Proofing Issue: Refers to muscle relaxant?

  • 0
  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 4 years ago
  • Answered
I'm making a custom HTML newsletter for a therapist non-profit and got the following spam warning:

Muscle relaxant? Really? I combed through the text and there's no mention of any pharmaceutical - how can I troubleshoot these issues if there's no direct way to see where they are being flagged?
Photo of LA-CAMFT


  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • confused.

Posted 4 years ago

  • 0
  • 1
Photo of Sam Collis

Sam Collis, Customer Support Specialist

  • 252 Posts
  • 59 Reply Likes
Official Response
Hi there!

I took a look at your "Newsletter - January 2016" mailing and indeed could see that the proofer was telling you there was a mention of a muscle relaxant.  Just as baffled as you were, I too combed your mailing and singled each paragraph out to no avail.  Next, I used a program called Litmus to run some tests against the major spam filters to see if they would also pick up on this.  Indeed several (not all) filters alerted that there was a mention of muscle relaxants/muscle builder or something of the sort.  

On combing back through your mailing, towards the bottom there is "SOMA SIG" written as an abbreviation of one of your groups in the paragraph titled "LA-CAMFT Special Interest Groups."  Soma (carisoprodol) is drug used to treat muscle spasms or back pain (apparently) and that's what was getting picked up by the proofer.  To confirm this, I removed that acronym from the body of my Support copy email and the proofer no longer picked up that reference.

Moving forward, I feel like I should point out that it's not always necessary to abide by the proofer.  You don't HAVE to delete that language if it's essential to your mailing.  The proofer is put in place as a guide to ensure the best possible chance of delivery of your mailing and we always encourage our user to factor in what it flags, but also to remember that deliverability is not always black and white, but more like a series of changing guidelines. 

To address your initial frustration of the proofer not pointing out this specific word - that's a really valid point - and to be honest I haven't seen a situation of an accidental pharmaceutical mention before but it's something that I would like to put forth to see if that's something that can be changed to make it easier to amend those flags in the future.

I hope that helps!  Please don't hesitate to ask me any follow-up questions here :)