What about Tom?

I use tom@hotmail.com as my default bogus email address. Tom has subscribed to so many things because of me.

This is why address verification doesn’t work. The address tom@hotmail.com is a real address. It exists. It accepts mail. And at least one person admits to signing up Tom for mail that the person doesn’t want. I’m sure he’s not the only one.

<- 250 OK
-> MAIL FROM:<test@gmail.com>
<- 250 test@gmail.com....Sender OK
-> RCPT TO:<tom@hotmail.com>
<- 250 tom@hotmail.com
-> QUIT
<- 221 SNT004-MC1F46.hotmail.com Service closing transmission channel

Signups like this do contribute to deliverability problems in a number of ways.

  1. The address tom@hotmail.com may be a spam trap. Sending mail to too many spamtraps can result in mail going to the bulk folder.
  2. It may belong to an actual person. Sending mail to someone who has not asked for it can result in spam complaints and bulk foldering.
  3. It may be a canary address. This is one that gets a lot of spam. If mail goes to this address then it’s likely spam and similar mail is bulk foldered at other recipients.
  4. This may be a test address. It might be used by someone inside Hotmail as a test address.

A few of these fake signups aren’t going to hurt deliverability for most senders. Over time, however, these fake signups are going to accumulate on a list. As they accumulate they can, and do, start to affect deliverability. It you’re hitting a lot of these types of addresses it tells the ISP that you don’t have good subscription practices. The ISP knows you are sending mail to people who don’t want it and never asked for it. Filters are designed to affect mail sent to people who don’t want it and never asked for it.
These kinds of addresses are one reason delivery folks talk about segmenting mail based on engagement. Getting rid of even a few of them off a list can improve deliverability for an otherwise opt-in list.
Address verification doesn’t weed out these address. The test I did above is exactly what most of the verification services do. They’re going to return that tom@hotmail.com is a valid address and it’s going to end up in your list.
For those of you who are the type to put real addresses into signup forms, please don’t. It’s unfair to the people who own those addresses and it’s unfair to marketers. Use an address that you know doesn’t exist – like anything@example.com, .net or .org. These domains are reserved by ICANN and will never have users. Stop directing your unwanted email to an innocent 3rd party. They don’t deserve it, and neither do the senders you’re trying to avoid.

Alternate contact when mail bounces
iCloud Service Disruption

Related Posts

Spamhaus Speaks

There’s been a lot of discussion about Spamhaus, spam traps, and blocking. Today, Spamhaus rep Denny Watson posted on the Spamhaus blog about some of the recent large retailer listings. He provides us with some very useful information about how Spamhaus works, and gives 3 case studies of recent listings specifically for transactional messages to traps.
The whole thing is well worth a read, and I strongly encourage you to check out the whole thing.
There are a couple things mentioned in the blog that I think deserve some special attention, though.
Not all spam traps actually accept mail. In fact, in all of the 3 case studies, mail was rejected during the SMTP transaction. This did not stop the senders from continuing to attempt to mail to that address, though. I’ve heard over and over again from senders that the “problem” is that spamtrap addresses actually accept mail. If they would just bounce the messages then there would be no problem. This is clearly untrue when we actually look at the data. All of the companies mentioned are large brick and mortar retailers in the Fortune 200. These are not small or dumb outfits. Still, they have massive problems in their mail programs that mean they continue to send to addresses that bounce and have always bounced.
Listings require multiple hits and ongoing evidence of problems. None of the retailers mentioned in the case studies had a single trap hit. No, they had ongoing and repeated trap hits even after mail was rejected. Another thing senders tell me is that it’s unfair that they’re listed because of “one mistake” or “one trap hit.” The reality is a little different, though. These retailers are listed because they have horrible data hygiene and continually mail to addresses that simply don’t exist. If these retailers were to do one-and-out or even three-and-out then they wouldn’t be listed on the SBL. Denny even says that in the blog post.

Read More

The true facts of spam traps and typo traps

I’m seeing an increase in the number of articles stating wildly wrong things about spam traps. Some have started claiming that typo traps are new. Or that typo traps are newly used by Spamhaus. These claims make for great copy, I guess. Wild claims about how the evil anti-commerce self-appointed internet police are actively trying to trap marketers get clicks. These claims also reinforce the martyr complex some senders have and gives them something to commiserate about over drinks at the next email conference.
I strongly recommend ignoring any article that claims Spamhaus started using typo traps in December 2012. In fact, you can immediately dismiss absolutely everything they have to say. They are wrong and have proven they can’t be bothered to do any fact checking.
I can’t figure out why so many people repeat the same false statements over and over and over again. They’re wrong, and no amount of explaining the truth seems to make any difference. I went looking for evidence.
First, I asked on Facebook. A bunch of my contacts on Facebook have have been running spam traps for a long time. Multiple people commented that they, personally, have been using typos to track spam since the late ’90s. These typos were on both the right hand side of the @ sign (the domain side) but also on the left hand side of the @ sign (the username).
Then, I looked through my archives of one of the anti-spam mailing lists and I see a Spamhaus volunteer mentioning that he had already been using typo traps in 2007.  I asked him about this and he pointed out these are some of his older traps and had been around for many years before that mention. 
Of course, we’ve written about typo domains used by an anti-spam group to catch spam.
The truth is, typo traps are not new and they’re not a new set of traps for Spamhaus. I’ve talked about traps over and over again. But I’m seeing more and more articles pop up that make verifiably wrong statements about spam traps. Here are a few facts about spam traps.
 

Read More

Changes at Spamcop

Earlier this week some ESPs started asking if other ESPs have seen an uptick in Spamcop listings. The overwhelming answer (9 of 11 ESP representatives) said yes. I’ve also had clients start to ask me about Spamcop listings. All in all, there seems to be some changes at Spamcop that means more senders are showing up on the Spamcop radar.
Luckily, Spamcop provides us some insight into their data processing. If you look at the current monthly volume graph, we can see some very interesting changes in data.

Read More