Permission, Co-Reg Sucks, and ESPs

Here's a good thing to read: Jamie Tomasello from Cloudmark reminding us of the basics. Permission matters. Co-reg is bad. Making assumptions in place of getting explicit permission.

In her blog post, Jamie points out some very reasonable "don'ts":
  • Having clients who do not know the provenance of the email addresses in their mailing lists should not be acceptable.
  • “Inadvertently” mailing to a suppression list should not be acceptable.
  • Having clients who also send through another ESP and do not remove invalids or respect unsubscribes should not be acceptable.
  • Providing the excuse of  “But, my client is a large and recognizable brand!” for a client’s bad practices should not be acceptable.
And keep in mind, Email Service Providers, a lot of this junk is coming from your networks. Jamie cordially reminds all of us that we're responsible for the email traffic emanating from our networks. I can't speak for her, but I sure do wonder why she brings this up now -- and I suspect there's a reason that it's at the top of her mind. Cloudmark is a really popular spam filter, used by many, many, many companies and ISPs. Too many to list. If Cloudmark, or any other big spam filterer, decides that an ESP isn't doing enough to stop spam from their network, the natural next step is to block or filter all mail from that ESP. Jamie's not threatening that here, but even so, it seems like the best practice would be to proactively police your own networks before somebody else decides to do it for you, in a way that is going to cause you a rather large amount of pain.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments policy: Al is always right. Kidding, mostly. Be polite, and you're welcome to join in, even if it's a differing viewpoint.