What do you think about these hot button issues?

bullhornIt’s been one of those weeks where blogging is a challenge. Not because I don’t have much to say, but because I don’t have much constructive to say. Rants can be entertaining, even to write. But they’re not very helpful in terms of what do we need to change and how do we move forward.
A few different things I read or saw brought out the rants this week. Some of these are issues I don’t have answers to, and some of them are issues where I just disagree with folks, but have nothing more useful to say than, “You’re wrong.” I don’t even always have an answer to why they’re wrong, they’re just wrong.
I thought today I’d bring up the issues that made me so ranty and list the two different points of views about them and see what readers think about them. (Those of you who follow me on Facebook probably know which ones my positions are, but I’m going to try and be neutral about my specific positions.)

CASL

Position A: CASL is bad law because it imposes regulations on business.

Position B: CASL is a consumer protection law and a response to business practices that hurt consumers.

Google Snooze

Position A: Google snooze is good for marketers because it lets recipients put mail they want aside until they can take action on it.

Position B: Google snooze is bad for marketers because it makes it easier for recipients to ignore mail.

User Education

Position A: We can fix phishing through user education.

Position B: User education hasn’t worked so far, what makes you think it will work in the future?

ISP Practices

Position A: ISPs are too big because they don’t reply individually to every abuse complaint.

Position B: Individual abuse complaints are insignificant when compared to FBL emails.

The Death of Email

Position A: Email is dead.

Position B: Email is not dead.

Email as Identity

Position A: Email addresses are too fluid and should not be used as identity keys for online services.

Position B: Email addresses are useful identifiers and better than usernames at every different online service.

The Definition of Spam

Position A: Spam is unsolicited bulk email.

Position B: Spam is unsolicited broadcast email.

Position C: Spam is unsolicited commercial email.

Position D: Spam is viagra and other bad mail.

Position E: Spam is any mail that’s not confirmed opt-in.

Position F: Spam is mail I don’t like.

Position G: Spam is mail someone else doesn’t like.

Position S: Spam is the same thing many times.

Position P: Spam is the same thing many times.

Position A: Spam is the same thing many times.

Position M: Spam is the same thing many times.

Position H: It’s Friday. Let’s all go have a drink.

Just some of the things that popped up on my radar and caused some strong responses this week. What are your thoughts and your feelings on the different issues? Do you have a different opinion? What are your hot button issues this week? This month?

Troubleshooting delivery is hard, but doable
Are you ready for DMARC?

Related Posts

Are botnets really the spam problem?

Over the last few years I’ve been hearing some people claim that botnets are the real spam problem and that if you can find a sender then they’re not a problem. Much of this is said in the context of hating on Canada for passing a law that requires senders actually get permission before sending email.
Botnets are a problem online. They’re a problem in a lot of ways. They can be used for denial of service attacks. They can be used to mine bitcoins. They can be used to host viruses. They can be used to send spam. They are a problem and a lot of people spend a lot of time and money trying to take down botnets.
For the typical end user, though, botnets are a minor contributor to spam in the inbox. Major ISPs, throughout the world, have worked together to address botnets and minimize the spam traffic from them. Those actions have been effective and many users never see botnet spam in their inbox, either because it’s blocked during send or blocked during receipt.
Most of the spam end users have to deal with is coming from people who nominally follow CAN SPAM. They have a real address at the bottom of the email. They’re using real ISPs or ESPs. They have unsubscribe links. Probably some of the mail is going to opt-in recipients. This mail is tricky, and expensive, to block, so a lot more of it gets through.
Much of this mail is sent by companies using real ISP connections. Brian Krebs, who I’ve mentioned before, wrote an article about one hosting company who previously supported a number of legal spammers. This hosting company was making $150,000 a month by letting customers send CAN SPAM legal mail. But the mail was unwanted enough that AOL blocked all of the network IP space – not just the spammer space, but all the IP space.
It’s an easy decision to block botnet sources. The amount of real mail coming from botnet space is zero. It’s a much bigger and more difficult decision to block legitimate sources of emails because there’s so much garbage coming from nearby IPs. What AOL did is a last resort when it’s clear the ISP isn’t going to stop spam coming out from their space.
Botnets are a problem. But quasi legitimate spammers are a bigger problem for filter admins and end users. Quasi legitimate spammers tend to hide behind ISPs and innocent customers. Some send off shared pools at ESPs and hide their traffic in the midst of wanted mail. They’re a bigger problem because the mail is harder to filter. They are bigger problems because a small portion of their recipients actually do want their mail. They’re bigger problems because some ISPs take their money and look the other way.
Botnets are easy to block, which makes them a solved problem. Spam from fixed IPs is harder to deal with and a bigger problem for endusers and filters.

Read More

Gmail having issues

As of 7/22/15, 1:17 PM, Google reports the issue is resolved.
 
Over on the mailop list multiple people are reporting delivery problems to Gmail.
The Google status page confirms this:

Read More

Google Postmaster Tools

Earlier this month Google announced a new set of tools for senders at their Postmaster Tools site. To get into the site you need to login to Google, but they also have a handy support page that doesn’t require a login for folks who want to see what the page is about.
We did register, but don’t send enough mail to get any data back from Google. However, the nice folks at SendGrid were kind enough to share their experiences with me and show me what the site looked like with real data, when I spoke at their recent customer meeting.
Who can register?
Anyone can register for Google Postmaster tools. All you need is the domain authenticated by DKIM (the d= value) or by SPF (the Return Path value).
Who can see data?
Google is only sharing data with trusted domains and only if a minimum volume is sent from those domains. They don’t describe what a trusted domain is, but I expect the criteria include a domain with some history (no brand new domains) and a reasonable track record (some or all of the mail is good).
For ESPs who want to monitor all the mail they send, every mail needs to be signed with a common d= domain. Individual customers that want their own d= can do so. These customers can register for their own access to just their mail.
ESPs that want to do this need to sign with the common key first, and then with the customer’s more selective key.
How does it work?
Google collects data from DKIM and/or SPF authenticated mail, aggregates it and presents it to a Google user that has authenticated the domain.
How do I authenticate?

Read More