Mandrill changes

Last week Mandrill announced that they were discontinuing their free services and all customers would be required to have a corresponding paid Mailchimp account.

Going forward, all Mandrill users will be required to have a paid monthly MailChimp account and verify ownership of all sending domains. Important changes to Mandrill

mc-logo-2380f23aOn March 16th all new Mandrill users will be required to create a Mailchimp account and existing Mandrill users will be able to merge their Mandrill and Mailchimp accounts. All users will have to merge accounts by April 27th.

When I saw the announcement I didn’t think it was that big a deal. Mandrill, for better or worse, has been a source of spam for a while and I knew that Mailchimp would be taking some action to clean it up. To me, this change seems really all about being able to hold customers accountable. Mandrill users will need to have real contact information, be able to verify their domains and have a valid credit card. This is a step that was, at least to me, obvious.
sparkpostWhat I wasn’t expecting was the number of companies who think this is a dumb idea and that Mandrill is giving up valuable customers. I have no doubt that Mailchimp knows exactly which customers are going to walk and has a good handle on how much revenue this will cost them. Personally, I don’t think it’s actually that much revenue. To me, the majority of companies who will be walking away are those who can’t or won’t pay $10 a month for a Mailchimp account.
I suppose there are going to be customers who are already paying and who are going to walk just because they don’t want to be restricted to having to have a real account. Or customers who don’t want to (or can’t) pass Mailchimp’s anti-fraud protections. Or customers who’ve been terminated from MC but snuck back as a Mandrill customer. These customers, to me, feel like way more trouble than they’re worth.
My viewpoints aren’t shared by a lot of other companies in the industry. The good folks over at Sparkpost, have jumped at the opportunity to provide services for companies leaving Mandrill. They’re even offering to honor Mandrill’s pricing for companies migrating. I know Sparkpost has a great team of compliance and abuse desk folks, and I hope they have thought ahead to how they’re going to deal with problems that come with freemium services. Only time will really tell if it’s enough, though.
 
 
 
 
 

Related Posts

Services, abuse and bears

A couple weeks ago I wrote a post about handling abuse complaints. As a bit of a throwaway I mentioned that new companies don’t always think about how their service can be abused before releasing it on the unsuspecting internet.
Today’s blog post by Margot Romary at the Return Path In the Know blog reminds me that it’s not always new companies that don’t think about abuse potential before launching services.

Read More

Do you have an abuse@ address?

I’ve mentioned multiple times before that I really don’t like using personal contacts until and unless the published or official channels fail. I don’t hold this opinion just about resolving delivery issues, but also use official channels when reporting spam to one of my addresses or spam traps.
My usual complaints contain a plain text copy of the mail, including full headers and a short summary of the email address it was sent to. “This is an address that was part of a leak from…” or “This is an address scraped off my website. It’s been removed from the website since 2004” or “This address isn’t used to sign up for any mail.”
Sadly, there are a number of “legitimate” ESPs that don’t have or don’t monitor their abuse address. In some cases it’s an oversight or a break down of internal mail handling. But in most cases, it’s a sign that the ESP doesn’t actually handle abuse.
It’s frustrating to watch an ESP post long blog posts about “best practices” and “effective delivery” and “not spamming” and yet not be able to actually stop their own customers from spamming. It’s not even that I necessarily want them to disconnect their spamming customers (although that would be nice) but suppressing the address that I’ve told them was a spamtrap seems trivial. And yet, a month after my first complaint and weeks after escalating to a personal contact, I’m still getting spam.
The 5 things every ESP should do to handle spam complaints.

Read More

Spamming ESPs: the followup

Campaign Monitor contacted me about yesterday’s post. The phrasing I picked out of the spammers AUP matched their AUP quite closely. In fact, if you plug the AUP into Google, Campaign Monitor comes up as one of the first hits.
It was not Campaign Monitor I was talking about. In fact, the ESP I received the mail from is not on the first 8 pages of Google hits for the phrases I posted.
A similar thing happened when I posted about Dell spamming me. Dell has multiple ESPs, and one of their ESPs contacted me directly in case they were the ones Dell was spamming through. It was no surprise to me that they weren’t the ESP involved.
This is what good ESPs do. Good ESPs monitor their reputation and monitor what people are saying about them. Good ESPs notice when people claim they’re being spammed and effectively reach out to the complainers so they can investigate the claim.
Good ESPs don’t just rely on the complaint numbers to take action. They keep an eye out on social networks to see who might be receiving mail they never asked for.

Read More