Authors

The Email Delivery Guru

The Email Delivery Guru

The Email Delivery Guru
The latest on email marketing delivery best
practices & trends from our resident guru,
Al Iverson, Director of Privacy & Deliverability.

Maine Repeals Law Restricting Data That Can Be Collected From Minors

Friday, March 12, 2010 by Al Iverson
Wendy Davis reports for MediaPost that Maine has repealed "An Act To Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices Against Minors," a 2009 law that attempted to prevent misuse of minors' medical data for marketing purposes. The law was worded in such a way to essentially apply far beyond just medical data, raising potential constitutional issues and creating a problem for some marketers advertising to individuals in Maine.

Now if they would just do something about the state's interpretation of how Maine's Freedom of Access Act applies to state-held email address data.

(Hat tip: @ddayman and @jacaldwell)


Goodmail Confirms Yahoo Split

Monday, March 8, 2010 by Al Iverson
As I mentioned before, Yahoo is ending support for Goodmail CertifiedEmail.

Today, Goodmail confirmed this via an email notice to Goodmail clients and Goodmail partner ESPs. In the email, Goodmail says that "Goodmail and Yahoo failed to renew their service agreement. As a result, effective 3/24/10, Yahoo will no longer accept CertifiedEmail messages. We hope to restore the CertifiedEmail service at Yahoo in the not too distant future, but for now our customers are advised to plan on sending plain (non-CertifiedEmail) messages to Yahoo as of March 24."

We're already working with Yahoo to ensure a smooth transition off of Goodmail CertifiedEmail at Yahoo for any affected Goodmail-utilizing clients.  I don't anticipate this being a painful process. Stay tuned; we'll be sure to post any updates as they become available.

Yahoo! Mail Announcement for CertifiedEmail senders

Friday, March 5, 2010 by Al Iverson
Carlo Catajan of Yahoo just announced via Deliverability.com that as of March 24, 2010, Yahoo is ceasing support for Goodmail CertifiedEmail, as indicated by the upcoming decomissioning of the specific MX (inbound mail) record in DNS for delivery of Goodmail-imprinted messages.

As a result, we'll be removing Yahoo and related domains from our MTA (mail transfer agents; aka our outbound mail servers) for all clients as soon as possible, to prevent any issues for clients utilizing Goodmail CertifiedEmail.

If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to us at deliverability@exacttarget.com or via our new twitter account, @etdeliv.

Email Address Capture at Point of Sale?

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 by Al Iverson
According to this post on Eric Goldman's blog, it sounds like requesting an email address from a consumer at the point of sale during a credit card transaction at a brick-and-mortar retailer isn't allowed in California, according to that state's Song-Beverly Act.

The court found that the law's application to email addresses is not preempted by CAN-SPAM. It did not explicitly rule on whether the law applies to email addresses, but the law's definition of "personal identification information" (PII) is quite broad, and the court's analysis seemed to suggest it, so it would be wise to assume for now that it does count email address as PII.

The net here is that the law does seem to prohibit the offline collection of email addresses in California by brick-and-mortar retailers in the course of a credit card transaction. There may be allowable ways to collect email addresses or other information outside of the credit card transaction, but I'm not clear on what the options might be.

We're continuing to research the issue through various channels, and will be sure to share further information as it becomes available.

(Note that the Act does NOT apply to online transactions.)

ESPC Call: Cloudmark and Best/Worst Practices

Tuesday, March 2, 2010 by Al Iverson
As part of Cloudmark's ongoing ESP outreach program, where they work to help spread knowledge and understanding of best practices and bad practices, Jamie Tomasello of Cloudmark spoke to the ESPC (Email Sender and Provider Coalition) group on March 2nd, 2010. ExactTarget is an ESPC member, so I listened in.

Cloudmark is a really big spam filterer, protecting over one billion mailboxes across 190 countries. Successful delivery of email to the inbox depends on passing successfully through Cloudmark filters at a lot of different receiving sites that matter, both B2C and B2B. That makes it important to understand what Cloudmark considers to be good practices and bad practices, as these perceptions are likely to drive their filtering decisions and affect your ability to get mail delivered (or not).

Jamie explained that in the eyes of end recipients of email, the definition of spam is changing. It's not so much just "do you have permission or not" as much as it is now "is the mail desired and wanted." The underlying statement there is that unclear permission, third-party permission, co-registration, etc. are not best practices, and are likely to cause deliverablity woes. As she indicated, these are mailing practices that have been defended in the past, but they're no longer defensible. ISPs and end recipients only want to let desired mail through. Is your mail desired?

Here are just a few of the Cloudmark-preferred best practices that Jamie mentioned on the call.
  • At a minimum, compliance with CAN-SPAM. (Keeping in mind that CAN-SPAM is a starting point, not the finish line.)
  • Following MAAWG Senders Best Communication Practices document.
  • Implementing confirmed opt-in, also known as double opt-in, obtaining explicit permission confirming that every recipient really wants to be on your email list.
  • Segmenting or segregating marketing mail from transactional mail. Making sure you're not trying to dilute stats or get away with something by mixing mail streams. (Spam filterers are smart and will figure you out.)
  • Using consistent branding in content, sending domains, call to action domains, and reverse DNS.
  • Sending from dedicated IP addresses.
  • Utilizing feedback loop data to identify and solve problems. (What intelligence can you gather from the recipient response to the campaign? Don't just listwash.)
On the bad side of the practices spectrum, a few of the things that she mentioned that can damage your reputation include things like third party co-registration, email append (which consumers hate), list purchasing and mailing to inactive subscribers. She also pointed out that you're very likely to look like one of the bad guys if you're doing things like gaming reputation systems, distributing mail volume over a large number of IP addresses (also called snowshoeing), sending your mail via multiple ESPs or affiliates, or mixing non-relevant third-party mail in with relevant, permissioned messages-- a practice termed "spamouflage."

A lot of what was discussed is stuff that savvy ESPs (and savvy marketers) should know already. But, it's never a bad idea to remind folks of what the rules are, as new people and new companies enter the email space every day. I'm very glad that Jamie and Cloudmark are helping to raise the level of understanding of best practices among email marketers and their email service providers.

Email Domain Alamedanet.net Retired

Monday, March 1, 2010 by Al Iverson
Residents of Alameda, California-based AlamedaNet, Alameda Power & Telecom's internet service have been transitioned from alamedanet.net email addresses over to comcast.net addresses, as the alamedanet.net email domain has been retired as of December 15, 2009.

It isn't possible to convert email addresses in a blanket manner from one domain to the other, as there are certain to be username collisions between the new domains. Meaning, somebody could be bob@domain1 and he can't become bob@domain2, because somebody else already has the username "bob." Also, anti-spam groups regularly point out that consent to send email is tied to specific email addresses -- meaning, it is not kosher to change someone's email address in your database without their explicit consent.

As this domain has been retired, we'll be adding it to our "List Detective" filter shortly, preventing any further email messages to any address at that domain.

B2B Contact Databases Are Poor List Growth Sources

Friday, February 26, 2010 by Al Iverson
This morning, I took one of the numerous bits of B2B spam that I received, and I replied to the sender. This time around, it was a staffing services company, looking to help me with all of my staffing needs. He's ready and willing to help me with all of my staffing needs in the aerospace, transportation, and defense verticals, just to name a few.

In my reply, I asked him where he got my email address. "Through the company website," he replied. That's odd, I thought. My email address isn't published on our website. So I replied, saying exactly that. He replied with, "Have you ever heard of Zoominfo?" Sure, I've heard of Zoominfo. I've previously blogged here that it's a bad idea to grow your list by working with companies like Zoominfo, Jigsaw and Netprospex.

Why? Let's use me as an example. If this guy really did get my email address from Zoominfo, he bought a useless record. I'm not a hiring manager, I don't buy from spam, and I spend a lot of time tracking spam and spammers. I can't be the only one in that Zoominfo contact database who has no interest in receiving exciting, valuable unsolicited offers for help with my staffing needs.

After I informed the guy that if he bought my address from Zoominfo, he ought to try to get his money back, he changed his story. Now he's quoting my online bio at me as if this is somehow proof of an opt-in (buh?), and saying he's going to report me for harassment.

So, it's hard to say if this data really came from Zoominfo or not, as this guy keeps changing his story. But I get an awful lot of B2B spam, and people have to be getting my email address from somewhere. What do you think, dear reader?

Quick Note: Spam is not spelled SPAM

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 by Al Iverson
Is it SPAM or spam? On that question, the style train has long since left the station. It's "spam," not capitalized, nor is it an acronym. If you're talking about unwanted email and calling it SPAM, you're doing it wrong.

And making Hormel unhappy. From WikipediaHormel Foods Corporation, the maker of SPAM luncheon meat, does not object to the Internet use of the term "spamming". However, they did ask that the capitalized word "SPAM" be reserved to refer to their product and trademark.

Seven Myths And Two Truths About Inbox Placement

Monday, February 22, 2010 by Al Iverson
ReturnPath gurus George Bilbrey and Stephanie Miller set the record straight about inbox placement and deliverability in this very insightful article found last week in MediaPost.

Apologies for being late to the party. I was out at the MAAWG conference for most of that week. MAAWG is a closed conference, so I can't report on too much of what was discussed there, other than to say that it's a very useful collaborative forum for ISPs, ESPs, spam filterers, and security groups to work together to address spam and security issues. It's a great place to share and learn.

Maine AG: State email lists are public data

Thursday, February 4, 2010 by Al Iverson
As mentioned on MediaPost's Email Insider and elsewhere, the Maine Attorney General's office recently ruled that email addresses of people who contacted various state departments are fair game, that they must be supplied to anybody who submits an inquiry via Maine's Freedom of Access Act.

This means that any sort of advocacy group can petition the state government to provide a list of all the email addresses of people who contacted them on a given topic; and then they would be able to spam those people, to further the advocacy group's goals. BAD NEWS.

Spamhaus blogged about this; click here to read their take on why this is a bad idea. We couldn't agree more with Spamhaus's take on this issue. For our part, we sent a letter to the Maine legislature, looking to explain why we prohibit third-party lists-- any list compiled via this method would clearly NOT be a permission-based email list and we'd clamp down hard on anybody who tried to use a list like that via ExactTarget.

As Morgan Stewart and I explained in our letter, "Allowing advocacy or other groups to obtain email addresses from the Maine state government via a Freedom of Access request allows these groups to build spam lists that will cause harm to internet service providers and end consumers. The owners of those email addresses did not consent to have their email addresses shared with third parties or added to other email lists. Further, recipients of such emails will have to take an affirmative step to unsubscribe from those lists, which adds to the burden of those recipients.

"There is no known legitimate use for email address data in this context other than to compile a non-permission email list and send spam to it. Whether or not the topic of the spam is related to advocacy of something under Maine law is irrelevant; spam is still spam. It is our opinion that there are ample alternate methodologies under which advocacy or other groups may identify and contact Maine residents, without resorting to the most unwanted of email scourges; spam. Please don't enable the sending of spam to Maine residents by allowing their email addresses to be obtained from government agencies."

How about it, dear readers? When you contact somebody in government to provide feedback on an issue or apply for some sort of permit, do you think it's fair that groups can query the government for your email address and be able to add you to a list? And if you're an email marketer, do you really think this is a winning email strategy? Blasting people who didn't sign up for your emails? I sure don't.

Goodmail Changes at Yahoo

Friday, January 29, 2010 by Al Iverson
Goodmail has just informed us that as of Monday, February 1st, how Yahoo will handle Goodmail CertifiedEmail messages delivered to Yahoo recipients will changes. Previously, Goodmail-certified messages were guaranteed inbox delivery with images and links enabled. Goodmail-certified messages will continue to be delivered, but inbox vs bulk folder delivery may vary based on unknown factors. I assume that the reputation of the sender is the primary factor there, but that is a guess on my part.

Goodmail has indicated to us that they are in discussions with Yahoo regarding the future of CertifiedEmail messages as it relates to delivery and disposition of those messages into Yahoo mailboxes.

Goodmail is currently notifying all CertifiedEmail-using clients of this change and has indicated that they will notify of any future changes.

As we learn more, we'll be sure to keep you updated.

Goodmail Goes Live With Verizon.net

Friday, January 22, 2010 by Al Iverson
Last week, Goodmail added verizon.net to its list of ISPs that support delivery of Goodmail CertifiedEmail messages. We're in the process of updating our local configuration to add support for this new domain, and it will be live on our end shortly. This grows the list of US mailbox providers supporting Goodmail to seven: AOL, Yahoo, Comcast, Cox, Mail.com, MySpace and Verizon.

How do I reactivate an address?

Thursday, January 7, 2010 by Al Iverson
Way back in late 2007, I mentioned a change at Earthlink regarding bouncing addresses and how they measure subscriber inactivity. Like a lot of other ISPs nowadays, they shut off mailboxes after a period of inactivity. In this case, 90 days.

This week, a commenter asked, “How do you reactivate an account?”

If you're an Earthlink user, and you're wondering how to re-activate your mailbox, I'm not sure. I assume you would just log into it like normal, and that would re-enable it. But, I'm not 100% sure about that; you should contact Earthlink support for assistance.

If you mean that you're a list manager and you're wondering how you re-enable that address so that you can send mail to it again … you cannot. This isn't a situation you can impact. Whether or not this subscriber's address becomes valid again is up to the ISP and/or up to the end user. (See my note above to any end user wondering about this.) The chances of an address re-activating is probably pretty slim; if somebody hasn't checked their email in months, they've probably moved on to greener pastures (i.e., they've changed email addresses).

What you can do is decide if you want to keep emailing those people. It's going to be a lot better for your sending reputation if you stop mailing users whose addresses are no longer valid. The ET system handles this automatically.

It's a bit similar to engagement, in that, if your contact or campaign strategy involves weeding out recipients who are no longer responsive to your mailings, then you're already way ahead of the game. Weeding people out of your list who never read your emails (and whose addresses are invalid) means you're much more likely to enjoy successful inbox delivery.

See You at Sherpa!

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 by Al Iverson
I'll be participating in a B2C deliverability panel at MarketingSherpa's Email Summit in Miami later this month. I always learn something valuable at a MarketingSherpa conference, and it's very easy to oblige their request to participate when it allows me to listen and learn from all of the other smart minds on display. I hope to see you there! For more information on the summit, check out this note from our own Joel Book (including a discount available through 1/8) and here's the official site.

SpamAssassin Bug

Monday, January 4, 2010 by Al Iverson
If you're a user of our Reputation Reporting, and you've run a report within the past few days, you may have noticed a SpamAssassin rule showing up,  "FH_DATE_PAST_20XX." The rule attempts to catch spam that is dated far in the future. Unfortunately, because of a bug in this SpamAssassin rule, 2010 is considered to be far in the future.

The net result is that as of January 1st, a whole bunch of legitimate mail was much more likely to be tagged as spam by SpamAssassin users all around the world. Oooops.

We've updated the Reputation Reporting's copy of SpamAssassin to address the bug, and any tests run from this point forward should will not have this rule trigger undeservedly.

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the ExactTarget Deliverability team and we'll be happy to assist. You can reach us at deliverability AT exacttarget.com.

Canadian Anti-Spam Bill Dies (for now)

Monday, January 4, 2010 by Al Iverson
Canadian Internet law blogger and expert Michael Geist writes: "Reports this morning indicate that the government plans to prorogue Parliament, effectively shutting it down until March. [...] All bills that have not received royal assent die and must be restarted from the beginning when a new Parliament begins." This includes bill C-27  covering anti-spam and electronic commerce. "While the government can try to move bills with broad support quickly back through the process [...], the delays are significant."

That's all for now folks. We'll see what develops in 2010.

Domains by Proxy: A good idea?

Monday, December 28, 2009 by Al Iverson

Is it a good idea to mask ownership of your domain?

Services like Domains by Proxy allow you to mask (hide) the true owner of a domain name. In my opinion, the legitimate business case for doing so is questionable. Wikipedia suggests that it's a good way to block “unsolicited contacts from third parties.” I don't think that's true-- I think a legitimate business is going to have contact info on their website, making it possible to contact them with postal advertising or regarding legal issues, regardless of uses of a domain masking service. And if you're worried about spam, use a unique email address that is well spam filtered, and isn't your primary email address.

I guess if you're a one man shop, working from home, and you register a domain for your business, maybe you're concerned about people knowing your home address. But domain masking isn't the only method of addressing this. The UPS Store (and the USPS) runs a brisk business in PO boxes and/or PMB postal addresses for exactly this kind of use.

And what's the down side to using a domain masking service?

You look like a spammer. Wow, really? Yes, really. It's that simple. A lot of the people that use these services seem to be spammers. I don't have data on this; only anecdotes. But I can tell you that, unfortunately, that based on my personal experience, there is a strong correlation between “likely to send unwanted or unsolicited mail” and “who owns their domain is hidden behind Domains by Proxy.” Sad, but true. Thank spammers for ruining another part of the internet for the rest of us.

Why do spammers do this? Lots of spammers register large numbers of domains. From dozens to hundreds (or even more). If they made their ownership of these domains publicly, easily found via the internet's WHOIS databases, anti-spam groups like Spamhaus would be able to track them much easier. It's not much of a deterrent, but it's enough of one to be very common in spammer circles.

And there might be legal risk as well. Read about this 9th Circuit opinion in USA v. Kilbride, (9th Cir., 2009) as reported by Mickey Chandler over on Spamtacular. The court found that use of a service that masks who owns a domain (like, in my opinion, Domains by Proxy) counts as material falsification under the US Federal anti-spam law, CAN-SPAM.

The jury is out on whether or not this is likely to be used against other bad actors in the email space, but why risk it? If you're a legitimate business, show the world that you are one by having your domain registration accurately reflect that you own every domain you use.

Big Players in B2B Deliverability

Monday, December 28, 2009 by Al Iverson
A client was asking the other day about B2B deliverability, how it differs from B2C, who the big players are, etc.

This isn't the first time the topic of deliverability in the B2B (business-to-business) email realm. Back in June, I answer the question, "Is B2B Deliverability Different?" In a more recent blog post, I link to information from Google about how they've become a very large host of B2B mailboxes.

Clearly, Google is a big player in this space. Meaning, a lot of the B2B mailboxes you send to are going through spam filters run by Google; just as if your recipients were at Gmail.com. What that means to you is that the same rules apply to sends to both those Gmail.com users and any B2B domains hosted at Google.

As I mentioned before, Yahoo, Hotmail and Google host mail for more than 264,000 domains, Google making up approximately 106,000 of those domains. (All three of these guys probably host mail for very many more domains than this; this is just a snapshot based off of last year's client list data. Meaning, if a domain doesn't show up on an email list, I don't know about it.)

That means you've got a huge chunk of the B2B email space hosted by top consumer webmail providers. Meaning that the B2C rules significantly apply to B2B senders, by the fact that the same spam filters are involved.

In the more specific B2B realm, there are too many players to list. Postini, Cloudmark, Barracuda, Ironport, Symantec Brightmail and MessageLabs are just a few of them. There are hundreds, maybe thousands more.

The way these filterers work is very similar to how B2C ISP spam filters work. They build a reputational view of you based on spam complaints, engagement, bounce rates, etc. They're a bit more invisible to some senders, as it's not always easy for you to know exactly what % of your mailing list might be behind a Brightmail filter, for example. But they still matter, very much so. In this combination of hosted service providers and appliance developers, getting tagged as a bad guy means you end up with delivery problems far and wide.

If you end up with a bad reputation as measured by Barracuda, and your mail is going to be blocked or filtered at the more than 85,000 customers that use Barracuda spam-filtering devices.

If Cloudmark determines the mail you send merits a bad reputation, you'll probably find it hard to successfully get to the inbox at any mailbox protected by any of Cloudmark's anti-spam solutions -- that's over 850 million mailboxes in 190 countries!

That's why B2C and B2C are more similar than you might have thought. Filterers handling either type of mail both look at your sending reputation, and treat your mail acordingly. Blocked at any of these providers on either side of things means that you're going to have issues delivering mail to a whole bunch of different mailboxes.

Yahoo Closed the Last Week of the Year

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 by Al Iverson
As reported on the local news in the bay area on Monday night, Yahoo will be closed from December 25th through January 1st.

"Yahoo is shutting down from December 25th to January 1st and if employees are out of vacation time, it will be an unpaid week off.

"Yahoo told their employees this summer, most of the 13,200 employees around the world will be forced to take the time off.

"They are ending the year the way they started it -- trying to cut costs. Yahoo executives laid off about 700 people earlier this year and got rid of some products. Now, the Sunnyvale company is shutting down operations for a week, but this move doesn't shock technology analyst Rob Enderle."
-- KGO TV, San Francisco

I'm passing this along as a heads up to ExactTarget clients. Our deliverability services will be around in the week between the two holidays, but keep in mind, we likely will not receive any response from Yahoo on any outstanding issues during this time. Also keep in mind that other ISPs are probably also understaffed due to holiday vacations.