One of the hardest, dirtiest jobs we ESPs have to do is manage bouncebacks. We send a few bajillion emails out, and a kajillion bounces inevitably come back. Now, we have to scan every single one of those complicated email headers to figure out what type of bounce it was, then decide what to do with it. If we get a "hard" bounce, that usually means the account we tried to deliver email to doesn’t exist (and so we should clean the member from that list). If we get a "soft" bounce, that usually means the account exists, but we should try again later. Not to mention FBL parsing, and simply filtering out the spam that we get before we can even get to the bounces. It’s like sorting through a dumpster to find recyclables or something. Not very glamorous.
It would be all fine and dandy if people would follow delivery status notification best practices and guidelines. But they don’t. Sometimes this is a reaction to spam, and sometimes it’s just ignorance.
For example, some server admins insert snarky messages in their email headers, like "We don’t want your message. If you send email to us again, we’ll report you." Well, that’s their prerogative and all, and we’re happy to never send to them again, but if they simply hard bounced the email, we’d be able to clean it from the list faster.
Then there are some ISPs who are downright deceptive with their bounceback codes…
They’ll send back a bounce that tells us that the intended recipient doesn’t exist. But look closely at their bounce headers, and you see little messages like, "but if you wait a few hours and try again, it’ll get through — wink wink." An interesting way to tell if there are humans sending the email.
Then there’s the problem of "silent dropping:"
"As discussed in Section 7.8 and Section 7.9 below, dropping mail without notification of the sender is permitted in practice. However, it is extremely dangerous and violates a long tradition and community expectations that mail is either delivered or returned. If silent message-dropping is misused, it could easily undermine confidence in the reliability of the Internet’s mail systems. So silent dropping of messages should be considered only in those cases where there is very high confidence that the messages are seriously fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate." Source: wikipedia
And there have been cases where an ISP will temporarily go down for hours (or days), and in the meantime, they send you back hard bounces or erroneous "you’ve been blocked" reports. Should you clean those hard bounces from your list? Technically, it’s a "best practice." But clearly, the ISP was broken when you sent. Hardware just breaks sometimes (See: Not All Delivery Problems are Spam Related).
Some receiving servers have sent back hard bounced messages that were intended for recipients that we know exist, because we have double opt-in evidence, and open/click actiivtiy. We find out about these problems when recipients complain to the sender about not getting the email they requested, and the sender escalates it to us, and then we trace it back to the recipient’s IT guy setting up "custom" rules. To be clear, it’s their prerogative to setup their custom rules. We don’t hold it against them (spam’s ruining it for everyone). But this does create a problem that requires a custom solution of our own.
Good Deliverability Depends on Proper Bounce Management
See why bounce cleaning can be frustrating? No wonder people who try to manage their email marketing in-house see such dramatic improvements in deliverability when they switch to an ESP (case study). They’re usually unable to properly clean the bounces from their lists.
So they don’t.
And if you keep sending messages to non-existent accounts, ISPs will block you because you look like a spammer who purchased an old email list.
Improper bounce cleaning can seriously damage your domain reputation.
Also, we’re seeing new trends in the way our customers send emails. People are automating more with RSS-to-email, and via our API. More daily senders with extremely large lists (daily deals, mobile apps, location-based check-in services, etc) are depending on us to get their emails delivered, but also depend on us to intelligently manage those lists. Simplistic bounce cleaning rules, combined with deceptive bounce errors, can result in their lists shrinking faster than new members can opt-in. This, in turn, often results in irrational behavior by the sender (purchasing lists, using bad/old lists, un-bouncing everybody, ESP-hopping with old, uncleaned lists, and on and on).
Our strategy for a long time now has been to perform deep, ongoing analysis of bounce headers in order to create "the most insanely thorough bounce back interpreter holy-grail known to man" (and we usually end that statement with an evil, nerdy laugh). And we’ve come a long way with that approach.
Moving forward though, MailChimp will be factoring engagement activity into our bounce cleaning decisions (read about how MailChimp measures engagement).
For example, if we send an email and a receiving server tells us that a recipient "does not exist," but we have open and click activity in the last 45 days to prove otherwise, we’re not going to blindly clean that recipient from the list. We know they exist, and we know their account works, so we’re going to give them a few more chances than we normally do. If, however, we see that there’s very little (or no) activity by that recipient, we clean them under the same rules we’ve used in the past.
We’re not going to get into specifics about how many stars justifies a "clean vs. a keep," or exactly how many chances we give hard and soft bounces. The algorithm will surely be adjusted and tweaked over time. The point we’re trying to make is that email is evolving faster than ever (thanks to changing social and mobile behaviors of recipients and senders), and MailChimp is adapting and innovating along with it. Even in the very un-sexy area of bounce management.