Hi Jay, There is a 0.01% of background noise of people who complain. And that is not due to the senders abuse*. So if you send 1BN emails, small ESP, there would be 100.000 complaints per year like that. In my opinion those addresses should be blocked automatically.
Now anything above 0.1% or 0.2% complaint rate... Those rates are much higher than normal and should be taken care of properly. It is also very easy to explain a customer that 10x to 20x complaint rates are exceptional. This is also about the rate stated by Microsoft in their SNDS (0.3%). I think some, like Yahoo, want lower complaint rates but I have no numbers for that. David Hofstee OpenText * I have seen people press the spam button mere minutes after filling in the subscribe form which was as clear as can be. Subscribers sometimes just can't find the unsubscribe link, forgot they opted in, sometimes the translation of the button becomes 'unwanted email', people think the spam button is appropriate for all marketing email even though they opted in or they just don't care. 2017-04-18 7:47 GMT+02:00 Jay Hennigan <[email protected]>: > On 4/17/17 9:57 PM, Brian Sisolak wrote: > > UOL sends spam complaints to one of our ESPs (IBM), where someone clicks >> the opt-out link in the spam report (contained in the original email >> body sent to the end-user) . >> > > So listwashing? Spam complaints aren't just an alternate unsubscribe > mechanism. They're an indication that your mail is being sent to people who > never asked for it. Granted some people are lazy/stupid. I see occasional > feedback loop complaints for obviously transactional and personal email. > From AOL especially. If this is happening more than occasionally and your > mail is bulk advertising, you should ensure that your list is bonafide > confirmed opt-in. > > The opt-out link is not working, which is >> very concerning to us and our ESP. >> >> Our theory is that UOL is stripping out a URL parameter (only in spam >> reports) that contains the user’s email address. We pass that value to >> auto-populate the opt-out form and run client-side validation. As there >> is no email parameter in the URL, the validation fails. We have plenty >> of data that UOL users are opting out. Our theory is that the email >> parameter only seems to be stripped out from the Spam Complaint. >> > > Almost all spam complaint and feedback loop systems redact email addresses > in the headers. Most will go further and redact anything that looks like am > email address anywhere in the body of the spam. This is to minimize the > incidence of spammers who just list-wash the complaints and continue to > send to dirty lists. Spammers often mung the addresses in embedded links > either by full encryption or just replacing the "@" with some other > character to get around this. > > but the &[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> gets replaced with an X in >> original body that is forwarded to our ESP: >> > > Yep. Deliberate redaction by the spam reporting mechanism. Your ESP should > be questioning the quality of your list as a whole, not just listwashing > individual complaints. > > Do you closed-loop confirm opt-in status of all addresses in your list > before adding them? If not, why not? > > -- > Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - [email protected] > Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ > Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > [email protected] > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > -- -- My opinion is mine.
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
