Summary
ISPs generally do not provide direct 'not spam' feedback data to ESPs. While some ISPs may provide aggregated data, specific 'not spam' clicks are rarely shared due to privacy concerns and potential manipulation. Feedback Loops (FBLs) from providers like Gmail offer data on spam complaints, enabling ESPs to identify and address issues causing negative feedback. Although mechanisms like ARF could theoretically support 'not spam' reports, they are not commonly implemented. ESPs primarily rely on engagement metrics (opens, clicks, website visits), inbox placement monitoring, and inference from the lack of spam complaints to gauge deliverability. Recipients on suppression lists should not be receiving emails that they can mark as 'not spam'. Overall, ESPs should focus on explicit consent, sender reputation, proactive issue resolution, and continuous deliverability monitoring.
Key findings
- No Direct 'Not Spam' Data: ISPs generally do not provide direct access to 'not spam' feedback data.
- FBLs Provide Complaint Data: Feedback Loops (FBLs) offer data on spam complaints, allowing ESPs to address issues causing negative feedback.
- Suppressed Users Should Not Receive Mail: Users on suppression lists should not receive emails they can report as 'not spam'.
- Engagement Metrics are Key: Open rates, click-through rates, and website visits serve as indicators of user sentiment and deliverability.
- Inbox Placement Monitoring: Tools to monitor inbox placement across various ISPs can help identify potential deliverability issues.
- ARF Theoretical, Not Practical: While the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) could support 'not spam' reports, it's not commonly implemented.
Key considerations
- Focus on Explicit Consent: Obtain explicit consent from subscribers to ensure they want to receive your emails.
- Manage Sender Reputation: Proactively manage and monitor your sender reputation through authentication and responsible sending practices.
- Actively Use FBLs: Utilize Feedback Loops to identify and address issues causing spam complaints and improve your sending practices.
- Monitor Engagement: Track engagement metrics and use them to identify and address potential deliverability problems.
- Employ Inbox Placement Monitoring: Use inbox placement monitoring tools to gain visibility into where your emails are landing across different ISPs.
- Address Data Aggregation: Gather and analyze various data points to get a comprehensive understanding of your deliverability and proactively manage your sending reputation and program health
What email marketers say
13 marketer opinions
ISPs generally do not provide 'not spam' feedback data directly to ESPs. While Feedback Loops (FBLs) offer data on spam complaints, 'not spam' data is typically used internally by ISPs to refine their spam filtering algorithms. ESPs can leverage engagement metrics (opens, clicks), inbox placement monitoring, and FBL data to infer deliverability issues and improve sending practices. Analyzing aggregated data helps ESPs understand user sentiment, identify problematic campaigns, and improve overall deliverability. However, there's no specific, reliable signal confirming emails definitively land in the spam folder.
Key opinions
- No Direct 'Not Spam' Data: ISPs rarely share individual 'not spam' data with ESPs.
- Internal ISP Use: 'Not spam' clicks primarily train ISP spam filters for individual users.
- Feedback Loops (FBLs): FBLs provide data on spam complaints, helping ESPs address issues causing negative feedback.
- Engagement Metrics: Open rates, click-through rates, and website visits can indicate user sentiment and potential deliverability problems.
- Inbox Placement Monitoring: Tools that monitor inbox placement across different ISPs can help identify if emails are landing in the spam folder.
- Aggregated Analysis: Aggregating multiple data points, though individually limited, provides a more complete picture for ESPs policing users globally.
Key considerations
- Focus on Engagement: Prioritize building and maintaining high engagement rates to signal positive inbox placement.
- Utilize FBLs: Actively participate in and analyze Feedback Loops to address spam complaints and improve sending practices.
- Monitor Deliverability: Use inbox placement monitoring tools to assess deliverability across different ISPs.
- Manage Reputation: Maintain a good sender reputation through authentication, list hygiene, and respecting user preferences.
- Compliance: Comply with all applicable laws to ensure you are not spamming users. Have a clear opt-in process.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email on Acid suggests that while explicit 'not spam' data isn't widely available, monitoring engagement metrics like open rates, click-through rates, and website visits can provide insights into user sentiment and help identify potential deliverability issues. Decreasing engagement can signal inbox placement problems.
26 Mar 2024 - Email on Acid
Marketer view
Email marketer from Stackoverflow User explains that 'not spam' clicks are used internally by ISPs to refine their spam filtering algorithms and are rarely shared with ESPs due to privacy concerns and the potential for manipulation.
16 Dec 2022 - Stackoverflow
What the experts say
4 expert opinions
ISPs generally do not provide direct 'not spam' feedback to ESPs via Feedback Loops (FBLs). FBLs primarily focus on providing data related to spam complaints, which ESPs can use to address sending issues. Furthermore, recipients on suppression lists should not be receiving emails to mark as 'not spam'. The consensus is that ESPs should concentrate on acquiring explicit consent, managing their sender reputation, and actively utilizing FBLs to mitigate problems arising from spam complaints.
Key opinions
- No Direct 'Not Spam' Data via FBLs: ISPs do not directly transmit 'not spam' data to ESPs using Feedback Loops.
- FBLs Focus on Spam Complaints: Feedback Loops are primarily used by ISPs to inform senders about spam complaints.
- Suppression List Inconsistencies: Recipients on suppression lists should not be receiving emails that they can mark as 'not spam'.
Key considerations
- Obtain Explicit Consent: Ensure that you have explicit consent from recipients before sending them emails.
- Manage Sender Reputation: Actively manage and monitor your sender reputation to ensure deliverability.
- Utilize Feedback Loops: Leverage Feedback Loops to identify and address issues related to spam complaints.
- List Hygiene: Keep lists clean and suppressed and remove those reporting spam.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks explains that if recipients are on a suppression list, they shouldn't be receiving emails in their spam folder that they can report as "not spam."
1 Oct 2021 - Email Geeks
Expert view
Expert from Spam Resource explains that Feedback Loops (FBLs) are used by ISPs to provide senders with information about spam complaints, not 'not spam' classifications. They also suggest that ESPs should focus on obtaining explicit consent and managing sender reputation.
29 Jul 2024 - Spam Resource
What the documentation says
3 technical articles
While ISPs like Gmail and Microsoft provide mechanisms like Feedback Loops (FBL) and Smart Network Data Services (SNDS) to offer feedback to senders, the data focuses primarily on spam complaints. These systems enable ESPs to identify and address issues causing negative feedback and monitor their sending reputation. The Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) could theoretically support 'not spam' reports, but this is not commonly implemented. Therefore, ESPs mainly receive data on negative feedback, not positive affirmations of legitimate email.
Key findings
- FBL Focus on Spam: Google's Feedback Loop provides data specifically on spam complaints generated by campaigns.
- SNDS and Complaint Rates: Microsoft's SNDS offers data on traffic and complaint rates originating from IP addresses, without explicit 'not spam' data.
- ARF Limited: Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) primarily focuses on spam reports and doesn't typically include 'not spam' feedback.
Key considerations
- Proactive Spam Reduction: Use FBL and SNDS data to proactively identify and resolve issues causing spam complaints.
- Reputation Monitoring: Monitor your sending reputation using the data provided by ISPs.
- Implement Best Practices: Adhere to best practices for email sending and authentication to minimize spam complaints.
Technical article
Documentation from RFC Editor explains that the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) defines a standard format for reporting email abuse, including spam complaints. While ARF primarily focuses on spam reports, the framework could theoretically be extended to include 'not spam' reports, although this is not commonly implemented by ISPs.
18 Aug 2022 - RFC Editor
Technical article
Documentation from Microsoft explains that the Smart Network Data Services (SNDS) provides data about traffic originating from your IP addresses, including complaint rates. ESPs can use this information to monitor their sending reputation with Outlook.com and identify potential issues leading to spam complaints, but it does not provide explicit 'not spam' data.
10 Feb 2022 - Microsoft
Are abuse reports and feedback loops (FBLs) still useful in email marketing, and how do they work with different email clients?
Do ISPs differentiate between single and bulk spam reports when evaluating email sender reputation?
How can ESPs identify and block spammers before they damage IP reputation?
How can I accurately monitor complaint rates for email marketing using Google Postmaster Tools, Yahoo FBL, and my ESP?
How can I gain access to Yahoo's Campaign and Performance Feeds as an ESP?
How did Yahoo update their FBL ARF format and how did it impact ESPs?
How do ESPs collect Yahoo FBL data using double DKIM signing?
How do spam complaints from Google and Yahoo inform ESPs, and how should ARF reports be used?
