Spam, delivery, email and more
Over on the ET blog, Al posted about how CAN SPAM compliance is not sufficient for you to not be spamming.
It’s a bit different perspective, but very complimentary to my post yesterday about what is and is not spam. He and I have both heard from ISP people about how many requests for whitelisting or unblocking are prefaced with, “We comply with CAN SPAM” and how meaningless that statement really is. Al has a longer discussion of why.
A few days ago I was reading the attempt by e360 and Dave Linhardt to force Comcast to accept his mail and to stop people posting in the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email from claiming he is a spammer. The bit that pops out at me in this complaint of his, is the fact that he believes that by complying with the minimal standards of the CAN-SPAM act, he is not spamming.
The problem with this claim is that CAN SPAM lists the minimal standards an email must meet in order to avoid prosecution. CAN SPAM does not define what is spam, it only defines the things senders must do in order to not be violating the act. There is no legal definition of spam or of what is not spam.
To add to the confusion there are a number of confusing and contradictory definitions of spam. Definitions people have used over the years include:
I rarely use the word spam. There are so many different definitions of spam, I have no way to know if my clients understand what I am saying, so I avoid the term completely. I do think it is important for senders to understand the definitions of spam as used by entities responsible for filtering large amounts of incoming email.
Spamhaus and some other blocking lists use “unsolicited bulk email” as their definition. Generally, they have addresses that have never been used to sign up for email, and if a mailer sends mail to them, the mailer is sending unsolicited bulk email and is eligible for listing on the blocklist. The lists believe that if a mailer is sending one piece of email to a user who did not request it, then they are likely mailing many other users who did not request any mail. This definition centers around permission, and only sending email when you have the permission of the recipient.
Many of the large ISPs use “mail our users complain about” as their definition. With this definition, they do not have to argue permission status with a sender. The data shows that their customers complain about mail from that sender or with that URL. The ISPs are going to block, or deliver to the bulk folder, email that their users do not want.
Filters and some blocking lists use “mail that has characteristics of mail we know is unsolicited bulk mail” as their definition. These characteristics can be things like an invalid HELO string, or lack of reverse DNS on the connecting IP address, or badly formatted HTML. Mail that looks like spam, in the technical sense, is often treated like spam.
Resolving a block or listing requires first understanding the definition that entity is using. For blocklists senders usually must make changes to eliminate any possibility an address will get on the list without permission of the owner of that address. For ISPs, senders must decrease the complaints from users, usually accomplished by improving the signup process, getting a FBL from the ISP and and sending more relevant email. For filters, fixing the technical issues, cleaning up HTML and sending mail that does not look like spam will resolve many of the issues.
Complying with the law is not sufficient to meet the standards of recipients. If e360 is sending mail users are complaining about, then the recipient ISPs are going to treat the mail as spam and filter or block it. If e360 is sending mail to people who have not requested it, then posters in NANAE are going to claim e360 is spamming. Is e360 sending mail that complies with CAN SPAM? I expect that they are. Does this mean they are not spamming as defined by some people? Of course not.
In the past, bulk senders who wanted Microsoft to check SenderID had to email information to a special Microsoft address. Microsoft would then cache the senderID data from the sender’s DNS records and verify incoming email.
Microsoft has simplified the process and now has a webform to submit the data.
In order to submit your information you will need a contact email address, the domains that you want to add and the SPF records of those domains.
I did not have a lot of predictions for what will happen with email at the beginning of the year so I did not do a traditional beginning of the year post. Over the last 3 - 4 weeks, though, I have noticed some things that I think show where the industry is going.
Authentication. In January two announcements happened that lead me to believe most legitimate mail will be DK/DKIM signed by the end of the year. AOTA announced that approximately 50% of all email was currently authenticated. They did not separate out SPF/SenderID authentication from DK/DKIM authentication, but this still suggests email authentication is being widely adopted. AOL announced they will be checking DKIM on their inbound mail. I expect more and more email will be DKIM signed in response to this announcement.
Filtering. The end of 2007 marked a steady uptick in mail being filtered or blocked by recipient domains. I expect this trend to continue throughout 2008. Recipient domains are rolling out new technology to measure complaints, evaluate reputation and monitor unwanted email in ways that tease out the bad actors from the good. This means more bad and borderline email will be blocked. Over the short term, I expect to see more good email blocked, too, but expect this will resolve itself by Q2/Q3.
Sender Improvements. As the ISPs get better at filtering, I expect that many borderline senders will discover they cannot continue to have sloppy subscription practices and still get their mail delivered. Improved authentication and better filtering let ISPs pin-point blocks. Instead of having to block by IP or by domain, they can block only some mail from a domain, or only some mail from an IP. There are a number of senders who are sending mail that users do not want mixed with mail that recipients do want. Right now, if there is more mail that recipients want in that mix, then ISPs let the mail through. This will not continue to happen through 2008. Senders will need to send mail users actively want in order to see good delivery.
Less is more. A lot of other email bloggers have talked about this, and I will echo their predictions. Less email is more. Send relevant mail that your customers want. Target, target, target. Good mailers will not send offers to their entire database, instead they will send mail to a select portion of their database.
Feedback loops. Use of feedback loops by recipient domains will continue to grow.
Mobile email. More recipients will be receiving email on mobile devices.
Suggestions for 2008
Overall, I expect to see a lot of consolidation, emphasis on good practice and tighter filtering. I think the first half of 2008 is going to be challenging for marketers, as what worked in the past is not going to work in the future. Mailers are going to be held to a much higher standard in the past and are going to find it more difficult to hide bad mail in a stream of mostly good mail.
