What does mitigation really mean?

It is a regular occurrence that senders ask filters and ISPs for mitigation. But there seems to be some confusion as to what mitigation really means. I regularly hear from senders who seem to think that once they’ve asked for mitigation that they don’t have to worry about filtering or blocking at that ISP for a while. They’re surprised when a few weeks or even days after they asked for mitigation their mail is, one again, blocked or in the bulk folder.

The words What Makes You Special on a badge, asking the question of what characteristics set you apart as an individual as different, unique, distinguished or better than the rest.

What is mitigation?

Think of mitigation as a flag that tells spam filters to ignore the history for an IP or domain. The history isn’t deleted or removed, it’s still there. But the “start date” is moved to the mitigation date. If I am a sender that’s been using an IP for a few years and I have a few bad months of sends in the middle, I can ask the ISP to mitigate the effect of those bad months on my reputation. The sender starts over fresh, with none of the bad history.

Mitigation is not a get out of jail free card.

Mitigation is not a get out of spam folder free card. This is not something offered to senders who have a poor history. It’s primarily intended for senders who are normally good senders but had some rough sends. The intention behind mitigation is to give senders a way to get out of the spam folder after they’ve fixed their problems. The infamous MS response “we see no problem with your delivery” in respect to spam foldering means exactly that according to their numbers, mail should be delivered to the spam folder.

Mitigation is not automatic.

In most cases mitigation is handled by a human being, that is following policy established by their employer. Real people review the internal data and dashboards and make a decision based on that review. Senders who have a long history of marginal mail are less likely to receive mitigation. The corollary is that senders who have a history of decent mail but a few bad sends are very likely to receive mitigation.

Mitigation requires plausibility.

Email delivery requires cooperation among senders and receivers. Mitigation requires trust on the part of the ISP, and every ISP rep has multiple stories of spammers who abused that trust. Senders who demonstrate they’re acting in good faith, by making receiver visible changes before requesting mitigation, are much more likely to receive mitigation. Repeatedly asking for mitigation decreases the chances of it being granted. Remember, mitigation doesn’t erase data, it simply resets the start time for analysis. The person handling mitigation can see that it was granted and nothing changed. It’s not a plausible request the second, or third, or fourth time.

Mitigation is an exception.

Asking for mitigation is a normalized pathway, but it’s not normal. Senders make the mistake of thinking if they got mitigation once, they just have to ask again. That mistake leads them to ask for mitigation without changing anything about their sends before or after the mitigation. As a result, they discover their mail is back in the spam folder. This also leads to mitigation not being granted a second or third time.

Don’t rely on mitigation.

No sender should rely on mitigation to get to the inbox. Instead, senders should focus on the fundamentals of good delivery: sending mail people ask for and expect. Everything else is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
 
 
 
 
 

Botnet activity warning
Another day another dead blacklist

Related Posts

You can't always get what you want

It’s a problem anyone who has done any delivery work has faced. There’s a client who is having blocklist problems or ISP delivery problems and they won’t pay any attention to what you say. They insist that you talk to the blocklist or the ISP or hand over contacts directly so they can “dialog with” someone internally. They don’t like what they’re hearing, and they hope that the answer will be different if they find a new person to talk to.
The reality is many of the people at ISPs and blocklists don’t want to talk to these types of senders. They may answer a friendly question from someone they know and trust, but sometimes not even then.
Some very large ISPs and major blocklists don’t even take sender questions. They won’t communicate with anyone about any delivery issues.
I’ve had to tell more than a few clients recently that various ISPs and blocklists weren’t interested in helping those clients with their delivery problems. There are two classes of reactions I get from clients. Some clients focus on moving forward. “OK, now what? How can we identify the issue, what data do we have and how can we figure out what the problem is?”
Other clients continue to look for ways to talk to whomever is blocking their mail. They’re convinced if they can just “explain their business model” or be told what they’re doing wrong, that all their delivery problems will magically disappear.
Needless to say those clients who focus on moving forward and looking at the information they do have have much better success resolving their delivery problems. What many senders don’t understand is the wealth of data they have that will help them resolve the issue. And even if they know it’s buried in their files, they don’t always know where to start looking or even what they’re looking for.
But that is, of course, why you hire someone like me who understands spamfiltering and email. I help senders understand how email filters work and identify what parts of their programs are likely to be responsible for delivery issues. I often find the most valuable service I provide to clients is a fresh set of eyes that can see the forest. With my help, they manage to stop obsessing unproductively about one particular symptom and focus on the underlying problems.
Senders who think the holy grail of problem resolution is speaking to the right person at an ISP or blocklist generally are disappointed, even when they hire someone who knows all the right people at the ISPs.  They can’t always get what they want. But I can often help them get what they need.
 
 
 

Read More

When spam filters fail

Spam filters aren’t perfect. They sometimes catch mail they shouldn’t, although it happens less than some people think. They sometimes fail to catch mail they should.
One of the reason filters fail to catch mail they should is because some spammers invest a lot of time and energy in figuring out how to get past the filters. This is nothing new, 8 or 9 years ago I was in negotiations with a potential client. They told me they had people who started working at 5pm eastern. Their entire job was to craft mail that would get through Hotmail’s filters that day. As soon as they found a particular message that made it to the inbox, they’d blast to their list until the filters caught up. When the filters caught up, they’d start testing again. This went on all night or until the full list was sent.
Since then I’ve heard of a lot of other filter bypass techniques. Some spammers set up thousands of probe accounts at ISPs and would go through and “not spam” their mail to fool the filters (ISPs adapted). Some spammers set up thousands of IPs and rotate through them (ISPs adapted). Some spammers register new domains for every send (ISPs adapted). Some spammers used botnets (ISPs adapted)
I’m sure, even now, there are spammers who are creating new techniques to get through filters. And the ISPs will adapt.

Read More

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.)

Read More