How are you sending?

Post #320,041 by folkert 1/14/10 9:50:52 PM Reply	How are you sending? 1) Are you sending one connection with multiple e-mails per connection to the MX of comcast.net? 2) Are you sending one email per connection to the MX of comcast.net? 3) Are you sending individual e-mail to each person? 4) Are you sending a fake to and BCC everyone at once? 1 is better than 2 3 should be the standard 4 if you are, you deserve everything you get Also, attachments such as PDFs are seem as advertisements by MANY type and kinds of spam classifiers. I'd suggest you include a short description of the recipe (or an HTML version of the recipe with no pictures) and then include a link to the location on your site and let the person download the PDF. PDF isn't as bad as a BMP/JPG/PNG only in the e-mail. This coming from experience sending millions of e-mail per year and seeing the after effects of PDF vs straight HTML with the plaintext version (plaintext is required as per the rfc governing that stuff, HTML is an option part) and just the plaintext versions.
Post #320,044 by drook 1/14/10 10:33:19 PM Reply	Have been rethinking the PDF I've been doing that for the newsletter so I can have some control over the formatting. And it's just plain easier dropping images and links into it. The system I'm using does include the option for TinyMCE for writing, so I might give that a shot, and just do a rich HTML-formatted email. I've been avoiding that because I get all my mail in plain text by default, and only download images or HTML when I need it. Just because I do that doesn't mean most of the people on my list do it. As for how I send, it's individual mails to each recipient. My host counts each address as one outgoing message against my quota anyway, so doing the BCC route wouldn't save me much anyway. -- Drew
Post #320,053 by boxley 1/15/10 7:16:14 AM Reply	also it may be your neighbors at the host if the ip's next to you have sloppy reputations, it affects yours. Run a senderscore on the neighbors to check
Post #320,057 by folkert 1/15/10 9:30:18 AM 1/15/10 9:31:06 AM Reply	fsck senderscore... They suck and charge to much. Not only that, but they allow places to use their service for peanuts for pre-filtering... but charge out the ass for those they are targeting to get them to pay. Edited by folkert Jan. 15, 2010, 09:31:06 AM EST Expand All History
Post #320,058 by boxley 1/15/10 10:32:01 AM Reply	Re: fsck senderscore... go ahead, however a manual lookup is free and a lot of products, filters use that score

Welcome to IWETHEY!