Yahoo.com on FCC wireless "do not mail" list

Update: As of mid-morning pacific time on 10/7 yahoo.com has been removed from the FCC list.
As part of CAN SPAM the FCC maintains a list of wireless domains that require proof of permission to send mail to. Recently, various email folks noticed that yahoo.com was added to this list.
According to the law, senders have 30 days to meet the permission standards for any recipients at domains on the FCC list. In practical terms what this means is that the FCC and Yahoo have 30 days to fix this error and get yahoo.com off the list. Based on conversations with people who’ve talked to Yahoo and the FCC this is in the process of happening.
This isn’t the first time a non-wireless domain has been added to the FCC list.
As a sender what should you do with your yahoo.com subscribers?
Right now, nothing. There is a 30 day grace period between when a domain goes on the FCC list and when senders need to comply. I have every expectation that this will be removed in less than 30 days.
But what if it’s not?
In that case you will need to segregate out yahoo.com subscribers in 30 days and not mail them until the domain is removed from the FCC list. While I can’t actively suggest ignoring the law, it’s unlikely that the FCC is going to start coming after senders for mailing yahoo.com addresses once the 30 days are up.
More information: Al Iverson’s Spam Resource.

Related Posts

Spammers react to Y! DMARC policy

It’s probably only a surprise to people who think DMARC is the silver bullet to fixing email problems, but the spammers who were so abusing yahoo.com have moved on… to ymail.com.
In the rush to deploy their DMARC policy, apparently Yahoo forgot they have hundreds of other domains. Domains that are currently not publishing a DMARC policy. Spammers are now using those domains as the 5322.from address in their emails. The mail isn’t coming through any yahoo.com domain, but came through an IP belonging to Sprint PCS.
ymail_dmarc
This is just one example of how spammers have reacted to the brave new world of p=reject policies by mailbox providers. If only the rest of us could react as quickly and as transparently to the problems imposed by these policy declarations. But changing software to cope with the changes in a way that keeps email useful for end users is a challenge. What is the right way to change mailing lists to compensate for these policy declarations? How can we keep bulk email useful for small groups that aren’t necessarily associated with a “brand”?
The conversation surrounding how we minimize the damage to the ecosystem that p=reject policy imposed hasn’t really happened. I think it is a shame and a failure that people can’t even discuss the implications of this policy. Even now that people have done the firefighting to deal with the immediate problems there still doesn’t seem to be the desire to discuss the longer effect of these changes. Just saying “these are challenges” in certain spaces gets the response “just deal with it.” Well, yes, we are trying to deal with it.
I contend that in order to “just deal with it”, we have to define “IT.” We can’t solve a problem if we can’t define the problem we’re trying to solve. Sadly, it seems legitimate mailers are stuck coping with the fallout, while spammers have moved on and are totally unaffected.
How is this really a win?

Read More

Yahoo awarded $610 million

The Federal district court in New York awarded Yahoo $610 million dollars in a suit they filed in 2008.

Read More

June 2014: The month in email

Each month, we like to focus on a core email feature or function and present an overview for people looking to learn more. This month, we addressed authentication with SPF.
We also talked about feedback mechanisms, and the importance for senders to participate in FBL processes.
In our ongoing discussions about spam filters, we took a look at the state of our own inboxes and lamented the challenge spam we get from Spamarrest. We also pointed out a post from Cloudmark where they reiterate much of what we’ve been saying about filters: there’s no secret sauce, just a continuing series of efforts to make sure recipients get only the mail they want and expect to receive. We also looked at a grey area in the realm of wanted and expected mail: role accounts (such as “marketing@companyname.com”) and how ESPs handle them.
As always, getting into the Gmail inbox is a big priority for our clients and other senders. We talked a bit about this here, and a bit more about the ever-changing world of filters here.
On the subject of list management, we wrote about the state of affiliate mailers and the heightened delivery challenges they face getting in the inbox. We got our usual quota of spam, and a call from a marketer who had purchased our names on a list. You can imagine how effective that was for them.
And in a not-at-all-surprising development, spammers have started to employ DMARC workarounds. We highlighted some of the Yahoo-specific issues in a post that raises more questions.
We also saw some things we quite liked in June. In the Best Practices Hall of Fame, we gave props to this privacy policy change notification and to our bank’s ATM receipts.
We also reviewed some interesting new and updated technology in the commercial MTA space, and were happy to share those findings.

Read More