Countless myths abound in the world of email deliverability. That’s why there’s no one better to clear up these common misconceptions than the leading experts in the world of email. For every issue, we’ll bring you a Q&A with leaders from inbox providers, spam trap networks, antispam systems, and more in our new Ask the Expert series blog.
In our ninth Ask the Expert series blog, we’re chatting with Melinda Plemel. With over 20 years of experience, Melinda has been a leader in email deliverability and anti-spam technology from early on in the email ecosystem. She has held key roles in email and threat intelligence, working for email data companies, large email service providers, and major brands, helping to build and fine-tune their email platforms and deliverability services.
With years of knowledge and experience, Melinda excels at applying complex ideas to solvable solutions, especially when it comes to email and security challenges.
Now, let’s dive in.
10 questions with Enhanced Support Specialist Melinda Plemel
Q: For those who might not know, what are your primary responsibilities as an Enhanced Support Specialist at Spamhaus?
A: Enhanced Consulting Services is a gold-tier support service. I work closely with large enterprises as a dedicated resource to help with their escalations. I use Spamhaus data to identify the threat so they can work internally to fix the problem.
Q: Having spent a significant portion of time on the sender side, how does your current role at Spamhaus differ from your role as a consultant in how you approach email?
A: It’s similar in some ways and more complex in others. Yet, the focus remains the same - being a better sender and a more secure player in the email ecosystem. However, it extends beyond the everyday deliverability concerns. The focus is on brand reputation and threat intelligence on a mass scale for very large email senders, brands or hosting providers. Spamhaus has a vast amount of data, much of which is difficult to present and explain to customers via a web interface. Being a dedicated resource that understands all the data and can provide a path to resolving an issue is invaluable to these organizations.
Q: How would you recommend senders approach subscribers with a ‘Mailbox full’ response?
A: “Mailbox full” is a pretty clear indication of a lack of engagement. Most mailboxes can store a huge amount of mail, so reaching the limit is a clear indication that they are not interested in receiving email to that inbox. If you see this error, the email address in question may be a good candidate to place on a sunset policy.
Q: In a post-MPP world, how do senders realistically build a sunset policy that effectively and accurately targets only unengaged recipients for suppression?
A: It isn’t easy. Implementing a sunset policy has always been challenging. Metrics have changed. This means what was once accurate with opens and clicks and measuring engagement has also changed.
Nevertheless, there is still some value in mail privacy protection (MPP); again, the denominator has changed, but it can be a valuable metric when used alongside other data points.
It’s important to use all your data and even obtain data from 3rd parties to help monitor and understand engagement levels. In fact, today, we are at a point in the email lifecycle where having access to other data is critical to help with deliverability and security management.
Q: Can you explain the different types of Spamhaus listings?
A: Yes. However, I can’t go into the details of what data points and metrics are used for each blocklist. The best place for an accurate description of the different Spamhaus blocklists can be found on the Spamhaus Project website.
Q: What are the risks associated with re-engagement campaigns? What recommendations do you have for senders running re-engagement campaigns?
A: Re-engagement campaigns can be a useful tool for maintaining a healthy list. This is especially true where data exists without confirmed opt-in (COI). Email addresses are added to sender lists in many ways, meaning some addresses may not have been confirmed when first obtained. A re-engagement or a permission pass campaign is the next option to clean that list. If a client has experienced blocking due to list hygiene issues, a re-engagement campaign or strategy is a great way to help.
Of course, there are some risks associated with a re-engagement campaign, including high complaints, high bounce rates, the risk of hitting spam traps again, and potentially being blocklisted.
It’s essential to plan and coordinate your re-engagement campaign carefully with the receiving community where possible. Set specific dates, making sure to segment the list, starting with the newest addresses and working backward. Use an IP that has been conditioned to handle the bounceback. And, finally, monitor the data closely, removing all addresses that don’t engage.
Q: We’ve heard in the past regarding spam traps ‘fix the problem, not the signal’. Can you explain that?
A: Finding spam traps is becoming increasingly challenging. As discussed, metrics once used to help identify unengaged email addresses are no longer relevant.
The best way to truly avoid spam traps is to stop as much spam as possible from reaching your email in the first place. Implementing a confirmed opt-in program to verify the accuracy and legitimacy of the email address you receive is key; you need to prioritize list hygiene.
We recently held a LinkedIn Live on this exact topic and shared a follow-up post - you can read it here!
Q: A common myth is that spamtraps don’t open or click emails. Is it correct that this is no longer the case?
A: Yes, that is no longer the case. The landscape has changed over the years, and threat actors are becoming increasingly creative in how they abuse systems and people. This means traps have also had to evolve, so some traps may click or open mail that raises suspicion and requires deeper investigation.
Q: What is the point behind a verification code in the DNS? Is this a new thing?
A: A verification code in the DNS provides another layer to help fight spam. It’s a text field that can be entered into the DNS to help verify the domain ownership and build your spam defenses. By adding a hash or txt, the code assists email servers in determining if the message is from a trusted source.
The ability to add text has been available for a long time, but using it to help with fighting spam and domain verification is a newer concept
Q: Given recent developments in the world of data privacy and the emergence of SMS as a preferred communications channel, what do you think the future holds for email?
A: Email isn’t going anywhere; both channels are very effective tools for connecting with your audience. SMS messages, however, are expensive compared to email due to their limited length and carrier costs. Additionally, you can usually only use text, and unsubscribing can be difficult.
Email, however, has been around for decades and has experienced growing pains. It is an effective way to reach hundreds, thousands, and even millions of people quickly and affordably. There is also a lot of insight and information to help build a better communication program that simply isn’t available for SMS right now.
Thanks to Melinda! Be sure to stay tuned for the next Ask the Expert, as we’ll chat with another expert in email marketing to provide you with further insight into the ins and outs of email deliverability.
