| 5:34 pm on Sep 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Send out a feeler e-mail/newsletter to the list. Ask folks to re-register under a new list. We did that last year to start over with a fresh list. We started with 20k folks on the list, with an open rate of about 10%, and high spam report rate... Now we have a very clean list of about 10k with an open rate of 25-30%. No spam report issues now.
It took a while to get everyone re-signed up over on the new list, but it helped give us a clean start/foundation to move forward with...
| 5:48 pm on Sep 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
With a small mailing list I did this manually but I never tried to analyse the returns. I just kept a record, anything that failed on two successive mailouts was zapped.
| 8:00 pm on Sep 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|With a small mailing list I did this manually but I never tried to analyse the returns. I just kept a record, anything that failed on two successive mailouts was zapped. |
Would love to do it this way but unfortunately my mailing program (provided by my host) does not provide me with this data and he doesn't plan to program a few enhancements.
Autoresponder software that could do this job is just too costly for my small list. Have to think about something selfhosted ...
| 8:11 pm on Sep 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Send out a feeler e-mail/newsletter to the list. Ask folks to re-register under a new list. |
Good idea, have already done something similar in the past to get more personal information, like telling people that email is a 2way conversation and I would prefer to address them by their name and not just with Dear Sir or Madam. This resulted in a few updates, so i gather the ones really interested in my information would also re-register with a new mailing software (see my above answer to piatkow).
Anyway, for the moment I am stuck with the software I have at hand and need to clean the DB so I a) don't send too many (I pay for the program on a per email basis) and b) don't trigger any blacklist or whatever to block my future mailings.
Thanks to both of you for your quick and helpful replies.
| 12:34 pm on Oct 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
look for first names like abc, xyz, 123 and something like this. I would advise you remove them from your list..
| 12:54 pm on Oct 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
If you have access to the server and can install email/newsletter program, there are a number of good free listservs that will give you more control over your membership and provide some reporting functionality. Just another option to consider.
| 9:52 pm on Oct 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|look for first names like abc, xyz, 123 and something like this. I would advise you remove them from your list.. |
not necessary as my list is double opt in and all email addresses were legit when they registered.
| 9:56 pm on Oct 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
like I said above, I am looking for something selfhosted. Unfortunately my host (although usually very supportive) is not so helpful in extracting all the data out of the database - so right now I am copy/pasting into Excel whatever data I can retrieve. When I finally find something new, I can import from there.
| 1:11 am on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Generally 5XX or 5.x.x errors are permanent failures. Usually associated with mailbox unknown/gone/deleted.
4XX and 4.x.x error are transient failures relating the the receiving mail-server's load factor. Retrying is valid.
Yahoo and MSN/Live give out 5XX/5.x.x errors when the user has been inactive but the mailbox is still present. Typical Yahoo error: "Remote host said: 554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to #*$!#*$!firstname.lastname@example.org cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#102]. - mta205.mail.re3.yahoo.com"
A true Yahoo! 5XX/5.x.x error is: "This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account"
| 6:36 am on Oct 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
thanks for clarifications - i was already aware of the general specifications but worried about status codes for yahoo as the email checking program I use only returns 999 or 9999 (see my original post). Any idea if there is an online-tool to check the validity of emails?
[edited by: phranque at 7:15 am (utc) on Oct. 6, 2009]
| 3:15 am on Oct 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
999 code I have found is the result of hitting Yahoo! too hard with the same or similar action.
When I do a bulk mailing I use a time delay between messages when a lot of Yahoo! domains are in the sending list.
| 6:20 am on Oct 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for that - makes sense - although I had only a few hundred Y! addresses in the whole list which was divided into small chunks of 100 as the checking tool cannot handle more in one go.
| 9:21 am on Oct 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Partitioning a mail out can have its own problems. AOL in particular will regard multiple batches as spam and bounce everything in the second and subsequent mail outs. I never worked out what time delay was needed.
| 9:29 am on Oct 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
AOL Whitelist Information:
Yahoo! Postmaster Basics:
| 10:03 am on Oct 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The links are quite useful for webmasters. I would've never came accross if not here..