Cold email has a reputation problem, and much of it is earned.

Not because email is broken, but because of how people use it.

The usual playbook looks like this:

  • Scrape a list.
  • Blast a generic pitch.
  • Hope.

That's not thoughtful outbound. That's interruption.

And when you send like that, you shouldn't be surprised when recipients treat it like spam.

Real outbound starts with a signal

The difference between a relevant outreach message and an unwanted one isn't simply whether the recipient already knows you.

It's whether there is a legitimate reason for the message to exist right now.

A signal can provide that reason.

Some examples:

  • They're hiring for a problem you solve.
  • They just raised funding.
  • They're expanding into a market you support.
  • They're researching the exact thing you do.
  • They've announced a technology or business change that creates a problem you can help solve.

Now the email has context.

It's relevant to something happening in the business, rather than asking someone to care about a generic pitch.

Unsolicited doesn't automatically explain everything

This is where the discussion gets more complicated.

An email can be unsolicited and still be highly relevant.

It can also be legally permissible in one jurisdiction and unacceptable under another set of rules or provider policies.

Those are different questions.

Gartner has made the connection between intent and better account-based marketing explicit:

"Utilizing third-party intent data to unearth buying signals is fundamental to improving the effectiveness of demand generation and account-based marketing programs."

That's the shift.

Instead of starting with a list of people and asking what to send them, start with accounts and signals that give you a reason to engage.

Change the question you're asking

Most outbound starts with the wrong question:

"Who can I email?"

That question produces a list.

Lists encourage volume.

Volume without context produces generic messaging, poor engagement, complaints and damaged sender reputation.

The better question is:

"Who has a reason to hear from me right now?"

That produces a much smaller set of people, each with a specific reason attached.

The email becomes easier to write because the context is already there.

The pushback, including from Spamhaus

When I posted this on LinkedIn, it got pushback.

And the discussion is worth sharing because it exposed an important distinction that often gets lost in the debate.

A deliverability consultant challenged the statement "unsolicited doesn't have to mean irrelevant" and said it sounded like spam.

My initial response focused on the legal distinction.

In the US, CAN-SPAM does not categorically prohibit unsolicited B2B commercial email. It establishes requirements around things such as truthful identification, accurate subject lines, a physical postal address and an opt-out mechanism.

Other jurisdictions take different approaches. GDPR governs the processing of personal data, while electronic marketing is also subject to ePrivacy rules that vary by jurisdiction.

But legal permission is not the same thing as recipient preference.

And neither is the same thing as relevance.

Then Sridhar (Sri) Chandran from Spamhaus joined the discussion.

His argument was straightforward: complying with CAN-SPAM or another law does not override Spamhaus's policies or the policies of mailbox providers and filtering organizations.

That's an important distinction.

Spamhaus explicitly defines spam as "Unsolicited Bulk Email" and says its definition is based on verifiable permission, not the content of the message. It also states that compliance with laws such as CAN-SPAM does not override Spamhaus listing policies or the policies of ISPs and spam filters.

He pointed to Spamhaus's own FAQ on the subject:

I send unsolicited bulk email, but it complies with CAN-SPAM, UK law, GDPR, etc.

That is a position worth taking seriously.

My response to Spamhaus

This is where I think two different questions are getting mixed together.

Permission asks:

"Do I have a basis to communicate?"

Relevance asks:

"Why should this person care about the message?"

They are not the same question.

And relevance is not a substitute for consent, compliance or recipient preference.

Spamhaus is clear about its own position: its definition of spam is based on unsolicited bulk email and verifiable permission. It also recommends confirmed opt-in for legitimate bulk marketing.

That's its policy framework.

But once we're talking about the quality of legitimate outbound, there is another question worth asking:

What is the reason this particular person is receiving this particular message today?

A compliant message can still be irrelevant.

A permitted message can still be poorly targeted.

And a highly relevant message still doesn't eliminate whatever permission or legal requirements apply to the sender.

That's why I don't see permission and relevance as competing ideas.

They solve different problems.

Permission gives you the basis to communicate.

Relevance gives the recipient a reason to pay attention.

Deliverability gives the message a chance to arrive.

The goal is a conversation, not an interruption

The point of outbound was never to interrupt strangers at scale.

It should be about starting a conversation around something that already matters to the person or business on the other end.

If you run outbound for yourself or for clients, this is the standard worth applying to every campaign.

Not:

"How many emails did we send?"

But:

"How many of these had a reason to be sent today?"

That's where better outbound begins.

What signal are you seeing today that could give you a legitimate reason to start a conversation tomorrow?

The original post and the full discussion are on LinkedIn.