Is purging always effective?

 

Dear Laura,
I sometimes get in arguments with clients where I say, “your open rate is 3%, you need to do some list pruning” and they say, “my recipient list is 100% b2b, and b2b filters don’t care about engagement, so it doesn’t matter if my list is really old and unengaged.” This is wrong in cases where the business is using Outlook or Gsuite, both of which are going to care if they see no-one opening your messages, but what about all the corporate domains using barracuda, mimecast, or even proofpoint? Is engagement a factor with these filters? Do they care if you are sending to a list that is not opening your messages?
Sincerely,
Not a Fighter

Dear Not a Fighter,
As with most answers related to deliverability, details matter. You are correct that many businesses are now hosting their email at Office365 and Gmail. Both of these organizations have filters that do measure engagement and use that information to make decisions on where to deliver email. From what I’ve observed, though, mail is still handled differently
The clearest example of this for the same filter using different inputs is is the SCL (spam confidence level) and BCL (bulk confidence level) used by Microsoft. Every message coming into Microsoft’s MXs gets a SCL and a BCL score. However, one score is used solely for filtering of Office365 mail and the other is used for filtering of consumer webmail.
Your clients are right, though, about other business filters like mimecast, barracuda and proofpoint not monitoring engagement. They don’t. There are multiple reasons they don’t from they technically don’t have the access, through to engagement is irrelevant to businesses. If a company provides an appliance or even a hosted service, it’s likely their setup doesn’t allow access to user specific data on a regular basis.
This doesn’t mean, however, that addresses should never be purged from B2B lists. Hygiene is critical for delivery no matter where you’re sending to. People move jobs and change companies all the time. Sometimes those addresses are turned off, sometimes they’re forwarded to a mailbox no one looks at, sometimes they’re forwarded to another person inside the company, sometimes they’re handed over to a reputation company to be used as a spamtrap. The sender has no way of knowing which thing will happen. The other issue is that companies have a lot of direct control over their spam filters. Employees can ask for certain sources of email to be blocked and technical staff are often empowered and entrusted with the ability to act on those requests.
Being blocked at a company, not a filter provider, is nearly impossible to reverse. Senders trying to get blocks lifted, when that block is imposed by the company itself, discover very quickly that unless the company finds value in the mail, they don’t care if it gets delivered. That’s why engagement matters, sending mail that annoys the individual employees is a fast path to never being able to contact any employee at the company in the future.
Hygiene is an overall good. Companies that value contacting people, rather than just sending as much email as possible, understand this.
Happy cleaning,
laura

Confused about delivery in general? Trying to keep up on changing policies and terminology? Need some Email 101 basics? This is the place to ask. We can’t answer specific questions about your server configuration or look at your message structure for the column (please get in touch if you’d like our help with more technical or forensic investigations!), but we’d love to answer your questions about how email works, trends in the industry, or the joys and challenges of cohabiting with felines.

Related Posts

Widespread Microsoft phishing warnings today

People throughout the industry are reporting phishing notices in a lot of mail going through Microsoft properties this morning. I even got one in an email from one of my clients earlier today

Multiple people have talked to employees inside Microsoft, and I suspect their customers have been blowing up support about this. I know they’re aware, I suspect they’re frantically working on a fix.
Update 11 am PDT: It appears this filter is firing when mail has the word “hotmail” in it. This includes if non displaying text (like CSS) has the word in it. It feels like they were attempting to mitigate something and wrote a rule that wasn’t quite right. Still no word on a fix, but don’t panic.
Update 12:30 PDT: Reports are that the warning is gone. No word from Microsoft, but as long as things get fixed we don’t need it.

Read More

Parasites hurt email marketing

As a small business owner I am a ripe target for many companies. They buy my address from some lead generation firm, or they scrape it off LinkedIn, and they send me a message that pretends to be personalized but isn’t really.
“I looked at your website… we have a list of email addresses to sell you.”
“We offer cold calling services… can I set up a call with you?”
“I have scheduled a meeting tomorrow so I can tell you about our product that will solve all your technical issues and is also a floor wax.”
None of these emails are anything more than spam. They’re fake personalized. There’s no permission. On a good day they’ll have an opt out link. On a normal day they might include an actual name.
These are messages coming to an email address I’ve spent years trying to protect from getting onto mailing lists. I don’t do fishbowls, I’m careful about who I give my card to, I never use it to sign up for anything. And, still, that has all been for naught.
I don’t really blame the senders, I mean I do, they’re the ones that bought my address and then invested in business automation software that sends me regular emails trying to get me to give them a phone number. Or a contact for “the right person at your business to talk to about this great offer that will change your business.”
The real blame lies with the people who pretend that B2B spam is somehow not spam. Who have pivoted their businesses from selling consumer lists to business lists because permission doesn’t matter when it comes to businesses. The real blame lies with companies who sell “marketing automation software” that plugs into their Google Apps account and hijacks their reputation to get to the inbox. The real blame lies with list cleansing companies who sell list buyers a cleansing service that only hides the evidence of spamming.
There are so many parasites in the email space. They take time, energy and resources from large and small businesses, offering them services that seem good, but really are worthless.
The biologically interesting thing about parasites, though, is that they do better if they don’t overwhelm the host system. They have to stay small. They have to stay hidden. They have to not cause too much harm, otherwise the host system will fight back.
Email fights back too. Parasites will find it harder and harder to get mail delivered in any volume as the host system adapts to them. Already if I look in my junk folder, my filters are correctly flagging these messages as spam. And my filters see a very small portion of mail. Filtering companies and the business email hosting systems have a much broader view and much better defenses.
These emails annoy me, but I know that they are a short term problem.  As more and more businesses move to hosted services, like Google Apps and Office365 the permission rules are going to apply to business addresses as well as consumer addresses. The parasites selling products and services to small business owners can’t overwhelm email. The defenses will step in first.
 

Read More

Change is coming…

A lot of email providers are rolling out changes to their systems. Some of these changes are so they will comply with GDPR. But, in other cases, the changes appear coincidental with GDPR coming into effect.
It seems, finally, some attention is being paid to the mail client. Over the last few years the webmail providers have tried to upgrade their interface.  Many of the upgrades are about managing high volumes of email in a more efficient manner. Google uses tabs while Microsoft has sweep and focused inbox.
It’s about time the mail client got an overhaul. My Apple mail client doesn’t look all that different from the desktop client I was using back in the late 90s on OS/2 Warp back in the late 90s. In some ways the OS/2 client was actually more functional. And, well, I do miss a lot of the flexibility of mutt in the shell.
Today, Google announced to Google Suite administrators that they would be rolling out a major client overhaul. G Suite admins who want to can join the early adopter program in the coming week. Techcrunch has a sketch of what the new mailbox layout looks like, done by someone who says they saw a Google engineer working on a train.
What’s interesting about the sketch is it seems tabs are going away. Given how many senders hate tabs I’m sure this is a welcome relief. We’ll see, though, if there’s not more inbox management built into the new client or not. The nifty new features are “snooze” – hide this email for some period of time and bring it back at some point in the future. The other big thing is calendar access right from the mail client.
I expect, too, that as OATH: brings the Yahoo and AOL mailboxes under one banner, there will also be some changes there. All of this amounts to more uncertainty in the email delivery space. But we’ll get through, we always do.

Read More