Summary
Validity redacts recipient addresses in ARF reports to comply with privacy regulations, making it difficult to directly identify complainers for list removal. While experts debate the extent of Validity's modifications versus those of ISPs, the consensus is that relying solely on ARF reports for list hygiene is no longer sufficient. Email marketers recommend using alternative methods like encoded fields, custom feedback loops, and proactive list hygiene practices (double opt-in, easy unsubscribe). Even with redaction, aggregate complaint data remains valuable for identifying email program issues and improving overall deliverability. Smaller senders need to closely monitor engagement metrics to compensate for reduced data availability.
Key findings
- ARF Redaction: Validity redacts recipient addresses for privacy.
- Identification Difficulty: Direct identification of complainers from ARF reports is limited.
- Alternative Tracking: Encoded fields and custom feedback loops are recommended for tracking.
- Aggregate Data Value: Aggregate complaint data helps identify email program issues.
- Proactive Hygiene: Double opt-in and easy unsubscribe improve list health.
- Engagement Importance: Engagement metrics are crucial, especially for smaller senders.
Key considerations
- Data Source Shift: Move beyond solely relying on ARF reports for list hygiene.
- Implementation Effort: Implement encoded fields or alternative feedback loops.
- Monitoring Needs: Closely monitor engagement metrics and seek subscriber feedback.
- Deliverability Focus: Focus on overall email program quality and deliverability improvements.
- Privacy Compliance: Ensure compliance with privacy regulations when implementing tracking.
What email marketers say
7 marketer opinions
Validity modifies ARF reports by redacting recipient addresses to protect privacy. This redaction impacts the ability to directly identify complaining recipients for list removal based solely on ARF data. Email marketers suggest using alternative methods for identifying complainers, such as encoded fields, custom feedback loops, and proactive list hygiene practices like double opt-in and easy unsubscribe options. Smaller senders need to be extra vigilant in monitoring engagement metrics to compensate for reduced data.
Key opinions
- ARF Redaction: Validity redacts recipient addresses in ARF reports, limiting direct identification of complainers.
- Aggregate Data: ARF reports still provide valuable aggregate data about spam complaints for identifying email program issues.
- Encoded Fields: Using encoded or hashed fields in email headers allows tracking recipients even with redaction.
- Alternative Feedback Loops: Implementing custom feedback loops can help identify and manage complainers.
- List Hygiene: Proactive list hygiene practices, such as double opt-in and easy unsubscribe, are crucial due to redaction.
Key considerations
- Data Limitations: Relying solely on ARF reports for list hygiene is no longer sufficient.
- Engagement Metrics: Closely monitor engagement metrics and proactively seek feedback from subscribers.
- Size Matters: Smaller senders need to be extra vigilant due to the limited data from ARF reports.
- Proactive Approach: Shift from reactive removal to proactive list management and complaint handling.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Vendor suggests that due to ARF redaction, it's crucial to focus on proactive list hygiene practices, such as implementing a double opt-in process, regularly cleaning inactive subscribers, and providing an easy way for recipients to unsubscribe. These practices help maintain a healthy list and reduce the likelihood of complaints.
10 Feb 2023 - Email Vendor Website
Marketer view
Email marketer from StackExchange discusses that for smaller senders, ARF redaction can be particularly problematic because the reduced volume of data makes it harder to spot patterns. They recommend closely monitoring engagement metrics and proactively seeking feedback from subscribers to compensate for the limited information from ARF reports.
17 Oct 2022 - StackExchange
What the experts say
4 expert opinions
Experts discuss Validity's ARF report modifications and the impact on identifying recipients for list removal. There's uncertainty about the extent of Validity's obfuscation versus that of ISPs. While individual identification is difficult, focusing on trends and aggregate complaint data is crucial for understanding and improving sending reputation and overall email program quality. Negative feedback should be leveraged for improved deliverability.
Key opinions
- Obfuscation Uncertainty: The level of obfuscation by Validity versus ISPs is unclear.
- Difficult Identification: Redaction makes identifying individual complainers challenging.
- Trend Analysis: Analyzing aggregate complaint data and trends remains valuable for identifying deliverability issues.
- Reputation Impact: Complaint data, even with redaction, is crucial for understanding sending reputation.
Key considerations
- Data Focus: Shift focus from individual removals to improving overall email program quality based on aggregate data.
- Feedback Leverage: Actively leverage negative feedback for improved deliverability in future email campaigns.
- ISP vs Validity: Understand the source and extent of data obfuscation to tailor your deliverability strategies effectively.
Expert view
Expert from Spamresource explains that the redaction within ARF reports makes identifying individual complainers difficult but emphasizes focusing on trends. Even with redaction, examining aggregate complaint data to identify patterns related to campaigns, content, or sending practices can still highlight underlying deliverability issues. They suggest using this data to improve overall email program quality rather than focusing on individual removals. (Unable to find a specific URL directly addressing this.)
20 Mar 2024 - Spamresource
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks believes Validity may be getting it wrong or assuming more is obfuscated than it is, agreeing with Laura Atkins on the issue of obfuscation.
13 Mar 2023 - Email Geeks
What the documentation says
4 technical articles
Validity redacts recipient addresses in ARF reports for privacy reasons, making direct identification for list removal difficult. Documentation suggests using encoded fields or unique identifiers for tracking. While RFC and FBL documentation don't address Validity's redaction, they highlight the importance of processing complaint data and promptly removing complainers to maintain a clean sending reputation. AWS documentation reinforces automated removal of recipients who complain.
Key findings
- Privacy Redaction: Validity redacts recipient addresses in ARF reports to comply with privacy regulations.
- Identification Difficulty: Redaction makes it difficult to directly identify recipients for list removal solely based on ARF reports.
- Encoded Fields: Validity suggests using encoded fields or unique identifiers to track recipients.
- Importance of FBLs: Feedback Loops are essential for receiving and processing complaint notifications.
- Automated Removal: Prompt and automated removal of complainers is crucial for maintaining a good sending reputation.
Key considerations
- Alternative Tracking: Implement alternative tracking methods like encoded fields or unique identifiers to identify complainers.
- Data Processing: Develop a process for receiving and promptly processing complaint notifications.
- Reputation Management: Prioritize maintaining a clean sending reputation by removing complaining recipients.
Technical article
Documentation from AWS explains how to set up feedback loops with Amazon Simple Email Service (SES). While it doesn't specifically address Validity's redaction, it details the process of receiving and processing complaint notifications. The documentation emphasizes the importance of automatically removing recipients who complain to maintain a good sending reputation.
1 May 2022 - AWS Documentation
Technical article
Documentation from RFC Editor outlines the original specifications for ARF (Abuse Reporting Format). It explains the structure of the ARF report, including the components related to reporting spam complaints. It does not specifically address redaction practices as implemented by Validity.
22 Jul 2023 - RFC 3848
