  |
|
|
View previous topic
::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
AllanGardyne
Site Admin
Joined:
02 Jul 2003
Posts:
6302
Location:
by the beach, Australia
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:14 am
Post subject: Competitor blocks SiteSell emails
|
 |
|
Microsoft is up to nasty tricks again. Either that, or its incompetence is showing even more than usual. You decide.
A Microsoft-owned company, Hotmail, is blocking emails sent by SiteSell to new customers who have just bought Site Build It.
The problem has been pointed out to Hotmail, which has refused to do anything about it.
The emails are not spam. If you know anything about Ken Evoy's SiteSell, you'll know he has a very strong anti-spam policy. These emails are as legitimate as any emails could possibly be. They're going to brand new customers - people who have just ordered a product and aren't being allowed to receive the essential information they need to start using it.
You might think that Hotmail users could simply "safelist" SiteSell and that would solve the problem. No. That doesn't work. The Big Brother blocking remains.
What's Microsoft's suggestion for solving this problem?
It recommends that SiteSell pay a fee to an outfit called Bonded Sender. If SiteSell does that, Microsoft's friends at Bonded Sender will ensure that SiteSell's legitimate, non-spam emails will be allowed to reach its customers.
I'm not making this up!
Bonded Sender is a company that bonds email senders. Email from these senders is allowed to get through the spam filters of any company that has an agreement with Bonded Sender.
Microsoft obviously thinks this is the way the Internet should be.
I forgot to mention that Microsoft's bCentral is a SiteSell competitor. And an ex-Microsoft guy is one of the owners of Bonded Sender.
What does this sound like to you?
It sounds to me as though big bully Microsoft is misusing its strength, trying to use the spam problem to force us all into paying a fee just to be able to use email legitimately.
That stinks.
If you use Hotmail, I strongly suggest you get rid of it. If you're thinking of buying Microsoft products, consider competing products. Tell Microsoft why. And tell all your friends.
Read Ken Evoy's description of the problem in LED Digest:
http://list.audettemedia.com/archives/led.html
(February, 2004, Issue #1745.)
Read Paul Myers comment in his blog:
http://www.talkbiz.net/ramblings/weblog.php
Don't let Microsoft get away with this outrage.
Please tell your friends about this.
_________________
Allan Gardyne
AssociatePrograms.com - You're here. Explore it! |
|
| Back to top |
   |
 |
AllanGardyne
Site Admin
Joined:
02 Jul 2003
Posts:
6302
Location:
by the beach, Australia
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:10 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
P.S. If you want to compare SiteSell's traffic with that of bCentral's, have a look at the graph I've just published on the main page of my site.
Is Microsoft being nasty to a competitor, just incompetent, or is it trying to ensure that every user of email eventually pays a fee for the privilege?
I think this is a vitally important issue.
_________________
Allan Gardyne
AssociatePrograms.com - You're here. Explore it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bobby
Joined:
12 Jul 2003
Posts:
764
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:00 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Allan,
I read an article recently, and I'm sure I could find it again if necessary with a quick Google search, where Bill Gates gave a speech and indicated that in 2 years SPAM would not be nearly the problem it is now because there would be a charge for sending email. The article indicated both Microsoft and Yahoo were working on a method of charging for email.
Bobby |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bobby
Joined:
12 Jul 2003
Posts:
764
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UpdateXP
Guest
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:00 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hi,
I am a SiteBuildIt! user/webmaster and a Microsoft MVP!
Sadly the response Ken Evoy got is typical of the attitude you get from many "support" folks at Microsoft.
This was one of the reasons for building my SiteBuildIt! website!
It was totally frustrating getting help from Microsoft... So I started to write a collection of articles and post them on the web!
Then I got an award from Microsoft for my help towards the Online community - a little ironic...
But now I am able to speak with the MS guys who are higher up the chain. I find that I do get answers very quickly.
Sadly the "public face" of MS can be VERY slow in dealing with it's customers needs, and communicating its responses!
As for the whole SPAM issue, if this is the "tack" MSN are taking then I think it will lose ground to other players in the market. After all who wants to think that they may NOT be getting all their REQUESTED emails?
Kind Regards
Marc Liron
Microsoft MVP
http://www.updatexp.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AllanGardyne
Site Admin
Joined:
02 Jul 2003
Posts:
6302
Location:
by the beach, Australia
|
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:58 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| UpdateXP wrote: | | But now I am able to speak with the MS guys who are higher up the chain. I find that I do get answers very quickly. |
Great! I hope you'll tell them that censoring legitimate email is not acceptable behavior.
Whatever the purpose, it ends up looking like extortion.
_________________
Allan Gardyne
AssociatePrograms.com - You're here. Explore it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bobby
Joined:
12 Jul 2003
Posts:
764
|
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 2:04 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
| UpdateXP wrote: | | After all who wants to think that they may NOT be getting all their REQUESTED emails? |
Marc,
People are not getting all their requested emails now.
Over the past 6 months, I've read numerous articles on the subject. Some studies show it as a high as 20%, depending on the ISP.
I have several email newsletters and deal with it every day. AOL is notorious for blocking email haphazardly.
Bobby |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Debs
Joined:
16 Aug 2003
Posts:
4296
Location:
NY
|
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 2:48 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
So is Time Warner Cable or Roadrunner as it is known. I lose emails all the time and regularly email their abuse department and tell them NOT to filter my emails.
Debs
_________________
Learn how to turn keyphrases into quality, well-targeted articles your visitors and SE's will love with Gary Antosh's new ebook "Web Content Made Easy!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edburdo
Joined:
14 Jul 2003
Posts:
1760
Location:
Bangor, Maine
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil CA
Joined:
19 Dec 2003
Posts:
1044
Location:
Canada
|
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 5:16 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
I remember Ken Evoy writing about his concerns on this issue about 2 years ago.  At that time he mentioned that SiteSell would be requiring your main email address to process any orders because of his concerns about future problems like this with hotmail, aol and other webmail.
So, what happened to his solution back then and isn't that the best solution now? Since SiteSell has all the contact info of customers they just have to give the affected customers a telephone call  to explain the need for their main email address.
Every business today has to honestly and creatively communicate the need for main email addresses in promoting and growing their businesses online today to avoid these type of problems.
All the best
Phil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Debs
Joined:
16 Aug 2003
Posts:
4296
Location:
NY
|
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:07 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Roadrunner is a main email account, and the problem still exists there. I know many people whose main email is hotmail or yahoo ... they don't know, or want to learn, how to set up their ISP email.
On top of that, many ISP's are so inundated with spam they are setting up filters with defaults that block more than just spam and don't offer a configurable option, or optin/optout filtering.
It's getting to be more a case of shooting the messenger than killing the abuser.
Debs
_________________
Learn how to turn keyphrases into quality, well-targeted articles your visitors and SE's will love with Gary Antosh's new ebook "Web Content Made Easy!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Evoy
Guest
|
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 2:29 pm
Post subject: No one should control e-mail...
|
|
|
Hi to all,
What a great thread! Thank you all so much for your
interest in this -- it involves far more than SiteSell. I'm
actually quite satisfied with the measures that we've taken
and our hotmail customers are supportive, giving us other
addresses (many switching to Yahoo! Mail). So this thread
is far more than about SiteSell's problem...
It's about fair practice. It's about no single company
owning e-mail. It's about ALL of us being able to reach
our CUSTOMERS... real people who pay real money and who
expect to receive e-mail from their e-mail service.
One quick little point before I continue on this larger
theme of e-mail and fair business practice...
Regarding Phil CA's note... our worries about free e-mail
addresses that you refer to, related more to fraud than
getting filtered out. In fact, our anti-fraud technology has
long since reduced our worries about fraud to near-zero.
It still remains true... almost 100% of fraud will give you
a free e-mail address. But that does not mean that the
reverse is true -- most orders from free e-mail addresses
are perfectly good. So...
We changed our focus to eliminate fraud because free e-mail
was simply growing too much in popularity. The fact is
hotmail, aol, yahoo account for nearly 60% of the world's
e-mail. It's gigantic. Actually, it's scary -- that's too
much power in too few hands, for something as important
as e-mail. In any event...
Like Debs says, many people simply prefer Web-based e-mail.
Very, very true...
Since Site Build It! launched its own WebMail functionality,
this feature alone accounts for 25% of ALL SiteSell traffic.
That's staggering! We had no idea it would grow that big.
Another example of how popular it is...
If you look up msn at Alexa and then click on "Traffic
Details," you'll see that hotmail accounts for an amazing
75% of their traffic. For Yahoo!, it's 39%. So it's huge,
people love it, and they won't change their habits.
Phoning thousands of our customers is not possible, but
putting up a post-order page for future hotmail and msn
customers was a reasonable, measured reaction...
http://buildit.sitesell.com/success-page-MSN-hotmail.html
We are not slamming Microsoft here -- they do a lot of stuff
right and they were very cooperative... right up until the
end. We DO understand that filters will generate what are
called "false positives" (good e-mails that get weeded out
by the algorithm's logic rules by mistake).
And we DO understand that it's a huge, impractial hassle for
them to keep lists of tens of thousands of users that should
be allowed through the filter.
We get all that.
My major concerns in our case remain...
1) Why spend so much time with us, tell us that we basically
got caught up in their filter, and then not take the extra
few seconds to add us to that list? EVERY filter has the
ability to be bypassed. The final response (to send us to
Bonded Sender) simply made no sense, given all the facts of
this case. Why not allow hotmail users to "safelist" us?
2) Bonded Sender is simply too cozy -- all ex-MS people. I'm
sorry, being pushed to this company simply fails to pass my
"sniff test." We'll likely use them in the future if they
hit critical mass, but not until this has been put well
behind us, and certainly not as the solution to the current
problem -- to cave into this would be to encourage others
to do the same... it would be the beginning of small businesses
losing control of how they communicate with their CUSTOMERS.
-----
What would have made sense to us?
1) Microsoft could have chosen not to waste OUR time, making
us reply to their onerous requests for information, and
simply said...
"Sorry, we don't give out reasons why your mail is not being
delivered. Here are a list of bonding services that we
recommend. If your e-mail practices meet their standards,
your e-mail will be delivered. And please... don't forget
to tell your users to "safe list" your address -- that will
help your mail get through to them."
Clean, cold, factual, useful. I'd be a bit peeved at them
not giving me the "why" but I'd understand that they likely
just don't have the time/manpower. In our current case, I
KNOW they had the people to spend quite a bit of time with
us... so NOT to add us to a whitelist at that point???
2) Which brings me to the CORRECT reponse. They should
have simply added us to their whitelist for their filter.
"Transactional e-mail" is sacred. It must be delivered.
As Allan and Paul Myers have pointed out, you start
wondering about ulterior motives when fairness and logic
does not rule the day.
All the best,
Ken Evoy
President, SiteSell.com
P.S. Thanks to Marc Liron for looking into this. We really
do not want to fight with MS -- we know we'd lose. And our
post-order URL is not in any way intended to fight...
http://buildit.sitesell.com/success-page-MSN-hotmail.html
We're merely letting people know that this is NOT our fault
and making alternate e-mail arrangements. I'd rather not
be doing this, but if other marketing companies think this
is the right way to respond to practices like this and use
their own variation of our "hotmail post-order page" and if
enough hotmail users ask hotmail to change this practice,
then eventually we can all add up to be enough to cause the
big mail servers to be fair in how they use their immense
power in the world of e-mail.
P.P.S. Thanks, too, very much to Allan G. for his support
by starting this thread. Spreading the word is the only
way to head off any single company from "owning e-mail."
P.P.P.S. And thanks, too, to Paul Myers (who has forgotten
more about e-mail than I'll ever know, truly a maven, one
who gets his hands dirty and walks his own straight line
through all the complexities and various e-mail camps), for
his support on this issue...
http://www.talkbiz.net/ramblings/weblog.php
(Scroll down his blog until you see this headline...
"Microsoft blocks email from competitor. Dirty trick, or
simple ineptitude?") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:41 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hello everyone.
| Allan Gardyne wrote: | | Great! I hope you'll tell them that censoring legitimate email is not acceptable behavior. |
| Debs wrote: | On top of that, many ISP's are so inundated with spam they are setting up filters with defaults that block more than just spam and don't offer a configurable option, or optin/optout filtering.
It's getting to be more a case of shooting the messenger than killing the abuser. |
As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as an acceptable ISP or web host based filtering system at this moment in time.
The route to go is good client software (such as Eudora) with strong filtering. Whitelist everything yourself and junk the rest after a quick scan of subjects and from lines.
As Ken said, no filters are perfect, but at least this way, you decide what you would like to receive. Put it this way, would you trust the Post Office to decide whether you really wanted your post?
Perhaps once email becomes critical to the majority (rather than a convenient toy to many), the public will force the issue of ISP filtering.
| Ken Evoy wrote: | If you look up msn at Alexa and then click on "Traffic
Details," you'll see that hotmail accounts for an amazing
75% of their traffic. For Yahoo!, it's 39%. So it's huge,
people love it, and they won't change their habits. |
It reminds me of the time Paul Myers chopped all the Yahoo subscribers from his opt in ezine list...
The problem is all the ISPs are moving in a similar direction as Debs mentioned. They're caught between customer complaints (about spam) and delivery obligations.
At this rate, at some point won't the other ISP based mail systems become just as problematic as Yahoo did?
I think it's more a question of educating the masses as to the proper use of email and their client software.
| Ken Evoy wrote: | | ]"Transactional e-mail" is sacred. It must be delivered. |
True, but so must private mail and genuine opt in, too, if I'm on the receiving end.
I can't help but wonder whether a small charge for email delivery might be a good thing. Considering how low the CRs (and how "mass" the mailings) for spammers, might it not be the best way to go? A tiny charge per email would seriously hit mass senders who sell very little indeed.
I realise how unpopular this would be with owners of large (but lazy) opt in lists, but maybe a shake up of certain competitive industries like "internet marketing" would be a good thing.
When it comes to marketing on the internet, I sometimes think there are too few barriers to entry. The technology used to be one - but tools are undermining this, so maybe an email tariff would help thin out the competition a little.
Besides, when Paul sent all those Yahoo-ers packing, I wonder how much less (or is it more?) responsive his list became?
All the best,
Charlie.
P.S. | Marc Liron wrote: | | But now I am able to speak with the MS guys who are higher up the chain. I find that I do get answers very quickly. |
I think this is a "problem" that isn't just confined to MS. Any company is only as strong as the person you communicate with. In far too many cases, the front line is much weaker than it should be.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AllanGardyne
Site Admin
Joined:
02 Jul 2003
Posts:
6302
Location:
by the beach, Australia
|
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:02 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Charlie wrote: | | As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as an acceptable ISP or web host based filtering system at this moment in time. |
Fair enough, but I hope Microsoft and its friends will allow Internet users around the world the freedom to continue to choose such options if they wish.
| Quote: | | I can't help but wonder whether a small charge for email delivery might be a good thing. |
I'd prefer to see the problem tackled via more determined action by governments to track down spammers and virus writers and lock them up.
I've seen one suggestion that each email should cost 1 cent to send. At that rate, it would cost me more than $200 (plus what I already pay to Dundee.net) to distribute each edition of my newsletter.
I hope we don't buckle under and allow Microsoft to use our fear of the spam problem as a way to force us into paying email fees to its friends.
| Quote: | | I realise how unpopular this would be with owners of large (but lazy) opt in lists, but maybe a shake up of certain competitive industries like "internet marketing" would be a good thing. |
It would also be unpopular with non-profit organizations.
Forcing everyone to be more efficient and cost-effective? More businesslike? What a scary thought. What about the thousands of newsletter publishers who don't wish to be more businesslike? What about the individuals who want to continue having the freedom to say what feel like without worrying about trying to generate dollars from each mail-out?
Do we really want to restrict their ability to operate freely? After all, if we don't like what they say, we can simply unsubscribe.
I'd prefer to see the world become LESS businesslike.
Whatever is the best way to to go, I don't want Microsoft and it friends to make the decision for us.
| Quote: | | When it comes to marketing on the internet, I sometimes think there are too few barriers to entry. The technology used to be one - but tools are undermining this, so maybe an email tariff would help thin out the competition a little. |
That lack of barriers to entry, that freedom, is one of the most beautiful things in the world. It places a poor person in Bulgaria or Malaysia or India or New Zealand on an equal footing with the largest corporations of the world.
It means we're all limited only by our imaginations and our determination to succeed.
It was precisely that lack of barriers to entry which made it possible to me to build a profitable Internet business, starting with nothing when I was broke.
We shouldn't allow Microsoft to bully us into allowing it to make decisions for us.
_________________
Allan Gardyne
AssociatePrograms.com - You're here. Explore it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blazester
Joined:
14 Feb 2004
Posts:
18
|
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:17 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
I just received an E-Mail from Google saying that some of their e-mails were blocked by hotmail. So I do not believe it is any sort of conspiracy against Site Sell. However plain and simple Hotmail sux (maybe we should start calling it "Notmail"). I've lost too many important emails from friends and family because they've been incorrectly marked as spam. Yet I still recieve plenty of obnoxious spam emails.
_________________
Double Your Traffic! - The StartPlane Traffic Exchange gives you back double the traffic with no pop-ups! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
