So, what are the benefits to a solid domain-based reputation?  What are the ramifications of a suspect domain? Will an ESP still send for me if my domain reputation is less than stellar? How will the actions of my subscribers influence my deliverability?  Is my domain portable? 

The dawn of domain-based reputation is upon us and legitimate senders everywhere are celebrating, albeit soberly.   In a recent Pivotal Veracity report, many leading ISPs have begun to employ domain-based reputation as an effective technique of measuring a sender’s reputation by computing assorted spam-related variables and, perhaps more importantly, subscriber engagement actions.

As Chris Wheeler eloquently breaks it down for us here, ISPs currently base a user’s reputation at the IP level and have only recently begun to show that email authentication as an enabler for domain reputation, along with positive subscriber actions, will increase deliverability to the inbox.  Domain based reputation is a boon for the deliverability landscape and is rife with opportunity for ISPs, ESPs, reputation services, and marketers alike.

If and when ISPs choose to compute your sending reputation, this computation will become your domain score.  For now, let’s call it The Domain Reputation Index (DRI).   This index will essentially be a quick reference to show how ESPs and reputation organizations will track your deliverability and subscriber engagement. Simply put, the DRI will become part of your domain DNA.

Domain Portability: A Boon for Marketers and ESPs  

For example, marketers who have a high DRI index (relative to industry benchmarks) will be able to leverage this score, and (assuming their domain name is portable) essentially have ESPs clamoring for their business. When a switch by a marketer occurs, ESPs will naturally gravitate toward DRI, much like a client with a good credit score who intends to find the best interest rate possible on a mortgage.  

In a recent comment on a Clickz article, Jim Fenton comments that  “Portability is but one of the advantages of domain-based reputation, but the extent to which reputation is portable between ESPs depends on how the respective ESPs work.  Some ESPs send as, for example, newsletter.brandname.com, which would be portable if brandname decided to switch. But others send as brandname.espname.com, which would not be portable. The extent to which the brand wants to be portable needs to be considered when choosing ESPs.” 

ESPs, on the other hand, have much to gain from the DRI windfall.  Properly managed, ESPs can manage preconditions to their clients that meet or exceed better than average DRI scores.  ESPs also have the ability to dictate the level of portability for domains.  This decision is ultimately that of the domain owner, but ESPs may help influence new customer adoption of the portable domains by offering “portability” as a standard or premium service.  The rising popularity of domain portability raises an important question: Should all domains be portable?

Furthermore, ESPs that have large domain sets (many clients) will have a “front row seat” to look into their senders’ DRI, and will  prescribe methods for developing a higher reputation score.  Clients of ESPs will adhere to stricter policy controls dictated by ISPs, knowing that their DRI is at risk if they continue to send suspect mail. DRI is also in danger when recipient engagement metrics fall below industry benchmarks.   When suspect senders realize that their DRI is below average and ISPs have shown them little mercy on delivering to the inbox, suspect senders will have no choice but to proactively engage or seize operations with ESPs.  The dilemma for ESPs is whether or not to maintain a relationship with marginal senders who are well paying, conscientious clients. Each ESP will have to decide where to draw the line on this type of client..   ESPs who stay vigilant will have the most to gain.

 It’s 1849 for Reputation Services

The Domain-Reputation Index (DRI) may be governed by independent 3^rd party entities who will aggregate data of millions of domains.  Companies that could represent such an index may include, but are not limited to, Pivotal Veracity, ReturnPath, GoodMail,  Email Data Source, ESPC, and others.  I did not mention DNS because that system is taxed already.  All of these companies may consider entering into the attractive DRI market, and establishing benchmark DRI thresholds that define, good, bad, and marginal sending behavior.  Among the various other reputation tools in their arsenal would be the ability to certify and publish millions of DRI domain records for the email industry.  Such a collection of records would cause these companies to become the most trusted throughout the industry.  

Think of the big three credit reporting agencies, and then compare them to these email reputation-based organizations.  These entities will have rich warehouses of deliverability and engagement data that will span many verticals and benchmarks.  We’re already seeing traces of this with the latest Pivotal Veracity report on your email engagement index, which is based on multiple sources that are aggregated monthly across authenticated domains.  These reputation agencies will develop a hierarchy of domain reputation building blocks and become a trusted resource as leading advocates for legitimate senders.   

As the email technology and deliverability landscape evolves in a direction that prioritizes individual consumer engagement, marketers must create more relevant communications than ever before to ensure they get into the inbox, creating better ROI.  Certainly, a deliverability index is imminent, whether we call it a DRI, or another name.  Organizations such as Pivotal Veracity, ReturnPath, EEC, MAAWG, CAUCE, or ESPC should begin to consider forming governing bodies focused on Domain Reputation.  The development of the domain reputation index is beneficial to the continued development of  legitimate senders. 

It’s truly going to be interesting to see how the ISPs choose to develop a moniker for the concept of Domain Reputation.  Hopefully, this blog has answered some questions about the need for the domain reputation index in the email industry.  In theory, there are lots of advantages; however, the advent of DRI also gives rise to many more challenging questions.  How will domain-squatting or “domain look-alike” have an effect on DRI?  Do you limit the number of domains a corporate entity would require?  One would think that an effective DRI would exist by rolling up these “sets of domains” for larger corporate entities and developing “one” corporate DRI.  What would that entail? What about domain limits or regulation?  

Also, there is disagreement about whether or not we need further regulation by limiting how many domains a corporate entity would have, given the versatility and the importance on branding.  Since a registry (which currently assigns and maintains domains) does not have the necessary systems in place to measure the use of a domain, what body, (government, or non-government) would be the likely prevailing body? 

 

All of these questions will need to be pondered as the use of domain reputation in the email industry continues to unfold.  Undoubtedly, there will be bumps in the road along the way that need to be worked out.  Nevertheless, it is important to support the continuing development of the domain reputation index because, in the end, your reputation is all that you really have.

Fred Tabsharani

Port25 Solutions, Inc.

@tabsharani

Wow, we really will buy anything that is one to a customer...

I had the pleasure of working on a study (beware large file) that was just released today by the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working group (MAAWG) titled, "A Look at Consumers' Awareness of Email Security and Practices" which includes graphs, detailed findings and analysis. The report is free.

MAAWG's press release

I, like many others reading this report or who helped create it, was SURPRISED at the outcome of what some people will do when they get an email. Eight hundred (800) consumers in the U.S. and Canada were asked about their computer security practices habits as well as awareness of current security issues.

A few highlights:

• 48% said that they have never clicked on a spam email (doesn't that means the other half has clicked on or responded to spam?)
  
• 1/3 said that they were interested in the product or service being offered and admitted to responding to a message they knew was spam (WOW - that's 1 in 6!)  
• 17% said that they made a mistake when they responded
• 13% said they simply had no idea why they did it (anything that is one to a customer perhaps?)
• 6% wanted to see what would happen
• between the ages of 24 and 44 are more likely to use email for banking and bill statements (my always right wife and I do)
• 80% of users doubted their computers were at risk of ever being infected with a "bot" 
• 2/3's of the 800 polled felt they were somewhat experienced in Internet security. RIGHT!... not by what I read :)

So as many have already noticed, the number of people who still respond to spam is scary because it's an economic incentive to spam per this report. I can't imagine me wanting to respond to the crap in my junk folder just from today!

Take some time to read how people use email today. Down the file and find yourself a nice quiet corner. Let us know your thoughts about this or if you dare let us know if you have ever responded to a spam message.

-Dennis

Eloqua

Don't Just Send, Deliver!

As a Director with CAUCE I'm happy to share this news - Original source CAUCE NA

Cauce North America Inc.--The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (http://www.CAUCE.org)--Today announced at The Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group meeting (MAAWG) that it has received additional financial support from Return Path Inc.

The viewpoint of computer end-users is often one missing from the anti-abuse discussions, CAUCE works to ensure they have a place at the table and these stakeholders' unique and vital perspective is considered when formulating policy to help stop Internet abuse. As well, CAUCE actively works to assist training law enforcement agents in the investigation of illegal spamming.

CAUCE, after a decade of purely volunteer ad-hoc operations, officially incorporated in 2007 and began to accept paid memberships from individuals and sponsoring companies and organizations to help defray operating costs.

"The ongoing, and generous financial support of Return Path by way of their renewed corporate membership in CAUCE will help us to continue to advance the interests of the true victims of Spam 2.0 (the blended threat of spyware, spam and viruses), the computer end-users" said CAUCE president Dr. John Levine

Matt Blumberg, CEO of Return Path inc. said, "Supporting the interests of consumers is vital to the health of the email ecosystem, and CAUCE is uniquely suited to work in this area. Return Path is delighted to support CAUCE in its ongoing efforts to create a clean, well-lighted place where consumers can feel safe and confident interacting through email."

"This renewed corporate membership will allow CAUCE to maintain a demanding travel and conference schedule in the coming months, including ongoing discussions with lawmakers and governments, The London Action Plan/EU Contact Network of Spam Authorities conference in Portugal, and of course, having representation at MAAWG" explained John Levine

Levine continued "CAUCE was actively involved in the Canadian government's Task Force on Spam in 2004-2005, the end-result of which was the recent tabling of Bill C-27 in the parliament of Canada; memberships such as that of Return Path Inc. allow us to continue to directly involve ourselves in the legislative process".

About CAUCE

The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email CAUCE North America was formed in March 2007 from a merger between the original CAUCE in the United States and CAUCE Canada, combining the strengths of the two sibling CAUCE organizations. CAUCE NA, as an all-volunteer consumer advocacy organization, has moved beyond its original mission of encouraging the creation and adoption of anti-spam laws to a broader stance of defending the interests of the average Internet user. CAUCE NA is led by a combined Board with a cumulative century of experience in the field of Internet advocacy.

CAUCE NA represents the interests of Internet end-users to the following organizations:

* The Anti-spyware Coalition (ASC)
* The Anti-phishing Working group (APWG)
* Digital Phishnet
* Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
* Internet Governance forum
* The London Action Plan / EU Contact Network of Spam Authorities
* The Stop Spam Alliance

About Return Path
Founded in 1999, Return Path helps commercial email senders get more email delivered to the inbox. Our tools and services give senders the insight and resources to diagnose and prevent email deliverability and rendering failures by improving and maintaining their email sending reputations. Our Professional Services division then helps our client improve ROI and response by creating consistent and compelling subscriber experiences across the email customer lifecycle. Return Path runs the internet's most widely used third-party whitelist, the Return Path Certification Program. Return Path also invented the Sender Score, an email reputation measure based on data contributed by ISPs and other receivers of large volume email into the Return Path Reputation Network. We offer free access to our Sender Score to any sender, receiver or consumer of email at our reputation portal: http://www.senderscore.org Information about Return Path can be found at http://www.returnpath.net

These results should NOT be a surprise to ANYONE here, but Return Path ran a study to find out if Internet Service Providers (ISPs) treat IPs differently when it comes to filtering decisions.

You should consider that these results are also a factor of many things such as which ISP's serve which demographics, user perception in personalities for those demographics, how spammers target different ISP's because of their differences in filtering, etc.

What's more notable in this study is that in some cases you could see a "7x difference in accepted mail from the same set of IPs when comparing their behavior at two ISPs". This should point out the fact that if your not following sender common best practices that prescribe such things as having rDNS on your sending IP's could heavily effect you at some of those ISP's. In other words some ISP's have different policies, but following the strictest of rules should help you with many delivery differences at most ISP's.

ISP's will probably for the most part continue to have delivery difference because of budgets, laws they must comply with, differences in how customers are raised, competition with each other, etc.

I think its nice to finally have a third party prove that there can be differences and that NOT all ISP's will treat your mail the same. Not trying to say it's right or wrong, but that your customers should be aware of this. It's still think it's their responsibility to handle their reputation. I would be willing to stick my neck out here today and say that most ESP's from the best common technology standards standpoint are all doing the same thing to get your mail delivered. Many ISP's have the same technology required to deliver to us standards. It's now up to you to ensure your reputation is good no matter which ISP your sending to.

------

Inconsistencies with inbound traffic across ISPs

John Young, Ph.D.

Director of Product Analytics

We encourage receiving networks to share data with us at Return Path so that we can in turn provide solutions and information that will help their filtering decisions. We believe that you can learn from another company's mistakes and success. And, when working in a collaborative environment, receiving networks can learn from cases where one system accepted mail that another system was blocking erroneously or vice versa.

We decided to dig into our data to find out if Internet Service Providers (ISPs) treat IPs differently. We took a random sample of 400,000 IPs that attempted to send messages to four different receiving networks in early 2009. The ISPs used from our network consisted of two webmail providers, one cable operation, and a hosted business email provider.

By looking at IPs that mailed to all four networks, it became clear to us that receiving networks make extremely different decisions about how to treat those mailers.

From the data, we found that when ISPs make decisions on what to do with inbound mail, they cannot agree on IPs from smaller volume mailers, especially when that IP has no rDNS. Also noteworthy was a 7X difference in accepted mail from the same set of IPs when comparing their behavior at two ISPs. Now, that's not as interesting until you note the variance in complaint rates across ISPs, which vary as much as 3X between them.

One would assume that the more email sent, the higher the probability of a user complaining. However, for this set of IPs and their corresponding data, that is not always the case; especially when looking at those smaller volume IPs with no rDNS. For example, one IP sent ~100 messages to ISPs A and B. The IP had ~90% delivered rate at ISP A, 4% Delivered rates at ISP B, but less than 0.2% complaint rates at either.

Another interesting pattern indicated agreement in the treatment of IPs with a lot of trap hits. However, there was a significant percent of IPs with a large amount of traps who ended up in the disagree buckets respectively. Again, it was mostly smaller volume mailers averaging less than ~200 messages a week.

It is evident that ISPs could benefit from sharing their experiences and their data in their fight against spam. By doing so, they could minimize the amount of spam impacting their systems, and the overall costs associated with filtering.

We are currently in the process of conducting a larger study to see if the data we found in our initial analysis holds true. If you are a receiving network who would like to participate, please contact us. In exchange for participating, you will receive detailed reporting on how your filtering differs from other ISPS as well as reputation data that would greatly improve your filtering and blocking decisions.

------

-Dennis

Eloqua

Don't Just Send, Deliver!

MAAWG (Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group) has solidified its plan for the Spring ’09 Meeting in San Francisco. Our friends over at Message Systems, as well as Cloudmark and Symantec, will be sponsors at this February’s event. I can personally say from past experience that this is an excellent meeting of the minds in the email industry – an opportunity to network, hear about innovation in the technology behind email firsthand from ISPs, and to gather with your brethren in one of the many subcommittee meetings. There’s plenty of information around email deliverability as well. If you’re available and a member of MAAWG already, join up before room runs out. Otherwise, let me know if you’d like to be considered to attend (and you aren’t a current member) so I can submit your name for review by the board (CWheeler at DatranMedia.com).

Hope to see everyone there!

Chris Wheeler
Datran Media

GREAT piece from our friend J.D. Falk of Return Path. Please take some time out to read this.

http://www.returnpath.net/blog/2008/10/the-root-of-all-email.php

-Dennis
Eloqua

Don't Just Send, Deliver!

So last week we had a GREAT time in Fort Lauderdale Fl for the 14th General meeting of MAAWG. I can't really talk too much about what goes on to those who are NOT members since that is the rules, but I can tell you that the sender training sessions are REALLY kicking off. My good friends in the industry have really stepped up to share their knowledge to those who are new to the delivery/email job and in many cases to those who are interested in what the deliverability people do everyday or how we can work together to deliver “legitimate” email.

In one of the training session, FBL's and Benchmarking, Senders-SIG co-chair Ben Isaacson came up with a new acronym that I thought was neat to describe the process in which you should be reviewing your feedback results as more that just opt-out's. Ultimately complaints are user responses. Since we care about our users we should invest the same effort in understanding their complaints as we do their purchasing habits.

The Feedback Loop (FBL) Mantra

S.O.B.A.D

• Source
• Opt-in (Permission/Confirmation)
• Branding/Content
• Age/Frequency
• Demographics

Len Shneyder said you should be using complaint data to educate disparate internal groups and partner organizations. Take into account complaint data when making targeting decisions. Slice and dice your data as many ways as possible to obtain granular picture of your demographic and potential for complaining.

You have heard from me hundreds of times to look at the more detailed data that’s your customers are sending you back through opens, clicks, blocks, and complaints. Don't just use this data to unsubscribe people. It doesn’t fix your underlying problems of either content not showing up or how frequent you could be mailing too much or little. Look at it more closely and over time.

Make the FBL Mantra part of your daily thinking when you talk to customers about their failure reporting.

-Dennis
Eloqua

Don’t Just Send, Deliver!

P.S. If you want to come to the training sessions, either join us at MAAWG for the 15th general session at the Mark Hopkins in San Francisco, CA February 17th-19th or be on the look out for a possible open training session.

So this links to the Forwarded email not working post I did yesterday. Our good friend J.D. Falk gave a GREAT overview of those new MAAWG best practice documents I spoke of.

MAAWG's Latest Documents Improve Accuracy of Reputation Systems
http://www.circleid.com/posts/86273_maawgs_spam_reputation_systems/

-Dennis
Eloqua

Ever wonder why your email that is being forwarded from AOL to your GMAIL account never makes it sometimes?

ISP's can sometimes forward unwanted email or viruses without knowing it when users of their services set up such features. This means that some receiving ISP's will block another ISP at times just because the spam or viruses looks like it originated from that ISP when in reality the email was just sent from another outside unauthorized source. <-did that make sense?

Spammer (sends spam to AOL account) ---> AOL (forwarder) ---> GMAIL (Blocks AOL thinking they sent the spam)

Spam fighters lay down gauntlet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7477899.stm

Antispam Group Outlines Defenses to Block Botnet Spam
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20080626/tc_pcworld/147586

To combat this, we laid out some new Email Forwarding Best Practices within the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG). These were finalized at our Germany meeting a few weeks ago.

(just using those ISP's as an example and not verified they blocked each other). AOL (Hi! Anna, Christine, and Mike x2) and GMAIL are GREAT services

-Dennis
Eloqua

I just thought to myself that a lot of contributors and readers of this blog will probably be in Germany next week. How about some get together with some supreme German beer?:) The MAAWG night out is on Wednesday, so all the other evenings are yet to be filled. Anyone interested?:)

So as some of you know, I am the co-chair for the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG) Senders SIG and recently MAAWG has released version 2.0 of its Senders Best Communications Practices defining how volume email senders can improve the deliverability of legitimate e-newsletters and permission-based e-marketing. The recommendations, originally issued last year as one of the first collaborative efforts between network operators and volume senders worldwide, has been updated to address new forms of spam and to clarify permission options. The updated best practices include new guidelines to help legitimate email avoid being mistaken for image-based junk mail, which has become a popular spamming technique. List permission and opt-in recommendations have been amended to reflect current practices, and recommended user-unsubscribe processes are clarified, along with other updates to the document.

You can read the document here:
http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments/MAAWG_Senders_BCP_Ver2.pdf

Original PR: http://www.maawg.org/news/maawg080422

-Dennis
Eloqua

So as some of you know, MAAWG has had a senders-subcommittee working for the past two years under the  technical group. The senders group has performed a great number of things including a MAAWG Sender Best Communications Practices document. This week, I was happy to find out that the Sender group is no longer a subcommittee! The board this week approved a request to be moved up and we are now a SIG reporting to the board!

What this means though is more responsibility on us to continue our work. I don't want this group to be a one document wonder. We also are at the mercy of the board to make sure we continue to develop earth shattering things and use the time wisely.

CONGRATULATIONS to those who are a part of the senders group. I am proud of the work put into it. Let's keep it up.

-Dennis
Eloqua

 

  So I thought it might be nice to post a few items that I have been discussing in my new company and to others when it comes to successful delivery (point of the blog). These suggestions come from Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group's (MAAWG) own Sender SIG group.

The Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group is a global organization focusing on preserving electronic messaging from online exploits and abuse with the goal of enhancing user trust and confidence, while ensuring the deliverability of legitimate messages. With a broad base of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and network operators representing almost one billion mailboxes, key technology providers and senders, MAAWG works to address messaging abuse by focusing on technology, industry collaboration and public policy initiatives.

This group created one of MANY documents in the MAAWG organization to set forth Best Communications Practices (BCP) as part of the mission of MAAWG to reduce message abuse. The Sender's BCP creates a greater transparency between senders of bulk mail and the receiving operators. This transparency helps distinguish legitimate mailers from spammers and the BCP also advocate technologies and practices that help to make email a more secure and reliable communication channel. http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments

List Maintenance

 
• Just say NO to purchased lists
 
   
• No true permission from target. Ends up causing you higher complaint ratios'. Will put you in breach of contract with your SaaS provider if they or you get blocked. If you must buy, be sure to obtain permission first by sending a separate email and only keeping those who respond positively.
 
 
• Just say not to pre-checked boxes
 
   
• It is not permission-based email per the courts. If you must use pre-checked boxes then it becomes unsolicited and your might want to protect yourselves by saying it is an advertisement when sending email
 
 
• Quality of quantity
 
   
• Try to change the way you see your lists. A lot of people think that large lists are a measurement of success when in reality you may have a large dirty list. Better to focus on small lists of people who WANT your email.
 
 
• Senders should actively attempt to identify and account for any addresses that have not received email for a lengthy period of time. When identified, senders are encouraged to ensure the maintained accuracy and behavioral response interest-level with these legacy addresses as some Internet Access or Email Providers may re-use these addresses for other customers or with their anti-spam recognition efforts.
   

Consent

Senders Must Obtain Clear and Conspicuous Consent

 
• Provide clear and conspicuous notice to users at the point of email address collection and make that consent notice obvious and readily available for online reference at any time by any party.
 
• The notice should clearly state the specific type of list(s) in which users are subscribing and consider noting the potential frequency, type, and approximate interval of communications that will be received.
 
• Whenever a sender collects an email address, it should follow up with a message sent to that address in order to determine the validity of the supplied address as well as address within the content of the message the recipient’s granting of consent to receive messages from the sender.
   

Unsubscriptions
Enable Clear, Conspicuous, and Easy to Use Unsubscription Options

 
• Senders should make the unsubscription process as clear and easy to use as reasonably possible.
 
• Senders should process unsubscription requests as quickly as reasonably possible and with the recipient in mind,
 
• Senders are reminded that unsubscription requests may be regulated and subject to laws of varying jurisdictions.
 
• Immediately honor any and all abuse-related complaint received regarding an email list subscription as if it were an unsubscribe request.
   

Content

 
• When requesting users to add a sender’s ‘From’ address to a recipients’ addressbook, senders should point out to recipients that an entry in the addressbook does not ensure message receipt, but rather, may improve the likelihood of delivery to the recipients’ Inboxes and/or delivery of images and URL enablement.
 
• Minimize the use of large image files and messages composed of a single image.
 
• Refrain from uses of special coding scripts and embedded forms.
 
• Refrain from attaching files to messages
 
• Senders should refrain from using only images to present the substance of the message, unsubscribe instructions and identification on who the sender is or who the message is being sent on behalf of. In other words, the substance of the message, unsubscribe instructions and identification should be in the message and displayed as regular text or text with HTML markup rather than an image or web linked image.
 
• Refrain from leading email content to open with an image.

-Dennis
Eloqua