I started seeing some folks complain about false CBL listings a few hours ago. I’m now seeing the same folks saying the listings are being removed.
The symptoms look similar to what happened in November (mentioned here), but it appears the CBL team are on top of things and are working to rectify things quickly.
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.
As we head into the last month of the year, we look back at our November adventures. I spoke twice this month, first at Message Systems Insight in Monterey (my wrap-up post is here) and then with Ken Magill at the at the 2015 All About eMail Virtual Conference & Expo (a short follow-up here, and a longer post on filters that came out of that discussion here.). Both were fun and engaging — it’s always great to get a direct sense of what challenges are hitting people in the email world, and to help clear up myths and misconceptions about what works and doesn’t work in email marketing and delivery. I’m putting together my conference and speaking schedule for 2016 — if you know of anything interesting that should be on my radar, please add it in the comments, thanks!
In industry news, we noted a sharp uptick in CBL listings, and then posted about the explanation for the false positives. Steve wrote about an interesting new Certificate Authority (CA) called Let’s Encrypt, which looks to be a wonderful (and much-needed) alternative for certificates, and I put together some thoughts on SenderScore.
Steve and I did a few posts in parallel this month. First, Steve posted an interesting exercise in SPF debugging. Are you seeing mail from legitimate senders flagged as spam? This might be why. My investigative post was about ISP rejections, and how you can figure out where the block is occurring. In each case, you’ll get a glimpse of how we go about identifying and troubleshooting issues, even when we don’t have much to go on.
We each also wrote a bit about phishing. Steve posted a timely warning about spear phishing — malware attacks disguised as legitimate email from within your organization — and reminds all of us to be careful about attachments. With all of the more secure options for document sharing these days, it’s a lot easier to avoid the risk by maintaining a no-attachments policy in your company. And I wrote about how the Department of Defense breaking HTML links in email to help combat phishing. If your lists include military addresses (.mil), you may want to come up with a strategy for marketing to those recipients that relies less on a clickthrough call to action.
We amused ourselves a bit with a game of Deliverability Bingo, then followed up with a more serious look at the thing we hear all the time — “I’m sure they’ll unblock me if I can just explain my business model.” While an ESP abuse desk is unlikely to be swayed by this strategy, it is actually at the core of how we think about deliverability at Word to the Wise. Legitimate senders have many kinds of lists, many kinds of recipients, many kinds of marketing strategies, and many kinds of business goals. For us to help marketers craft sustainable email programs, we need to understand exactly what matters most to our clients.
There are a lot of things all of us in the deliverability, abuse and blocklist space have heard, over and over and over again. They’re so common they’re running jokes in the industry. These phrases are used by spammers, but a lot of non-spammers seem to use them as well.
The most famous is probably “I’m sure they’ll unblock me if I can just explain my business model.” Trust me, the folks blocking your mail don’t want to hear about your business model. They just want you to stop doing whatever it is you’re doing. In fact, I’m one of the few people in the space who actually wants to hear about your business model – so I can help you reach your goals without doing things that get you blocked.
A few months ago, after getting off yet another phone call where I talked clients down from explaining their business model to Spamhaus, I put together list of phrases that senders really shouldn’t use when talking to their ESP, a blocklist provider or an abuse desk. I posted it to a closed list and one of the participants put it together into a bingo card.
A lot of these statements are valid marketing and business statements. But the folks responsible for blocking mail don’t really care. They just want their users to be happy with the mail they receive.