New Outlook Spam Definitions released 06.10.09 - Now What??

Hello Everyone,

I was working on an email distribution lastnight, using my usual html template that I have been distributing with for months. I finished it, tested it on multiple platforms, approved it, everything checked out fine as usual.

Came in this morning to find that my machine had automatically updated overnight, which is usually not a big deal, except for a new MS Outlook 2007 Span Definition Update. The problem is now:

"Update for Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 Junk Email Filter (KB970012)"

This update provides the Junk E-mail Filter in Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 with a more current definition of which e-mail messages should be considered junk e-mail. While our list is 100% double opt-in, my emails are now landing in everyones spambox, something new as of this update. I have checked this against other machines, and same issues there as well.

I have been testing multiple new formats this morning to find a workaround, but everything but full text is landing in the spambox. I have reduced the html content to not include any images, turned off google tracking, not include any of the known email "spammy" techniques, but still, spambox. I have reworked, checked and double checked it, and cant find the cause. It currently has a Spam Assasin score of .9, very low considering the 14 point scale. The issues do not stop with my outbound emails, as event the VR Marketing Lounge Registration Confirmation landed in my spambox, which is a very simple text email.

I am starting this think that it may have something to do with the link tracking provided by VR, or possibly that the VR tagging method has now become as a known spam flag. Is anyone else having these problem and/or found a workaround yet?

Thanks ~

Tags: (kb970012), 2007, email, filter, for, junk, microsoft, office, outlook, update

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Greg Moore on June 11, 2009 at 11:30am: Landon,

I just sent a test email with an image and the "Assasin 9" let it into my coworker's inbox. It'll be interesting to see what changes need to be made in light of the MS Windows update.

Greg; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Landon Long on June 11, 2009 at 12:42pm: Hello Greg,

Thanks for the input, that is very interesting. Have you (or your coworker) installed the KB970012 definition update, it is part of this weeks Microsoft Automatic Update? I have tested email deliverability today with two other co-workers here in the office, both have installed the updates, and both are not receiving the html versions of our newsletter in their inbox, its getting pushed to their spambox. Previosuly, both received the test emails it in their inbox. One is running Xp and the other is running vista, so it appears to be OS independent.

Landon ~; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by VR Delivery Team on June 11, 2009 at 11:36am: Hello,
I'm on the Delivery Team here at VerticalResponse. These new definitions were just released on June 8 by the MSN/Hotmail postmaster team (who also govern the Outlook spam filter). So far, we have received no updates regarding these rules from the MSN/Hotmail postmaster team, or from any of the Email Service Provider trade organizations VR is a member of (such as the ESPC, EEC, etc).

VerticalResponse is in good standing with MSN/Hotmail and we are not seeing any system-wide blocks or delivery issues with their domains, nor are we seeing any overall issues with Outlook. However, any time a service provider implements new rules, there is the chance of accidentally creating false positives.

We will be participating in a group call next week with other Email Service Providers, in which this issue will be discussed.

This is something that we are currently monitoring and investigating to determine what impact this may have. We will continue to post updates in the Lounge once we have more information.

George Sukara
Email Delivery & Policy Enforcement
VerticalResponse, Inc.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Landon Long on June 11, 2009 at 12:33pm: Hello George, thanks for the response.

That is good information to know. I would be very interested in learning more about the specifics of KB970012 and other recent definition changes that affect the receivability of online distributions. I am currently testing an array of different email types against a range of email systems, all being routed into outlook at the moment, as there are endless combinations. Below is my test methodology and preliminary results. Please note that I have not changed any of the outlook preferences modified by KB970012, I left it stock for testing purposes (because everything worked perfect prior to the update)

Testing Rules:
> simple text = loren ipsum w/ no formatting
> rich text = loren ipsum w/ one instance of font formatting, on einstance of color and bold
> simple html = loren ipsum w/ html formatting including one html link, one alt and one instance of font fomatting
> full html = loren ipsum w/html compisition, two links, two alts and two images.
> complex html = html composition with tables, css, images, full formatting, multiple links, link tracking

Result Rules:
passed = inbox receipt
failed = spambox receipt

VR to Outlook (without KB970012 update)
simple text = passed
rich text = na
simple html = passed
full html = passed
complex html - passed

VR to Outlook (with KB970012 update)
simple text = passed
rich text = na
simple html = failed
full html = failed
complex html = failed

Hotmail to Outlook (with KB970012 update)
simple text = failed (may be due to "hotmail ad text" inserted at bottom of message)
rich text = passed
simple html = passed
full html = failed
complex html - failed

Gmail to Outlook (with KB970012 update)
simple text = passed
rich text = passed
simple html = failed
full html = failed
complex html - failed

Yahoo Mail to Outlook (with KB970012 update)
simple text = passed
rich text = passed
simple html = failed
full html = failed
complex html - failed

This seems to be a bit more than a simple definition update, but rather a blocking of html content coming into Outlook. Whats' strange is the inconsistent nature of the failures. I would think that the heuristic nature of the spam definitions would be more consistent, as all emails tested through the different systems were exactly the same. If you have a free hour, try this test yourself and see if you get the same results.; ▶ Reply to This