On Nov. 15, Facebook announced it’s new “modern messaging system” incorporating e-mail, instant messaging, Facebook messages, and SMS.  Facebook says it’s users don’t want to send an email or text or chat, they just want to communicate.  Marketers must then find a way to effectively communicate their message through all channels, not just email or SMS.

A feature called “The Social Inbox” will have the most impact on the deliverability of a message.  Similar to Gmail’s Priority Inbox, it will allow users to organize and control which messages they receive.  The Inbox will only contain messages received from friends and other trusted users.  The “Other” section will allow users to prioritize other messages.  If a message is important or meaningful, it is moved to “Messages.”  Low priority and unknown email and messages will find their way to the junk folder.

How do you ensure your message is not rejected and marked as junk?  Facebook users will only want messages from senders they know and trust.  Keep your Facebook page and presence up to date and engaging.  Your message will have the most impact on a user who trusts you and wants to opt-in.  Make it easy for Facebook users to opt-in to your messaging and change their subscription status.

Connect your Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn pages.  If a user trusts you on one social platform, chances are you will be accepted on others.  Being a trusted sender may encourage a user’s friends or followers to opt-in to your offers as well.  Honor your subscribers’ opt-out requests.  If Facebook’s new message system turns out to be very effective in preventing unwanted contact, your communication may become “junk” on all social platforms.

Only a few users are invited to use the new messaging system right now.  It will be available all users over the next several months.  Stay tuned for updates as we are anxious to analyze the feedback from users and marketers.

For more information on Facebook’s new messaging system, check out their blog titled See the Messages that Matter.

Spamhaus has just released the newest block list to date. The Domain Block List (DBL) is Spamhaus’ newest feature, which allows spam filtering to be taken to a new level. The DBL is essentially constructed using the landing pages in the body of an email, which are based on domains and IP addresses. It is designed to work as a second stage of spam filtering, with the first filtering stage based on sender and source IP addressing information via Spamhaus’ Zen collection of block lists. Using these IP based block lists as the first stage prevents nearly 90% of spam from getting through to the mailbox. If the spam gets through the IP based filter, the spam needs to be further filtered, which is where block lists such as the DBL come into play.

The DBL is based on different domain criteria including the spam senders and sources, but it primarily uses the email landing pages, or the links that are contained within the body of the email message. This way, even if a spammer changes the source or sender IP address, the landing page or hyperlink is still associated with the same domain name or IP address. For years, spam filter software such as SpamAssasin has included URI and domain filters in its rule sets. Blocklists such as the SURBL and URIBL are currently being used with this software.  However, unlike these blocklists, the DBL was designed to work specifically along side the IP address based block lists.

Updating itself every 120 seconds, the DBL system detects and lists spam in real-time. Using an automated system and Spamhaus project team members around the world, the database is maintained 24/7. There is no public interaction involved and no public spam reports will be accepted or processed. Spamhaus uses spam traps and email flow monitoring as their primary method to obtain spam-linked domains. DBL can be used with SpamAssasin 3.3.1, open source spam filter software due to be released in the near future.

The DBL is designed to work in conjunction with IP based blacklists such as Spamhaus Zen. The Zen collection of blocklists is used to filter incoming mail based on IP addressing information, rejecting nearly 90% of traffic. The second stage is where DBL comes in. If mail is able to sneak through using Zen blocklists, more in depth filters are used, which check the message bodies including the domains and IP’s of websites advertised in them. This is done using software, such as SpamAssassin, that scans the message bodies for URI and URLS and testing these against URI blocklists like the DBL, SURBL, and the URIBL. The DBL alone can eradicate between 60 -90% of spam. Remaining spam, after both spam filtration stages, should be reduced to less than 0.5% total, with 0% false positives.

Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM) is method of verifying that an email is tied to a specific organization or sender. Not only does the DKIM signature bind the email to the sender, it matches the signing domain name with the sender. In the past,  both IP addresses and domain names were used to identify the source of an email. However, this method is not the most reliable. Organizations and senders can change their domain names and obtain different IP addresses to send their email , thereby avoiding blacklists. DKIM, when used properly for authentication, eliminates the chance of a sender spoofing a domain name or IP address. ESPs can also overwrite the original senders DKIM signature with their own, thereby taking responsibility for the email.

The DKIM signature is added to the header field of an email message. By default, the signature contains a SHA-256 cryptographic hash value calculated based on the headers and body of the email message. When the email is sent, the receiving SMTP server uses the domain name field of the DKIM signature to perform a DNS look-up which  locates the domains public key. The public key is then used to decrypt the hash value in the header field, then immediately used to recalculate the hash value of the email message. If these two values match, the email is proven un-tampered with.

The domain name field (d=) is one of the most important aspects of the DKIM signature. However, an article written by J.D. Falk of ReturnPath looks at the other fields of the DKIM signature and how they affect deliverability. The version field (v=) must always equal 1 or the DKIM signature isn’t valid. The algorithm field (a=) determines which algorithm is used, and has no affect on deliverability. The canonicalization field (c=) determines the degree of minor changes  the email can have during transit  before it is rejected.

With a simple Canononicalization algorithm, any minor changes made to the email during transit will cause the DKIM signature verification to fail. With a relaxed algorithm, the changes will not affect the messages ability to be verified. This field does not have any affect on deliverability, unless the email message verification fails. The header (h=) field determines which header fields you are signing and does not have any affect on deliverabilty All of the signed header fields can be copied into the signature with the z= tag, which has no affect on deliverability. The selector (s=) field is a way to look up which key your using and has no affect on deliverabilty. The body length limit (l=) tag specifies how much of the message the signer is responsible for. This tag is controversial due to the fact that malware and other unwanted data can be in the unsigned portion. This could affect deliverability, and it is not recommended you use this field. The q= value must be “dns/txt”, the t= is the time the signature was created, and the x= is when it expires, none of which affect deliverabilty. The i=tag identifies users, even though it looks like an email address, and does not affect deliverability.

Even though a sender or organization is clearly identified with the DKIM signature, spoofing and illegitimate email can still occur. Marketers can still send large volumes of email, but their reputation can more easily be determined. If DKIM is implemented industry-wide, it forces senders to take responsibility for their brand’s legitimate email. Currently, the DKIM signature is optional and is not required for an organization to send email. However, the signature can be used to increase the reputation and trustworthiness of an organization. Gmail, AOL, and Yahoo! have already adopted DKIM signatures, and many more ISPs are sure to follow.

AOL has redesigned it’s postmaster site, and it’s been big news on LashBack’s Twitter feed from esps, email marketing firms and thought leaders alike. The site has a plethora of resources, including an added reputation search for IP addresses. Guidelines for AOL’s enhanced whitelisting program, best practices, and bulk mailer guidelines are available, among other things. We heard it first via Al Iverson’s Spam Resource this morning and the news has been moving through @LashBackLLC’s following ever since. It will be interesting to watch and see if other large ISPs will respond with similar changes. Either way, I found the site very helpful and easy to navigate!

LashBack has long recommended the best practice of using the List Unsubscribe Header (RFC 2369) as the mechanism to unsubscribe consumers from commercial email. Every receiver needs to adopt this standard. It’s great to see Google recently offering this powerful feature to Gmail users and more receivers need to follow their lead. We have to give props to Hotmail for being first out of the gate and seemingly taking the service one important step further. In nearly 6 years of monitoring unsubscribe performance, LashBack can publish a fascinating statistic showing how using the List Unsubscribe Header does work, but also offer critical insight on that same data when not to trust a seemingly worthy sender’s unsubscribe process.

Current LashBack data shows there is a 1 in 10 chance that a sender using the List Unsubscribe Header will not be successful in unsubscribing consumers.

In this 10% of unsubscribe failures, believe it or not, a best case scenario for the consumer is that they continue to receive email from only the original sender. Don’t get me wrong, if this continues it annoys the consumer and has serious negative consequences for the marketer. It will lower the marketer’s UnsubScore- a measure of unsubscribe performance, and probably cause consumer spam complaints, further harming the marketer’s email reputation which defines deliverability. The worst case scenario for consumers, in .5% of failed unsubscribes for organizations utilizing the List Unsubscribe Header- is when the process breakdown causes the consumer’s email address to end up on a compromised suppression file (opt-out list) which ends up getting hammered with spam. The consumer unsubscribes once, and in return gets even more email. Trust then becomes the real issue.

Hotmail is not only using the List Unsubscribe Header, but also checking the reputation of the sender for that 1 in 10 chance it might not be a good idea to unsubscribe from a source that would most likely appear to be trustworthy as part of the  List Unsubscribe user segment of the email sender population. However, appearances do not define reputation. Historical unsubscribe performance data does show who can be trusted with a consumer’s unsubscribe based on several datapoints derived from constant monitoring and testing over time. That’s why LashBack implores all commercial email senders to follow all unsubscribe best practices and constantly monitor and test their unsubscribe process and that of their sending partners, to protect reputation and most importantly the email experience of consumers.

More LashBack Resources:

List Unsubscribe Domain Reputation Data

Reputation ToolBox

Coverage:

Unsubscribing Made Easy from Google’s Blog

Gmail Tries To Make It Easier To Unsubscribe From Spam Newsletters, But Fails from TechCrunch

Congratulations to LashBack client ExactTarget, who has recently secured $70 million from three venture capital firms in order to expand internationally and continue to innovate their email marketing platform. The round of funding is one of the largest in the U.S. for 2009, which is an incredible statement for the critical role that email will continue to play in our global economy. 

The investment comes as no surprise, as ExactTarget has experienced three years of continued profitability and a record breaking performance in Q1 of 2009. It seems that as other marketing channels are shrinking, email continues to grow and prosper both in the U.S. and globally. Per the ExactTarget press release, Exact Target has added over 250 new clients and boosted revenue by over 40% in the first quarter of this year. This follows 2008, where Exact Target posted record breaking growth, adding over a thousand new clients and upgrading its email platform to include several key integrations. Exact Target now integrates with  Google, Microsoft, Omniture and Salesforce.com and is planning to expand globally with the announcement of a new international office location in the next thirty days.

In addition to boosting the economy by providing businesses with targeted, permission-based email marketing solutions, ExactTarget was recently voted one of the top ten places to work in Indiana and is continually adding employees. Antagonists of email marketing need look no further than companies like Exact Target to see the growth and innovation happening now, while other industries are waning.

Part of the reason email is still incredibly relevant is its implication in one-to-one, customer-oriented marketing in both the B2C and B2B spaces. Email continues to reinforce social marketing while maintaining the highest ROI of all marketing channels. Exact Target’s continuing success and the resulting capital investments in its solutions are a testament to the power and potential of well-targeted email marketing. We at LashBack are extremely excited to implement ExactTarget’s best-of-breed solutions in our marketing program, and can’t wait to see what the rest of 2009 will bring.

A topic that seems to be buzzing around the email expert community  is the question of where to place the unsubscribe link in an email message. Loren McDonald recently published a MediaPost article about it, titled The Unsubscribe Link Location: Top, Bottom Or Both?  Mark Brownlow makes the argument for a more obvious unsubscribe in Time to Move the Unsubscribe Link? and over at the BrontoBlog, DJ Waldow and Kimberly Snyder comment on several examples of unsubscribes in a post titled, “Don’t Hide That Unsubscribe!”

The general consenus among email opinion leaders intimates that the time has come to offer a highly visible unsubscribe link at the top of the message, especially in cases where the ”Report Spam” button is more likely to be used. Although some marketers fear making it “too easy” to unsubscribe will have a negative effect on list retention, this argument is easily debunked. If consumers wish to unsubscribe because they find your message lacking value, too frequent, or irrelevant, then you should want them off your list ASAP anyway.  

Consumers trying to find a way to keep your messages from reaching their inbox are looking for an easy, credible way to unsubscribe, or they will most likely hit the “Spam” button. Past cases of suppression list abuse have established a lingering mistrust of unsubscribe links in the minds of consumers, so it’s crucial that you honor the opt-out immediately and also scrub your list once the unsubscribe takes place. Be simple and transparent with  your opt-out link; tell consumers exactly what they can expect when they click UNSUBSCRIBE.

Traditionally, unsubscribe links appear in the footers of messages, somewhere tangled amidst lengthy legal disclaimers in mouseprint. Although these can be difficult to locate, many consumers are trained to scroll to the bottom of the message to unsubscribe nonetheless. According to BrontoBlog’s poll, 85% of voters still locate their unsubscribe message at the bottom of the message. Therefore, if you decide to experiment with adding an unsubscribe link to the beginning of a message, consider also retaining the link at the bottom of the message. 

In addition, add a preference page which gives the consumer the option to opt out of certain offers or to change the frequency at which they receive messages. This is a great way to engage customers in deciding which campaigns they find value in. However, don’t mistake the idea of a preference center as a replacement for an unsubscribe landing page. An attempt to mask a true opt-out link with a bunch of ways to not opt-out will only cause mistrust in the mind of the consumer. Provide options, but comply with the CAN-SPAM Act by keeping a simple, working opt-out link that leads directly to a single ‘unsubscribe me now’ landing page.

I recently read an article by Dela Quist of Alchemy Worx in the UK DMA Newsletter about the evolving definition of the soft bounce. In the past, email marketers have treated the soft bounce as something of a minor issue, not developing specific strategies for dealing with it. However, as ISPs develop more sophisticated methods for filtering spam, a soft bounce is more likely indicate a serious problem with reputation than just a fluke busy email server.

It used to be that soft bounces were the result of a problem with an individual user’s inbox. A soft bounce was an indication that either the server was busy, the mailbox was full, or the subscriber was on vacation. Because inbox storage limits for most ESPs are rarely an issue currently, it’s highly unlikely that a soft bounce is the result of a full mailbox.

Hard bounces are easy; they result in unsubscribes and subsequent list removal. The marketing standard for a soft bounce is currently to unsubscribe an address if it soft bounces anywhere from three to ten times, which doesn’t exactly indicate much of a sense of urgency. This could pose a problem if your soft bounces are the result of ISP temporary blocking, which they most likely are. Possible causes for ISP temporary blocks listed in Quist’s article include:

1.  Poor or unproven IP address reputation  

2. Lack of authentication

3. Fluctuations in sending volume

4. Spam complaints for your IP address

5. Sharing IPs with other companies

Clearly, the soft bounce, is maybe, not so soft as we originally thought.  Marketers should take soft bounces as signs of clear and present danger to their sending reputation. Investigating soft bounces and determining their underlying causes in a timely manner could prevent major deliverability problems and strenthen your future relationships with ISPs.

Beginning in January, Yahoo will join an impressive number of ESPs and email filtering services in using Return Path’s Sender Score Certified whitelisting program to give inbox preference to reputable mailers.  The Return Path whitelist is already utilized by many of the biggest names in email including Windows Live Hotmail, Time Warner, Spam Assasin, Iron Port and Cloudmark, affecting the deliverability to over 1.2 billion inboxes worldwide and growing.

Yahoo adopting Sender Score Certified has positive implications for legitimate email marketers who are already Sender Score Certified, as it will begin to improve their deliverability in Yahoo mail inboxes.  It also means caring about email reputation as a marketer has never been more important.  As more and more ESPs adopt strict, uniform standards for the mail that reaches their customer inboxes, getting a handle on your reputation as a sender could mean the difference between sink or swim. Mailers can apply to become Sender Score Certified at the Return Path site.

As I sit here looking at my inbox I wonder why I get Pamper’s, AARP, and Viagra based emails? I am a 37 year old single guy. Is there an email psychic out there that knows that I want these things? I don’t want any of these advertisements. What I do like to see are deals on computer products, health food items, and local events. I like to see messages that are directed toward my personal interests. Not some blind attempt to get my attention. It never works!

How did I get on these lists of annoying mailings? It was my own fault! I bought a phone through a website and hurryingly hit submit before I noticed a box checked allowing partners and affiliates to send me unsolicited email. Read the fine details. I have tried to unsubscribe without success. Now advertisements are sent to me blindly. This all being said, it seems that advertisers and publishers would want their mailings to reach their target audience. It would drive click through sales and increase deliverability. The current system is broken.

~MOE