A couple weeks ago I had a discussion with Ken Magill of the Magill Report about spam traps. He had moderated a webinar about spam traps and I publicly contradicted some of the statements made about spam traps. He contacted me and interviewed me for an updated article about traps for his newsletter. The next week he had a rebuttal from Dela Quist of Alchemy Worx, taking anti-spammers (and presumably me) to task for pointing out that some folks use typos as spam traps. This week, Derek Harding of Innovyx continues the discussion about traps and how they are a reality that senders need to deal with.
Spam traps are a reality and they’re not going away at any foreseeable point in the future. No entity that actually cares about blocking spam is going to give up the information that spam traps provide them. Not A Single One. They are some of the original tools in the filtering arsenal and they have proven their use and reliability for people trying to keep inboxes useable.
Dela focused on typos in his rebuttal to Ken, but typos aren’t the real issue. The real issue is that any address acquisition technique (and I do mean any) is subject to errors. Those errors end up directing mail at people who didn’t ask for it. If there are too many errors or mail to too many of the wrong addresses, that will result in delivery problems.
Yelling at the people monitoring the accuracy of your email marketing doesn’t make your marketing any better. It doesn’t stop mail from going to the wrong people. It doesn’t actually help anything.
My focus is on helping marketers market better. My focus is on helping folks sending email get that mail to the inboxes of people who want it. I don’t really care if my clients hit traps, traps are, as Derek said, “the canary in the coal mine.” What I really want is to make sure every person who asked for mail from my clients gets that mail. Every trap on the list? That is a lost sale, a lost touch, a lost opportunity. The traps are just the addresses we know are wrong. If there are traps on a list, then it is guaranteed there are deliverable addresses that belong to someone who is not a customer. This generally means two lost customers, the one who isn’t getting the mail they asked for and the one who is getting mail they never asked for.
Traps are a way to quantify missed opportunities, but they’re not the only missed opportunities. If mail is going to traps, it’s not going to your real customers. That is why marketers should care about traps.
Yesterday I mentioned that there were reports of a compromise at AOL. While the details are hazy, what has been reported is that people’s address books were stolen. The reports suggest lots of people are getting mail from AOL addresses that they have received mail from in the past, but that mail is coming from non AOL servers. In an apparent effort to address this, AOL announced today they have published a p=reject DMARC record.
I expect this also means that AOL is now checking and listening to DMARC records on the inbound. During the discussions of who was checking DMARC during the Yahoo discussion, AOL was not one of the ISPs respecting DMARC policy statements. I’m not surprised. As more information started coming out about this compromise, I figured that the folks attacking Yahoo had moved on to AOL and that AOL’s response would be similar to Yahoo’s.
My prediction is that the attackers will be trying to get into Outlook.com and Gmail, and when they do, those ISPs will follow suit in publishing p=reject messages. For those of you wondering what DMARC is about, you can check out my DMARC primer.
Volume in an of itself is not a problem. Companies sending mail people want can send multiple emails a day to every user. The volume isn’t a problem because the mail is wanted.
Many senders are confused and think volume is a filtering criteria. It’s not. Send all you want; just send it to people who actually want the mail.
A lot of companies in their growth phase find they do have delivery problems as their volume ramps up. But the problem isn’t the volume, the problem is that mail programs don’t scale. Companies mailing lower volumes can get away with sloppier practices. One because the chances of hitting bad addresses increases with the number of addresses you have. But the other is that filters do take volume into account. It’s not that the volume directly causes the filters to trigger, but volume causes the filters to look harder at mail. If the reputation and metrics are good, the mail is fine and hits the inbox. If they are poor, then mail hits the bulk folder or is filtered.
Overall, volume isn’t a problem, but increasing volume can expose fundamental problems in a mail program that result in delivery issues.
This morning I received a great example of a 3rd party email that I thought I’d share with all of you.
What’s so great about it?
- It’s sent from the company I actually gave my email address to: Macheist.
- It tells me why I’m getting this email: I purchased Fantastical back in 2013
- It introduces me to Fantastical’s new product: Fantastical 2 for iPad and iPhone.
- It gives me a chance to opt-in to mail from Flexbits.
I have no problem with this mail, even though it’s acquisition mailing. Macheist isn’t selling or handing off my information, even to their own vendors. But they are giving me the chance to follow up with products I’ve purchased in the past.
Not only is this consumer friendly, but it’s also in compliance with the new CASL regulations coming into effect in July.
Overall, a great example of how to send consumer friendly acquisition email.
One of the marketing solutions to the spam problem is just to have recipients opt out.
We think that commercial e-mail should always — and I emphasize always — provide for a way for the consumer to say: “I don’t want to hear from you again. One bite of the apple is enough. Having heard from you, I don’t want you to send me email again.” So we think that the approach of allowing a single message, and then an opt-out, makes the most sense. Bob Weitzen, DMA President, 2003
The problem with this approach is that some companies ignore the opt out from consumers. Even in the face of the CAN SPAM act, they still find ways to send mail to people who opted out.
Today’s example is from Microsoft. They sent out a mail this morning to an address that was not given to Microsoft and has not received mail here since 2011.
Subject: We miss you! Re-subscribe to receive the latest tech news from Microsoft
Did you know your current contact settings have cancelled all Microsoft email communications to your inbox? We’d like to encourage you to re-subscribe so you won’t miss out on any of our great content and resources to help you and your organization realize its full potential. Opt-in to receive the latest information from Microsoft — all it takes is one click. If the content you receive is not to your liking, you can opt back out at any time.
I’m hearing from other people, on Facebook and to our contact address, that they have received this email as well. This seems to be a widespread “re-engagement” campaign by Microsoft. Some folks I’ve talked to say that the address they’ve received the mail to has been unused for years. Others say the message came addressed to the wrong name.
Overall, this was an extremely poorly done campaign by Microsoft. They are sending mail to recipients who have specifically said that they don’t want mail from Microsoft. They are admitting that the recipients don’t want the mail. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I’m really not. Consumer preferences just don’t matter to many marketers.
Edit: Consumerist article on Microsoft sending to opt-outs.
Compared with some of the more complex pieces of the email protocol the From: header seems deceptively simple. But I’ve heard several people be confused about what it’s made up of over the past couple of months, so I thought I’d dig a bit deeper into how it’s defined and how it’s used in practice.
Here’s a simple example:
There are two interesting parts.
The first is what’s technically called the display-name, but more commonly known as the “friendly from” in the bulk email industry. It has no meaning within the email protocol, it’s just text that’s displayed to the recipient to describe who an email was sent by. Because it’s just text, you can put anything you like in there, but it’s usually either the name of the person who wrote the mail or the name of the company or brand that sent it.
The second is the actual email address, the thing with an at-sign in it. Surprisingly, this isn’t used at all during the actual delivery of the email; there’s a hidden field (called the return path or the 5321.MailFrom or the envelope sender or the bounce address) that’s used instead. For person-to-person email it’s usually the same address, but for bulk mail it’s often different.
So what does the actual email address, the 5322.From, mean? For that we go to the document that specifies what email headers mean – RFC 5322, “Internet Message Format”. (RFC 5322 is the updated replacement of the older RFC 822 – and that’s why the actual email address is often called the 822.From or 5322.From when people are being precise about exactly which email address they’re talking about).
RFC 5322 says “The From: field specifies the author of the message, that is, the mailbox of the person or system responsible for the writing of the message.” and “In all cases, the From: field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that does not belong to the author of the message”. It’s the email address of the author of the message.
(In some cases the email may have been written by the author, but then sent on their behalf by someone else. RFC 5322 says that in that situation the email address in the From field is still the author of the message. The person who sent the message gets their own field, “Sender:”).
What is the 5322.From used for? During the delivery process it’s used for some sorts of filtering and authentication. In particular, if you’re reading about DMARC you’ll see “identifier alignment” mentioned a lot – which basically means “the only domain we care about authenticating is the one in the 5322.From”. It’s also the usual field that’s used in user-visible mail filtering such as whitelisting email addresses that are in the users address book.
In the mail client itself the most obvious use of the 5322.From is that when you hit reply, that’s the email address your reply will go to by default. The author of the mail can override that by adding a Reply-To field, containing one or more email addresses if they want different behaviour. It’s also commonly used to filter email and to group mails by author.
What’s displayed to the end user? Originally the entire content of the From: header was shown in the recipients mailbox but it’s now fairly common to display just the friendly from, with no mention of the email address at all. That started in mobile clients, where space is at a premium and the friendly from is just, well, friendlier – but it’s spread to desktop and webmail clients too. In Yahoo webmail the 5322.From isn’t displayed anywhere at all unless you find the View Full Header menu option and dig through the raw headers, and my phone doesn’t display it anywhere obvious and only recently made it possible to see it at all.
Yesterday Yahoo posted a statement about their new p=reject policy. Based on this statement I don’t expect Yahoo to be rolling back the policy any time soon. It seems it was incredibly effective at stopping spoofed Yahoo mail.
On Friday afternoon last week, Yahoo made a simple change to its DMARC policy from “report” to “reject”. In other words, we requested that all other mail services reject emails claiming to come from a Yahoo user, but not signed by Yahoo.
Yahoo is the first major email provider in the world to adopt this aggressive level of DMARC policy on behalf of our users.
And overnight, the bad guys who have used email spoofing to forge emails and launch phishing attempts pretending to come from a Yahoo Mail account were nearly stopped in their tracks.
There is a regrettable, short-term impact to our more aggressive position on DMARC. Many legitimate emails sent on behalf of Yahoo Mail customers from third parties are also being rejected. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Given the effectiveness of this policy, I would not be surprised to see other free mail providers (Gmail, Hotmail, AOL) or other ISPs to adopt this policy in the coming months. This is a shift in how many of us are used to using email, particularly personal email. But, as Yahoo says, times have changed and it’s time to take those painful actions that will increase our security.
In addition to making a public statement, Yahoo also published a number of things that senders (i.e., email intermediaries) can do to still handle email from Yahoo addresses as they are sent through different infrastructures. Many of these recommendations for senders are things that are already in process at most ESPs and mailing lists.
This seemingly simple policy statement is a revolutionary step in addressing issues of forgery and spam that many people have been discussing and arguing about for more than 10 years. This is a painful change for many people, Yahoo and non-Yahoo users alike. Luckily, the internet community has stepped up and implemented the changes that will make mail work even with a restrictive policy like p=reject. Now that mailing lists and ESPs are taking the steps to accommodate this policy change I expect to see other ISPs follow Yahoo’s lead and start publishing p=reject policies. Luckily for them Yahoo was first, so the impact on their users and mailing list managers should be much lower than we’ve been dealing with the last week.