Posts Tagged ‘Reputation’

Half-True Predictions

Tuesday, January 18th, 2011

The thought of blogging predictions for the New Year in Deliverability makes me cringe. I’m not exactly sure why; it may have something to do with the fact that everyone else has already done it – we’ve had a bumper crop so far this year. Mostly, I think, I’d hate to be proven wrong later. So, instead of offering my own predictions (which would doubtlessly sound much like anyone else’s), I’d like to take a look at two different trends in deliverability that came only half-true in 2010, but that are still worth your time to continue to watch in 2011. The two trends are Domain Reputation and Engagement Metrics.

If you can recall what it was like to switch mobile carriers before the winter of 2003, you’ll understand why domain reputation is a big deal. If you wanted to switch carriers then, you had to get a new mobile number, because the local number portability rules for cell phones hadn’t yet been enacted. Coworkers, friends, relatives, and vendors all had to be notified of the change if you wanted them to stay in touch with you. It was a royal pain — painful enough in many instances to keep folks from switching carriers in the first place.

Today, sender reputation is largely associated with the IP address from which e-mail originates, and not with a business or brand. If a sender wants to migrate their e-mail program off of the desktop onto a hosted platform (like Real Magnet), or change ESPs, they’ll have to leave their sender reputation behind and start from scratch because the move means they’d be sending from an entirely different IP address.

Domain reputation is like local number portability: a reputation score is associated with sending domain (e.g., mail.yourbrand.com) instead of a dotted quad (209.108.90.17). On an Internet in which reputation is assigned to a domain rather than to an IP address, sender reputation can follow the company or brand, for better or worse, across changes in originating IP address.

Domain reputation was one of the hot new things that was supposed to gain traction in 2010, but that mostly didn’t. To be sure, ISPs are filtering on domains and URLs in the content of e-mail messages (for sites that are known to host malware or to be associated with spam, for example) but that are not necessarily domains that belong to the sender. Some of the big free inbox providers use their own, internal sender domain reputation systems for filtering, but these are still miles away from the kind of granular reputation scoring data that is available for IP addresses.

One key reason why domain reputation hasn’t enjoyed widespread adoption is because it relies on the use of sender authentication protocols to tie reputation to the sender, and lots of senders aren’t bothering to implement those protocols. But just last week, the smart folks at Gmail announced that businesses who host their mail on Google Apps can use DKIM, a particularly flexible authentication protocol, just by ticking a box in their application settings. If other large mail hosts follow suit, domain reputation has a chance to pick up steam in 2011.

The other prediction that became only half-true is the broad adoption of detailed engagement metrics by ISPs for automated deliverability decisions. Hotmail and Gmail made a huge splash last year by incorporating some engagement metrics in their filtering processes. Priority Inbox at Gmail, and Sweep at Hotmail/Live give preferred delivery – and even preferred positioning within the inbox – to mail that the recipient has opened or clicked through from before.

But beyond those two standouts, and only in a fairly limited way, none of the other large ISPs or reputation scoring firms seems to have done much more than experiment with collecting and using the data. The incremental improvement to their existing filters does not appear to have justified the huge overhead associated with the collection and management of all the additional data. For a time, we’d heard that ISPs were measuring all kinds of engagement metrics – like social network sharing activity, and even how long a recipient appears to spend reading messages from a given sender. But beyond the opens, clicks and spam complaints, other engagement metrics just don’t seem to be all that much more useful for deliverability.

That’s not to say that senders don’t need to worry about engagement – engagement remains incredibly important. Those clicks, opens and complaints remain significant components of sender reputation. Tracking engagement is critical to improving ROI. Senders who perform even a modicum of content or subject line testing gain incredible insight on how recipients are interacting with their mail, and can learn much about what will generate the best conversion rates. But when it comes to getting into the inbox, detailed engagement metrics do not appear to be on track to becoming as important to recipient domains as blocklists, content filtering, and IP reputation scores.

Detailed engagement metrics and domain reputation scoring are two big trends of 2010 that happened only half-way. But don’t get me wrong – they remain important concepts for deliverability, and successful senders will keep their eyes open for broader adoption in 2011.

What color is your (Hot)mail?

Friday, June 18th, 2010

E-mail deliverability folk are all abuzz this week about the roll-out of major changes to Hotmail that began Tuesday. It’s hard to accurately predict what impact they’ll have on senders, but we can make some early, educated guesses.

The feature that’s receiving the lion’s share of attention is the one Hotmail has dubbed “Sweep”. Sweep helps recipients to move what Hotmail calls “gray mail” – mail that is not spam, but that may no longer be relevant to the recipient – out of the inbox. Like an inbox janitor, sweep declutters the inbox by automatically moving gray mail to the trash or to another folder for later action.

What makes sweep different from existing user level filtering tools is ease of use. Recipients won’t need to build cumbersome filtering rules to manage gray mail; Hotmail presents a simplified button interface to set and apply sweep preferences.

That’s good news and bad news for senders. The good news is that recipients will have an alternative to reporting permissioned mail as spam. Senders have long bemoaned that lazy recipients  all too often use the “This is spam” button as a sort of malformed unsubscribe request from permission-based mail. Sweep will move gray mail out of users’ inboxes without a hit to sender reputation. The bad news is that Sweep remembers user preferences, so if a user sweeps a sender’s mail once, Hotmail is likely to continue to sweep that sender’s mail until the user intervenes.

If the recipient deletes a particular sender’s mail unopened several times, Hotmail will eventually prompt them to unsubscribe with a new feature called (appropriately enough) Prompted Unsubscribe. Again, a mixed bag for senders: it will undoubtedly reduce list size by some amount; however, it removes recipients who are no longer engaged anyhow, which should actually improve open and conversion rates.

One final feature of note from a deliverability standpoint is Time Traveling Filters. Hotmail will retroactively filter unopened mail that had already made it to the inbox if the sender’s reputation later tanks. That means there’s no longer a guarantee that a message delivered to the inbox will actually stay there until the recipient can act on it.

Hotmail’s changes emphasize the growing importance that reputation and engagement will play in the e-mail universe. The take-away for senders: don’t send gray mail. Keep your recipients engaged with relevant, compelling content, so that what gets to the inbox stays in the inbox. Real Magnet customers have some powerful assets at their disposal to help do that, and we’re ready to help.

Andrew Barrett is Senior Director for ISP Relations and Deliverability for Real Magnet.

The Untethering of Reputation

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

If you’re a loyal reader of Steve and Laura Atkins at the Word to the Wise blog, you may have read Laura’s recent posts about sender reputation.  The posts detail what reputation is, how it’s used, and why senders need to manage it carefully. ISPs monitor the reputation of IP addresses from where an e-mail originates in order to make decisions about deliverability, and whether it belongs in the Inbox or the Junk folder. As Laura points out, reputation is a simple but extremely important concept to understand.

Over the last few years, both ISPs and senders have been adopting the use of what are known as sender authentication protocols, like DKIM (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, SPF and SenderID). This trend has the potential to make important changes to the way sending reputation is created by senders and assessed by receivers.

Today, sender protocols are used to make verifiable assertions about sender identities, or their authority to use a particular IP to send e-mail. While ISPs tend to rely heavily on the reputation of the e-mail’s originating IP address when they make delivery decisions, sender protocols can also be used to untether reputation from the sending IP, and tie it instead to a domain (like mail.yourbrand.com).

This is what we in the e-mail space technically refer to as “A Big Deal”. Why? Think of what it used to be like to change mobile phone carriers before Congress mandated cell phone number portability. If you wanted to switch networks before the winter of 2003, you had to switch phone numbers. Coworkers, friends, relatives, and vendors all had to be notified of the change if you wanted them to stay in touch with you. It was a royal pain — painful enough in many instances to keep folks from switching carriers in the first place.

Now fast forward to a future when ISPs give domain reputation as much or more weight as IP reputation. If you’re a sender getting ready to ramp up your small in-house program and migrate it to an Email Service Provider (ESP), you get to keep the great sender reputation you’ve built thus far, even though you’ll certainly be sending from different IPs. It’s like taking your number with you when you switch networks.

There are a few more benefits worth mentioning, for both legitimate senders as well as for ESPs. Broader adoption of sender authentication protocols should make it easier for ESPs to use precious IP space much more efficiently. If you’re a sender who’s sending from IP space shared with other senders, their mistakes should have much less of an impact on the deliverability of your e-mail.

So, what should you be doing right now about reputation? Take Laura’s advice: keep doing the right things in terms of relevant, engaging content and best sending practices, and your reputation can only shine. Domain reputation will play an increasingly important role in delivery and spam filtering as its adoption rate continues to ramp up. It gives senders more and better reasons to adhere to best practices, and has the potential to give ISPs more accurate information for making better delivery decisions. It’s an important trend that we at Real Magnet are watching very closely for our customers.

Andrew Barrett is Sr. Director, ISP Relations and Deliverability at Real Magnet.

Comparing the Goodmail Offerings

Friday, December 18th, 2009

by Jeremy Malin
Software and Operations Manager, Real Magnet

With the release of their CertifiedDomain™ service, Goodmail now has two offerings for certifying senders and their e-mail.  CertifiedEmail™, has been their long standing service and will continue to exist.  The purpose here is to compare the two services and look at why you might choose one service over the other to help improve deliverability.

CertifiedDomain™

CertifiedDomain™ is a domain-based whitelist of email senders that have been approved by Goodmail.  The approval process consists of a short survey where they take a look at how the sender collects and maintains their recipient list as well as checking across several other databases to ensure the sending has a good reputation.  It appears as though the certification process is not as extensive as the process for CertifiedEmail™, however, given the reputation of Goodmail, it is probably safe to assume that removal from the list will be swift for those that violate the terms of the program.

The CertifiedDomain™ service works like a white list, except it is at the domain level rather than at the IP level.  Email servers, whether corporate (e.g. yourcompany.com) or personal (e.g. gmail.com, yahoo.com) would be able to point to this list of senders and use the list as a criteria in judging whether to allow or block the email from the sender.  The decision may combine this service with other reputation based services, including blacklists, other whitelist services, or other internal metrics.  These other metrics, include factors such as open rates and links clicked that measure engagement are becoming more common when the email service is deciding whether to allow or block the message or whether it will end up in the inbox or junk mail folder.  The text file of the CertifiedDomain™ whitelist is available here.

CertifiedEmail™

CertifiedEmail™, on the other hand, is a service that will certify the sender and guarantee delivery of emails to the inbox with images and links available to certain domains.  The certification process for this is more extensive; if you can pass this certification, you should be able to pass the one for CertifiedDomain™.

This service has established relationships with several of the larger email services out there, including AOL, Yahoo!, Comcast, Cox and others.  Messages being sent to these domains will be delivered to the inbox with links and images available.  Messages sent to other domains, however, do not receive any additional benefit from the service.

Summary

Each service has its positive side.  The CertifiedDomain™ service will potentially assist with delivery across a large range of domains, both B2B and B2C.  The CertifiedEmail™ service will guarantee delivery at the partner domains.  If most of your email is B2C, sent to individuals at their personal email accounts, you will probably receive a large benefit from CertifiedEmail™.  If you are sending a large volume of B2B emails or most of your accounts are not at the domains supported by CertifiedEmail™, then CertifiedDomain™ would be a better choice.  It does not look like the two have to be mutually exclusive either.

Fees for the two services are also different.  CertifiedDomain™ has a one-time application fee.  No other fees are listed, however, there may be annual or monthly fees associated with the program.  CertifiedEmail™, on the other hand, is charged for each email sent through the program.  The cost per email is small, but depending on volume, this can be a larger fee.  Essentially, with CertifiedEmail™, the more you send, the more you pay.  However, you know those emails are being delivered and are getting to the inbox.  With CertifiedDomain™, the fees are fixed, but there are no guarantees.