ConstantContact

[bcstones]

I have a couple of friends who use ConstantContact for their email/newsletter lists. They are the only people who attempt to send me their newsletters which never even seem to get to SpamCop. I finally got ahold of their tech-support and found that ConstantContact goes over their lists and removes any e-address that involves SpamCop or Spamhaus. According to the tech, and he checked with his fellow tech (and supervisor, I think), this is because ConstantContact believes that these address are "traps".

I explained that actually SpamCop does not do that and further, that I am the initiator of the report, not SpamCop. Didn't seem to make any difference. I told the tech that is sounded as if ConstantContact found it easier to "blacklist" the agency who reports spam rather than deal with a paying customer who is a spammer. (he didn't have any real response to that statement).

Any idea how to educate ConstantContact?

[Merlyn]

IMHO: ConstantContact = Roving = spam.

No need to educate. Do what we do and block em forever.

[bcstones]

"No need to educate. Do what we do and block em forever."

Either I missed your point or you missed mine: ConstantContact is blocking SpamCop (not the reverse).

[swingspacers]

If you want to get mail from them, sign up with a throw-away address (for example, Gmail) and forward to your SpamCop account. That is much easier and more convenient than trying to educate anybody.

[Merlyn]

"No need to educate. Do what we do and block em forever."

Either I missed your point or you missed mine: ConstantContact is blocking SpamCop (not the reverse).

29399[/snapback]

No, I understood that. I just wanted my opinion known about them. It might make people to research them a little better or think twice before signing up with them. We never signed up with them and received all sorts of crap before we placed them in our blocklist.

[Miss Betsy]

"No need to educate. Do what we do and block em forever."

Either I missed your point or you missed mine: ConstantContact is blocking SpamCop (not the reverse).

29399[/snapback]

The point is that ConstantContact doesn't give a *** about complying with best practices. You can persist in trying to educated them (there are lots of links about best mailing practices). Others like Merlyn just simply ignore them.

Miss Betsy

[bcstones]

thank you all. Well, I was kinda suspecting something like this....from the responses of ConstantContact tech-support people. they too suggested a second e-mail account (not an issue for me...I had a couple of those before, however they were like spam-honey so I closed everything...that is much easier for me).

Again thanks ya'll...tho I still think the long hard road of education is worth it, but realize in this high-speed computer world....not an option for most.

[Dave_L]

This an old thread, but it looks like the relevant place for this post.

Is the constantcontact DOT com of 2014/2015 more reputable than they were in 2005?

Some legitimate organizations with which I correspond use constantcontact DOT com for their email announcements. The URLs in these announcements, which often are necessary to visit in order to read the full content of the email message, contain long strings of letters and numbers.

What information, encoded in these strings, am I providing to constantcontact and the subscribing organization, by visiting these URLs?

Maybe I should tell the subscribing organizations: "I don't visit constantcontact DOT com pages. If you want to communicate with me, please provide the full text of any message you wish to send me in the email itself."

What is your opinion on this?

[Lking]

What you are seeing in the long links is a common practice with constantcontact type of emailers. It is part of their statistics and email tracking. With that when you click on a link in the email you go to Constantcontact so they can count you (yes your email address) and then you are forwarded/redirected to the client webpage(s) to read the full article.

All you are giving up is that you did receive and open their email (they knew that) AND that you clicked through, clicked on one of the links. This lets Constantcontact tell their client how many (1) emails were sent, (2) how many were opened, (3) how many links were clicked. All fairly benign marketing stats. They also can tell which links YOU clicked on and the "legitimate organization" you get mail from can then better target future email to you.

For example if the contantcontact email was from PETA, they would know you clicked on the sad puppy instead of the kitten, future emails would have more puppy pictures.

When running a newsletter for a non-profit I did a similar thing. With the mailing package I have I can customize each email. In addition to starting with "Dear Joe" I would also customize links to something like www.domain.org/article.html?123 When I looked at my server logs I could pickup the parameter 123 and know that "Joe" read that article. From that I could also fine Joe's IP address and then see which other of our web pages Joe looked at, if he came back, etc. 123 was just a record number which pointed to the record containing Joe's name, email, address, etc. A better way to collect the information is to change the article page(s) to article.php or other scripting language and when the article is requested check for a parameter and if present add the information to a data base for future use.

And all that is without using cookies. You may have noticed that if you Google a left-handed widget, the next time you login to FaceBook or Amazon, adds for left-handed widgets will show up or other things that "people looking for widgets also bought." I think that is something to worry about! The information revealed with the email is more or less between and the "legitimate organization." Do you trust them?

[Farelf]

Some later discussion - http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/topic/10304-reputation-check-please/

The code strings in the constant contact URIs could be anything but probably (mostly) track the referrer to your response.

E-mail marketing is always going to be more than a little contentious within the demographic of this forum. A little de-mystification is going to be useful. Here is one supportive review - http://au.pcmag.com/e-mail-products/27210/review/constant-contact-email-marketing (negative reviews aren't hard to find either but probably don't go as far in explaining the process and supposed checks and balances).

World Of Trust reviews are mixed but not generally supportive - https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/visitor.constantcontact.com

The general quality of internet product/service review is low and notoriously prone to competitor "white-anting" - I would prefer the views of the forum members in the "later discussion" linked above, especially those who have used the service, and hopefully some of those might respond here - if not, I'm sure they wouldn't mind you PMing them for their informed opinions (and, with their consent, adding such comment to the dialogue "here" for broader dissemination).

[DavidT]

I used Constant Contact's services for about five years with several non-profits, but have moved on to MailChimp, as on any given day, a number of CC's outbound server IPs are listed on the SCBL, which caused deliverability problems. The links in commercially-broadcast emails are almost all encoded to give the senders useful tracking info about open rates, click-through rates, and list segment targeting. The reputable broadcast email providers take various measures to avoid harboring spammers, but as their lists aren't all double opt-in, customers who don't follow the rules can add purchased/harvested addresses and cause problems.

DT

[DavidT]

...and yet now, due most likely to false reporting (I've taken a look at the 90-day window of reports in the system), I'm seeing several sending IPs of MailChimp's servers on the SCBL. I just disabled all tests for the SCBL on my server, so at least the stuff I want won't be affected, but I run mailing lists for a number of non-profits, and their deliverability will be affected. In my experience, the SCBL is worthless (YMMV).