Sep 17, 2008

Is SPAM filtering fair?

I've been around for some time now in the email marketing business and struggling to get my own campaigns and now my clients' campaigns through to the inbox.

One sure thing is that reputation makes a great deal of the job.

First thing is the database quality and freshness; the other is of course the number of complaint. My questioning is on this particular point.

Are complaints reports evenly weighted whatever the sender name is?

Here's my point:
I would like to know if hotmail, aol, yahoo, spamcop,... users report in the same way as spam emails coming from 100% unknown senders (pick whatever you want in the following list: Online pharmacy, Big penis for your wife, Viagra cheap,...) and known online companies.

If I'm right, known companies get potentially more spam complaints of unhappyonce registered users than real full time spammers.

Therefore companies need to be 10x more cautious with their optin and unsubscribe processes or they will probably get a big load of complaints from unsatisfied users.


Anonymous said...

Spam filtering against a normal commercial mailer with good mailing practices should have a complaint rate of less the .03% at hotmail and less than .01% at AOL. Spam senders are consistently many times those numbers for complaints, spam trap hits and mailing to long inactive accounts. This is part of the reason that bot nets are so popular with spammers as they allow for multiple sources to deliver a spam payload from a wide verity of sources, some of which (at least for a short time) will stay under the bulk/block thresholds set by ISPs.

The mail traffic/volume patterns will also demonstrate significantly different behaviour from normal mailers.

Unknown said...

True :)