Transactional mail can be spam

Marketers have a thing about transactional mail. In the US, transactional mail is exempt from many of the CAN SPAM regulations. If they label a mail transactional, then they can send it even when the recipient has opted-out! The smart marketer looks for opportunities to send transactional mail so they can bother spam get their brand in front of people who’ve opted out.

Enter the anniversary, birthday or holiday message. If a message is sent once per year and is based around some event, then it’s classified as transactional. But these messages aren’t really transactional. There’s nothing the recipient did. The only “transaction” is the passage of time.

These kind of fake transactional messages are just legal spam, particularly if the recipient has opted out of marketing mail.

I mentioned this on the email geeks slack channel, along with the comment that if companies were going to ignore preferences they should at least offer recipients something for reading their spam. One smart person pointed out that if the messages contained rewards, like a percentage off, then it’s not transactional mail any more and it’s a clear violation of CAN SPAM and other laws.

There are, of course, legitimate transactional messages. My favourite definition of transactional message is a message confirming or completing an action initiated by the recipient. The whole point of carving out transactional messages from CAN SPAM is for the recipient, not for the sender. Any truly transactional mail, therefore, must benefit the recipient more than the sender.

There are also cases where one time emails benefit the recipient, but are not generated due to a direct interaction by the recipient. One common case of this is messages alerting users that a particular product is back in stock. These messages are wanted by the user, and they benefit the user, but the timing of their send isn’t related to a user’s action. Timing is dictated by restocking timelines. In discussions with clients, I describe these types of messages as triggered rather than transactional.

Transactional mail must center the recipient. If a recipient has opted out from mail from a company, then they probably don’t want to receive marketing mail, even if the subject line is Happy Birthday or Happy Anniversary.

Resources for safer conferences
SaaS systems are spammer targets

Related Posts

Want some history?

I was doing some research today for an article I’m working on. The research led me to a San Francisco Law Review article from 2001 written by David E. Sorkin. Technical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Electronic Mail (.pdf link). The text itself is a little outdated, although not as much as I expected. There’s quite a good discussion of various ways to control spam, most of which are still true and even relevant.

From a historical perspective, the footnotes are the real meat of the document. Professor Sorkin discusses many different cases that together establish the rights of ISPs to filter mail, some of which I wasn’t aware of. He also includes links to then-current news articles about filtering and spam. He also mentions different websites and articles written by colleagues and friends from ‘back in the day’ discussing spam on a more theoretical level.
CNET articles on spam and filtering was heavily referenced by Professor Sorkin. One describes the first Yahoo spam folder. Some things never change, such as Yahoo representatives refusing to discuss how their system works. There were other articles discussing Hotmail deploying the MAPS RBL (now a part of Trend Micro) and then adding additional filters into the mix a few weeks later.
We were all a little naive back then. We thought the volumes of email and spam were out of control. One article investigated the effectiveness of filters at Yahoo and Hotmail, and quoted a user who said the filters were working well.

Read More

Unsubscribe means unsubscribe

But, unfortunately, some senders don’t actually think unsubscribe means stop sending mail.
Today, for instance, the nice folks at The Container Store sent me an email with an “important update to my POP! account”

Yes, that’s an address I gave them. But I don’t have any record of setting up an account. I was on their mailing list for all of 4 emails back in November 2016 before unsubscribing. But, they’ve decided they can email me despite my unsubscribe request.
They’ve cloaked this as an “Important Account Update” about some account I don’t have. In fact, when I go to their website and try and see what this oh so important account is about they tell me:


I understand legitimate account notifications might be an acceptable excuse to send mail even after the recipient opted out. This, however, was done extremely poorly. There is no record of the account that they are sending me information about. Neither the company nor I have any record of this account of mine.
At a minimum the emails should have only be sent to the folks that actually had an account. But, they weren’t.
I also have some issues with a company requiring recipients to accept email in order to continue using reward points. As a recipient, if I wanted what they were offering I might go ahead and continue receiving emails. But, I might not. It would all depend on how aggressive their email program is and how good the rewards are. As a deliverability consultant, this strikes me as a great way to create a mailing list full of unengaged users. Unengaged users lead to spam foldering and eventual failure of an email marketing program.
Whatever some executives think, and having been in this industry for a decade and I half I’m sure this is coming from the top down, this is not a good way to build an email program. You really can’t force folks to accept your email. ISPs are too protective of their users to make that a viable strategy.

Read More

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.

Read More