Do the spamtraps give bouncebacks or pretend all is good?

[NeilCarmichael]

We have a business to business email marketing for professional services.

As such we don't normally have to worry about tripping a trap as it should be all opt-in.

But, now and again our clients do send an email too them, part of what our system does is process the bounceback messages.

Do the spamtraps give bouncebacks or accept the messages as if all is normal?

[Lking]

No spam traps do not bounce back, they intend to be totally invisible, a 'roach hotel for emails.'

The thinking is that sense a spam trap will never respond to a double opt-in request, a spam trap should never be added to a well maintained emailing list.

A proper spam trap is an address that has never been used. That could be a domain that has never had an MX used or mailboxes on a domain that have never been used.

[turetzsr]

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Just to add: what Lou writes refers to how SpamCop spam traps work; others' spam traps might send bounces (although that would seem to contradict the point of having a spam trap).

As such we don't normally have to worry about tripping a trap as it should be all opt-in.

But, now and again our clients do send an email too them, part of what our system does is process the bounceback messages.

<snip>

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp You haven't described your system completely but it seems to me that you are still subject to tripping spam traps because your clients could be soliciting their prospects using lists that contain spam trap addresses and/ or by asking "prospects" to supply their e-mail addresses online and one or more such "prospects" could be submitting spam trap addresses to try to damage your client's (or your) reputation. If I understand correctly, though, the idea behind confirmed opt-in is that sending only one probe to the spam trap should not cause an issue. Even cautious marketers can wind up sending one e-mail to a spam trap.

[NeilCarmichael]

The only reason I haven't described the system completely is so as not to bore you all. :-)

Basically its a SAAS that connects in real-time to the CRM of (mainly) large law-firms to enable them to send good quality emails to their clients and staff with bounceback processing that updates their CRM (so for example they don't resend to dead-addresses) and enables they to include forms that again feeds back into their CRM and all within templates that makes sure it all looks good, follows standards and is on-brand

Our emails follow all the usual best-practice but all it takes is one user at one client to do something silly to poison an address :-(

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't happen that often but obviously the number occurrences gets multiplied by the number of client and users.

I am planning on hanging around here long-term so as too learn more best practices from others experiences and perhaps if I can help others.

[Lking]

Welcome Neil,

As you know I am sure, the email system was designed in an academic environment were it was assumed that everyone were friends and had no ill intent (until the first spam was sent in 1978). Your environment sounds the same.

Even in a well managed system some errors occur. An email recipient's spam filter falsely identifies a incoming email and reports it, an email address is entered incorrectly, etc.

However, one or two reported emails now and then will not poison a source IP address.

It is highly unlikely that a data entry error will result in an address that will hit a spamtrap. Some form of double opt-in procedure will prevent more than one email being sent event in that case.

Again welcome to the effort. I look forward to you contribution(s).

[turetzsr]

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Here's a link to best practices from the FAQ: "Am I running mailing lists responsibly? Updated!"

[NeilCarmichael]

Thanks Lou,

I know what you mean, sometimes its feels like we're mail-man tip-toeing through a battlefield!

Our system follows best practice as much as possible but like in the physical world, its a fine balance between usability and security, for example we require our customers to use SPF but not full DKIM

For the most part we don't have an issue as our customers are "professional service" firms talking to themselves and each other, every now and again though we might have a customer that seems to have gotten an address from somewhere inadvisable but as we will always be quick to have a "gentle" word with them and as they are (by nature) very guarded about their reputation they are eager to learn and improve.

I hoping hanging-out here I'll be able to learn more about the art of email delivery and help out.

Neil

[turetzsr]

<snip>

For the most part we don't have an issue as our customers are "professional service" firms talking to themselves and each other, every now and again though we might have a customer that seems to have gotten an address from somewhere inadvisable but as we will always be quick to have a "gentle" word with them

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp That seems a fresh attitude -- we see lots of references to admins who don't care and to others who are quick to sanction their customers.

as they are (by nature) very guarded about their reputation they are eager to learn and improve.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Ah, well that explains your fresh approach. <g>

I hoping hanging-out here I'll be able to learn more about the art of email delivery and help out.

&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Don't hesitate to continue to ask additional questions, Neil!