March 2016: The Month In Email

Happy April! I’m just back from the EEC conference in New Orleans, which was terrific. I wrote a quick post about a great session on content marketing, and I’ll have more to add about the rest of the conference over the next week or so. Stay tuned!
March2016_blog
Here’s a look at what caught our attention in March:
On the DMARC front, we noted that both Yahoo and mail.ru are moving forward with p=reject, and Steve offered some advice for ESPs and software developers on methods for handling this gracefully. I also answered an Ask Laura question about making the decision to publish DMARC. Look for more on that in this month’s Ask Laura questions…
Our other Ask Laura question this month was about changing ESPs, which senders do for many reasons. It’s useful to know that there will generally be some shifts in deliverability with any move. Different ESPs measure engagement in different ways, and other issues may arise in the transition, so it’s good to be aware of these if you’re contemplating a change.
In industry news, I wrote a sort of meta-post about how the Internet is hard (related: where do you stand on the great Internet vs. internet debate? Comment below!) and we saw several examples of that this month, including a privacy debacle at Florida State University. Marketing is hard, too. I revisited an old post about a fraud case where a woman sued Toyota over an email marketing “prank”. As always, my best practices recommendation for these sorts of things (and everything else!) really boils down to one thing: send wanted email.
Steve wrote extensively about SPF this month in two must-read posts, where he explained the SPF rule of ten and how to optimize your SPF records. He also wrote about Mutt, the much-loved command line email client, and marked the passing of industry pioneer Ray Tomlinson, who, in addition to his many accomplishments, was by all accounts a very thoughtful and generous man.
Finally, I occasionally like to take a moment and follow the twisty paths that lead to my spam folder. Here’s a look at how Ugg spams my email doppelganger, MRS LAURA CORBISHLEY. In other spam news, there’s a lot of very interesting data in the recent 10 Worst list from Spamhaus. Take a look if you haven’t seen it yet.

Don't mess with my email
Thoughts from #EEC16

Related Posts

Optimize your SPF records

I talked on Monday about the SPF rule of ten and how it made it difficult for companies to use multiple services that send email on their behalf.
Today I’m going to look at how to fix things, by shrinking bloated SPF records. This is mostly aimed at those services who send email on their customers behalf and ask their customers to include an SPF record as that’s the biggest pain point, but some of it is also useful to people publishing their own SPF records.
email_vice
Get rid of costly SPF directives
First, rethink using the “mx” directive. It’s often used in example SPF records, because it makes them look simpler. But an MX directive always triggers a DNS lookup that counts against your limit of ten, and it’ll also trigger a DNS lookup for each hostname in your MX record – they don’t count against the SPF limit but may increase the latency of your delivery a little. Better than using “mx” is to use explicit “ip4” and “ip6” records to list the addresses your smarthost and MX send mail from. Even though this makes your SPF record look longer it’ll actually make it smaller, as measured by DNS queries, as a single “mx” directive costs more than 20 “ip4” directives.
Similarly, avoid the “a” directive. It’s much less commonly seen but again can usually be replaced with “ip4” or “ip6” directives.
Don’t use “ptr” directives. They’re deprecated by the current SPF RFC.
Check the address ranges
If you have many “ip4” and “ip6” directives, make sure they’re not redundant. Are there any address ranges that you’re not using any more? Are there any adjacent address ranges that can be merged? For example, “ip4:x.y.z.4/24” and “ip4:x.y.z.5/24” can be replaced with “ip4:x.y.z.4/23” (note that you can’t always replace adjacent address blocks of the same size – read up on CIDR notation).
If you’ve generated your CIDR blocks from address ranges you can sometimes have very inefficient representations. The address range 10.11.12.1-10.11.12.254 needs 14 “ip4” directives to represent precisely. Instead you can use the single directive “ip4:10.11.12.0/24”, even if you’re not sending any email from the .0 or .255 addresses.
You don’t need a “~all” or “-all” at the end of a TXT record that is only included in another SPF record, not used directly. It won’t do any harm but it wastes a few characters.
Once you’ve got your list of SPF directives cleaned up the next thing to do is to pack them into one or more DNS TXT records.
Use as few TXT records as you can
Some SPF tutorials say that you can’t put more than 255 characters of SPF data into each TXT record. That’s not quite true, though.
A TXT record contains one or more strings of text and each string can contain no more than 255 characters. But an SPF checker will take all of the strings in a TXT record and concatenate them together in order before it starts looking at the content. So you can have more than 255 characters of SPF data in a TXT record by splitting it into more than one string. (Some low-end DNS management web front ends don’t really understand TXT records and won’t let you include multiple strings – you should check that your DNS management system does before relying on this).
How much more than 255? That’s where you have to get a little familiar with the DNS protocol, as the real limitation is that you don’t want your DNS packets to be more than 512 bytes long. (Why 512 bytes? That’s a long story of protocol changes and incompatibility, but 512 bytes are about as big as you can reliably use over UDP. Just trust me.)
The DNS overhead for a reply that contains a single TXT record with two strings is about 34 bytes, plus the length of the hostname that’s being queries (e.g. “spf.example.com” is 15 bytes). So to keep within the 512 byte limit you need to break your SPF into chunks of no more than 478 minus the length of the hostname. Then you need to break that SPF data into two strings (remembering that they’ll be concatenated with no white space added, so if you break it at a space you need to include the space at the end of the first string or the beginning of the second).
That’ll give you a TXT record that looks something like this:

Read More

January 2015 – The Month in Email

It’s February already! January went fast, right? At WttW, we are gearing up for MAAWG SF later this month — will we see you there?
We started the year with a set of predictions about email. Mostly we think email will continue to be great at some things and not-so-great at other things, and we’ll keep fighting the good fight to make it better.
As always, I’m interested in filters and how spammers continue to work around them to reach the inbox. I also wrote about how the language of an email impacts delivery, and wrote an expanded response to a comment suggesting email filters should be illegal. You can guess where I stand on that (and if you can’t, perhaps you might read more about how email is an inherently malicious traffic stream…)
I also took a moment to point out a trend I’m really enjoying, which is the rise of content marketing (a.k.a. giving customers useful and interesting information they can’t find elsewhere). As I said in the post, I’ll be curious to see how ROI plays out with this strategy.
We also talked about some of the less exciting content we see in email, notably the infamous Murkowski Statement, by which a spammer declares “Nope! Nothing to see over here!”
Steve also pointed out some content shenanigans in the form of hidden preview text, with some additional clarification from the original marketer in the comments.
In industry news, the big story was that Microsoft has partially implemented DMARC for Office365, and was the first to make a public statement about the specific ways they’ve chosen to implement. In my post, I did a walkthrough of a message to illustrate a bit about how this works, which might be useful if you’re trying to wrap your head around DMARC implementations.
We also talked about consolidation in the ESP space, and got a number of comments from readers about who they think might be next. Shortly thereafter, Listcast was acquired by MailerMailer.
Josh noted a few major shutdowns: Yahoo China email services and the AHBL list. The latter explores the challenges inherent in decommissioning a blacklist, and there’s a good discussion in the comments, so you might check it out if you missed that earlier this month.
Josh also pointed to the Salesforce State of Marketing report, which is always a useful set of metrics about how marketers are using email and other channels. It’s definitely worth a read.

Read More

Content is the new volume!

I’m having a great time here at #EEC16. Today is my visit and go to sessions day, since tomorrow I’m speaking at 2 different sessions.
I was lucky enough to get into the Customer Experience session presented by Carey Kegel of SmartPak and Loren McDonald of IBM Marketing Cloud. It was an interesting session.
If you don’t know, SmartPak is a brand focused on selling horse tack and supplements. They initially started off by creating packs of supplements for your horse. This is great for horse owners, as it means the barn staff just needs to add one pack to your horse’s feed. No measuring, no confusion, it’s simple and means your horse gets what they need.
First they started talking about the volume of email sent by SmartPak. Their mails aren’t that consistent, but they mail between 25 and 30 emails a month. Some months last year they mailed every day.
What they started seeing, though, is that the volume of marketing mail drove list churn. The biggest reason users gave for unsubscribing was “too much volume.” The more mail they sent, the more unsubscribes they saw. Even worse, more volume did not translate into revenue. As email volume went up, email performance decreased.
They tested adding content to emails. Just a block on the side of the email with links to content on their website. Adding the content links increased click through rates by 9% and revenue per email by 15%.
These results don’t require the content be in the emails. Using emails to drive recipients to already existing content on the website, including videos and surveys.
The session didn’t specifically discuss deliverability directly, but I think there were some clear deliverability benefits to content marketing.  In fact, an email with no call to action, simply a post-purchase “what to expect” email had an open rate of 33%. These types of open rates help improve overall reputation and lead to more inbox deliveries.

The session really drove home how valuable content marketing is. One thing that was continually repeated during the session is that most marketers have the content already. Use email to drive users to the content you already have. Include that content in marketing mails. Meet the recipient’s needs and wants.
There are a couple takeaways I got from the session.

Read More