Recent Posts

URIBL having a bad day

Multiple lists have been discussing DNS failures for URIBL.com over the last few hours. This is causing some serious mail problems for folks, both on the inbound and the outbound.
URIBL has a note on their home page (which is unreachable for some folks).

Salesforce buying Exacttarget

Reports today say that Salesforce is buying Exacttarget for around 2.5 billion dollars.

TWSD: avoid filters

I was cleaning out one of my spamtraps. This is the one that gets a ton of “legitimate” spam. In the last 12 hours it’s gotten spam advertising: T.G.I.Fridays, KFC, Applebees, LendingTree, Lasix Vision Institute, Khols, Burger King, Match.com, and Vistaprint.
The footer of some of the mails are making me laugh, though. It’s clear they’re trying to comply with CAN SPAM, but are having problems with content filtering. Here’s a brief selection of the footers:
Ondemand Research, 1O5 E.[34th]-Street Ste 144, New Y0rk, NY 1OO16
Ondemand Research, 105 E. 34th Street St #144, New York, NY 10016
0ndemand=Research, 1O5/E/./34th Street Ste 144,New Y0rk,NY=1OO16
Poor OnDemand Research, they just can’t catch a break.
EDIT: Just got a spam for Ruby Tuesday’s using a .pw domain.

Gmail's new inbox tabs. News at 11.

Yesterday Gmail announced a change to their UI. This new UI lets users configure tabs in their inbox for different sorts of email. This change has greatly upset some marketers. Yesterday I heard it described as war on marketers, as a conspiracy to stop all email marketing and as a horrible injustice to legitimate marketers. I even saw a few people call for an organized boycott of Google AdWords.
While I do appreciate many of us don’t like change, I can’t quite jump on the histrionic bandwagon. This change isn’t Google declaring war on marketers. Google is, at the end of the day, a marketing company. They live and die by marketing dollars. And before you ask, I don’t really think email marketers can organize a boycott that actually has any real impact on Google’s bottom line and causes them to change their interface.
There are a lot of reasons I don’t think this is the actual end of the world and that marketers should just take a deep breath and chill.
The tabbed interface is really just Priority Inbox v. 2. Priority inbox was rolled out a few years ago and there was quite a bit of noise about how that was going to make email marketing more difficult. While getting email to the inbox at Gmail is a challenge for many marketers, I don’t think Priority Inbox is the underlying reason. I think Gmail has gotten a lot stricter on filters, particularly content filters thus making it harder for borderline mail to get to the inbox instead of the bulk folder.
The tabbed interface is just another way of organizing mail in the inbox. Mail is not moved to any different folders, it’s still in the inbox. Users can enable or disable the settings as they desire and all of the mail stays in their inbox.
The interface is not on by default. Users have to actually go in and turn on the setting. For users who don’t set up filters anyway, it’s unlikely they’re going to take advantage of the tabs. I did take a look at the configuration settings. Gmail tries to make it clear what kinds of mails will end up in what tabs by telling you what From: addresses currently in your inbox will end up in a tab if you enable it.
Overall, I don’t think this is really going to cause horrible repercussions to email marketers. In fact, this does seem to offer some benefit to email marketers that use consistent branding. According to Mickey Chandler at Exacttarget, the interface “not only display[s] the number of new emails in the tab, but [also displays the] names of the brands whose mails are in that tab.” This is a good thing for marketers, who now have the chance to get their name in the inbox interface.
One thing I did notice, too, was that when I enabled tabs, Gmail presented me with more advertising in the “promotions” tab and provided no advertising in any other tabs.

Michele Bachmann Announces She's Done

U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) announced today that she’s not going to seek re-election in 2014.
Last time around, the race between her and Minnesota businessman Jim Graves was very close. Mr. Graves lost by a very narrow margin. Graves had already announced his intention to take on Ms. Bachmann again next year. As the news came out on Bachmann’s decision, both camps made it clear that they think their person would have won the rematch. Just yesterday, Minnesota Public Radio explained that Graves seemed to be facing “an uphill battle vs. Bachmann.” At the same time, recent polling by the Graves campaign showed him slightly ahead of Bachmann. The race certainly would have been very close, but it was looking to be a scenario much like last time around, which, at the end of the day, Ms. Bachmann did end up winning.
So if she’s got at least a fair shake at winning, why wouldn’t she take it all the way? Well, that’s what brings us to why I’m writing about this here. It seems that Bachmann’s failed 2012 presidential campaign was accused of stealing the email list of Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators (NICHE) back in 2011. In a bit of an attempt to re-write history, they later came to an after-the-fact settlement to label the action a “rental” and NICHE received a $2,000 payment from the Bachmann campaign.
And that’s just one of multiple ethics issues Minnesota’s face of the Tea Party is facing. In March, her attorney confirmed that Bachmann is under investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics for alleged misuse of campaign funds. One of her own 2012 presidential campaign staffers, Peter Waldron, filed a complaint that Ms. Bachmann’s campaign improperly used leadership PAC funds to pay campaign staff. There were further allegations regarding payment of staffers and attempting to require exiting staffers to sign non-disclosure agreements prohibiting them from talking to police or attorneys. And the FBI is now said to be involved.
I’ve consulted for multiple email service providers who have told me how challenging it can be to work with political senders. At least one ESP prohibits this kind of mail outright, out of frustration with candidates regularly playing fast and loose with permission. PACs, parties, candidates and other groups seem to buy, sell or trade lists constantly, and as a result, spam complaints and blocking would often follow. Thus, it doesn’t surprise me to see Ms. Bachmann’s campaign engaging in something email list-related that they probably thought was just common usage, when the rest of us in the email community would find that use unwelcome and unethical. (And it’s not just her party guilty of this kind of thing.)

Can I join…

On a post from earlier this week, John asks about joining the blocklist doc I mentioned. This is actually a document coming out of M3AAWG and you must be a member of M3AAWG to participate. If you are a member, you can log into the website and join the working group.
This document will be made available to the public once the membership and the board approves it.

DKIM and DomainKeys, Spam and Ham

I’ve been preaching “DKIM is great! DomainKeys is obsolete, get rid of it!” for several years now. I thought I’d take a look at my mailbox and see who was using authentication.
I’ve divided this into “Ham” and “Spam”. Spam is, well, all the spam I’ve received over the past couple of years. Ham is the non-spam mail in my inbox, whether personal, business, bulk or transactional. I’ve excluded most of the discussion mailing lists I’m on (not least because many of them consist of people in the email industry or are email standards development mailing lists, so have email authentication levels that are way outside the norm).

Uploading your address book to social media

I am one of the moderators of a discussion list working on a document about getting off blocklists. If anyone not on the list attempts to post to the list I get a moderation request. One came through while I was gone.
Now, I don’t really think Jim Mills wants to be friends with a mailing list. I think he probably gave LinkedIn his email password and LinkedIn went through and scraped addresses out of his address book and sent invitations to all those addresses.
I don’t have any problem with connecting to people on social media. I do even understand that some people have no problem giving their passwords over to let social media sites plunder their address books and find connections. What I do have a problem with is social media sites that don’t do any pruning or editing of the scraped addresses before sending invitations.
In this case, the email address, like many mailing lists, has in the email address “mailman.” While it’s probably impossible to weed out every mailing list, support address and commercial sender, it doesn’t seem like it would be too difficult to run some minor word matching and filtering. It’s not even like those addresses have to be removed from invites. Instead they could be presented to the user for confirmation that these are real people and addresses.
Yes, it’s friction in the transaction and it costs money to do and do well. But those costs and friction are currently offloaded onto uninvolved third parties.

Seedy underworld

ESPs have to deal with spammers, phishers and scammers getting onto their networks. Mailgun talks about some of the things they’ve found our about these problem customers.

Thanks, Al

A giant, very public thank you to Al for volunteering to mind the blog while Steve and I made an emergency trip to the UK. There was once or twice I noticed something that I thought “I should take a second and blog about this” only to discover Al was way ahead of me and had already posted it.
Both of us picked up some sort of ugly cold while we were there so it will be a couple days before blogging will be back to normal here.