Stop telling me how great Spamarrest is

Late last year, Al wrote a piece discussing how Spamarrest lost a court case. In the comments on that piece I described how much I really detest Spamarrest because of all the spam I get from Spamarrest users. Every few weeks, someone notices that post again and points it out to Spamarrest users who then come over here to tell me how wonderful Spamarrest is for them.
I Get It. You like Spamarrest because it keeps spam out of your inbox.
The problem is Spamarrest (and any other challenge response setup) contributes to spam in my inbox. I have addresses that get forged into spam all the time. When that happens, I get dozens of Spamarrest challenges, clogging up MY inbox.
I don’t want to do your spam filtering for you. I really don’t. And if you ask me if you should receive a piece of email, I am going to tell you yes. I did that for a while; when I got a challenge from someone I’d answer it in the affirmative. Eventually I got tired of it and sent all mail from @spamarrest.com to /dev/null.
Am I missing out on corresponding with some brilliant and wonderful people? Maybe. But from my perspective, 100% of the confirmation requests I receive from Spamarrest are spam.  I’m just thankful that Spamarrest makes it easy to identify and throw away their requests so I don’t have to handle someone else’s spam load in addition to my own.
This is a long way to say I’m closing comments on the older Spamarrest post, so don’t bother telling me what a great spam filter it is. The same thing that makes it a great spam filter for you makes it a total source of spam for me.

A good example of a privacy change notification
Updates to commercial MTAs

Related Posts

Spam is not a valid marketing strategy

This seems like an attempt to create the next big viral marketing campaign. It’s just spam, though, and not even good spam. There’s nothing about a random “click here” that will entice me to click on it.
Scammers? Spammers? Whoever Ryann Rasmussen at HighSpeedInternet is, she might want to rethink her marketing strategy. It looks more like an infection attempt than anything else.
HSI_Spam
I guess we can say that their mail made an impression, a very negative impression. There is no website at http://highspeedinternet.com. The whois record for highspeedinternet.com is behind domains by proxy. The mail violates CAN SPAM. The address was scraped off our website.
Not all spammers are dodgy Russians. Some spammers are from Utah.

Read More

Spam is not a moral judgement

Mention an email is spam to some senders and watch them dance around trying to explain all the ways they aren’t spammers. At some point, calling an email spam seems to have gone from a statement of fact into some sort of moral judgement on the sender. But calling an email spam is not a moral judgement. It’s just a statement of what a particular recipient thinks of an email.
There are lots of reasons mail can be blocked and not all those reasons are spam related. Sometimes it’s a policy based rejection. Mailbox providers publishing a DMARC record with a reject policy caused a lot of mail to bounce, but none of that was because that user (or that mailing list) was sending spam. Most cable companies prohibit customers from running mail servers on their cable connection and mail from those companies is widely rejected, but that doesn’t mean the mail is spam.
Sometimes a block is because some of the mail is being sent to people who didn’t ask for it or are complaining about it. This doesn’t make the sender a bad person. It doesn’t make the sending company bad. It just means that there is some issue with a part of the marketing program that need to be addressed.
The biggest problem I see is some senders get so invested in convincing receivers, delivery experts and filtering companies that they’re not spammers, that they miss actually fixing the problem. They are so worried that someone might think they’re spammers, they don’t actually listen to what’s being said by the blocking organization, or by their ISP or by their ESP.
Calling email spam isn’t a moral judgement. But, if too many people call a particular email spam, it’s going to be challenging to get that mail to the inbox. Instead of arguing with those people, and the filters that listen to them, a better use of time and energy is fixing the reasons people aren’t liking your email.

Read More

First BACN, now SCRAPPLE

There is a lot of mail that goes out to recipients that’s not really spam, but isn’t fully wanted. To describe these different kinds of mail, people have invented pork-product related terminology. Ham and bacn are both used to describe wanted mail, although possibly not wanted right now.
Now we have SCRAPPLE. It seems over the weekend a number of members of the Science Fiction Writers Association received email from someone asking them to consider one of his writings for an award. Reading through the tweets, this person typed hundreds of email addresses out of the SFWA directory into their mail client. And then sent mail to that list.
Recipients of that mail then went to twitter to complain about abuse of their email addresses in this way. Being writers, they discussed what word that would describe “something like spam, but not really.”
@talkwordy came up with Scrapple. Now, for those of you who don’t live in a very small part of the mid-Atlantic region, you may not know what scrapple is. Scrapple is a loaf pork product made from, well, scraps of pig. It often has a weird greenish tinge to it, presumably from the liver. My grandmother, having grown up in that small part of the mid-Atlantic region, used to eat it when she could find it. Usually it was in small, country diners where the waitresses call you darlin’ or hun.
By the end of the discussion the definition of scrapple was: Unwanted email from a person you know, which is annoying but not completely irrelevant to your interests, often manual address list creation.
There you have it. Scrapple joins bacn, ham, spam, and spim to describe different kinds of email.

Read More