is that getting an IP address over the phone is horrible. But when the IP is in an email, it’s a simple cut and paste into the internal tools. But there are also communication and documentation issues. Some ISPs like to have records of discussions about blocking and unblocking. On the communication level, when things are written down then no one is relying on faulty memories or hastily written notes about what needs to happen.
At smaller ISPs or even some small businesses, you can ask your recipients to talk to their support desk or admin.If the ISPs have customers telling them the email is wanted they’re much more likely to make filtering adjustments.

Problems with Yahoo FBL
More on Newsmax and spam to political lists

Related Posts

Hunting the Human Representative

Yesterday’s post was inspired by a number of questions I’ve fielded recently from people in the email industry. Some were clients, some were colleagues on mailing lists, but in most cases they’d found a delivery issue that they couldn’t solve and were looking for the elusive Human Representative of an ISP.
There was a time when having a contact inside an ISP was almost required to have good delivery. ISPs didn’t have very transparent systems and SMTP rejection messages weren’t very helpful to a sender. Only a very few ISPs even had postmaster pages, and the information there wasn’t always helpful.
More recently that’s changed. It’s no longer required to have a good relationship at the ISPs to get inbox delivery. I can point to a number of reasons this is the case.
ISPs have figured out that providing postmaster pages and more information in rejection messages lowers the cost of dealing with senders. As the economy has struggled ISPs have had to cut back on staff, much like every other business out there. Supporting senders turned into a money and personnel sink that they just couldn’t afford any longer.
Another big issue is the improvement in filters and processing power. Filters that relied on IP addresses and IP reputation did so for mostly technical reasons. IP addresses are the one thing that spammers couldn’t forge (mostly) and checking them could be done quickly so as not to bottleneck mail delivery. But modern fast processors allow more complex information analysis in short periods of time. Not only does this mean more granular filters, but filters can also be more dynamic. Filters block mail, but also self resolve in some set period of time. People don’t need to babysit the filters because if sender behaviour improves, then the filters automatically notice and fall off.
Then we have authentication and the protocols now being layered on top of that. This is a technology that is benefiting everyone, but has been strongly influenced by the ISPs and employees of the ISPs. This permits ISPs to filter on more than just IP reputation, but to include specific domain reputations as well.
Another factor in the removal of the human is that there are a lot of dishonest people out there. Some of those dishonest people send mail. Some of them even found contacts inside the ISPs. Yes, there are some bad people who lied and cheated their way into filtering exceptions. These people were bad enough and caused enough problems for the ISPs and the ISP employees who were lied to that systems started to have fewer and fewer places a human could override the automatic decisions.
All of this contributes to the fact that the Human Representative is becoming a more and more elusive target. In a way that’s good, though; it levels the playing field and doesn’t give con artists and scammers better access to the inbox than honest people. It means that smaller senders have a chance to get mail to the inbox, and it means that fewer people have to make judgement calls about the filters and what mail is worthy or not. All mail is subject to the same conditions.
The Human Representative is endangered. And I think this is a good thing for email.

Read More

Why so many domains

There’s a company that advertises a lot on TV. The ads are well done, they tell a clear story in the 30 seconds. They feature a pretty and happy young woman dancing around. There is a great catchy tune. From all appearances it’s a successful ad campaign.
The point of the ad campaign is to drive traffic to a website where the domain owner can collect a lot of information and sell it on to advertisers. Every month or so, the landing URL changes. In watching this campaign over the last year or two, I’ve seen at least half a dozen different URLs used in the television ads. Now, it’s perfectly possible that this is part of an overall strategy, but I am not sure. The initial website is highlighted so clearly in the catchy tune, I can’t believe it is part of their marketing strategy.
Which leads me to wonder if there is a bigger problem with their advertising. Do they change domains so frequently because they’re seeing domain based blocking?

Read More

Censoring email

It seems some mail to Apple’s iCloud has been caught in filters. Apparently, a few months ago someone sent a script to a iCloud user that contained the phrase “barely legal teen” and Apple’s filters ate it.
The amount of hysteria that I’ve seen in some places about this, though, seems excessive. One of my favorite quotes was from MacWorld and just tells me that many of the people reporting on filtering have no idea how filters really work.

Read More