Summary
Email Service Providers (ESPs) process Feedback Loop (FBL) emails, reports from ISPs about spam complaints, to identify users who mark messages as spam and suppress them. This involves receiving reports, often in ARF format, parsing them to extract user information using unique identifiers embedded in email headers or custom headers, and automating suppression. Most ESPs build custom FBL processing systems. Actively managing FBLs lowers spam rates, improves reputation, and ensures deliverability. Monitoring and prompt suppression are crucial, as high complaint rates negatively impact deliverability.
Key findings
- FBL Crucial: Handling FBLs is crucial for maintaining sender reputation and improving deliverability.
- Unique Identifiers: Identifying users typically relies on unique identifiers embedded in headers.
- ARF Format: FBL reports often conform to the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF).
- Automated Systems: ESPs commonly use automated systems to process FBLs and update suppression lists.
- Custom Systems: Most places build their own FBL processing systems.
Key considerations
- System Development: Consider building a custom FBL processing system for control and reporting.
- Identifier Embedding: Ensure each email has a unique identifier in the headers.
- Hashing: Consider hashing recipient addresses.
- Prompt Suppression: Implement systems to promptly suppress complaining users.
- FBL Monitoring: Implement a system for monitoring and processing FBLs
What email marketers say
10 marketer opinions
Email Service Providers (ESPs) process Feedback Loop (FBL) emails to identify users who mark messages as spam and then suppress them from future mailings to maintain a good sender reputation and improve deliverability. This involves receiving Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) reports from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), parsing these reports to extract user information, often using unique identifiers embedded in email headers or custom headers. Once identified, the user is automatically unsubscribed and added to a suppression list. Many ESPs recommend building custom FBL processing systems for better control and reporting. Actively managing FBLs and suppressing complaining users helps lower spam rates, improve reputation with ISPs, and ensure emails reach subscribers' inboxes.
Key opinions
- FBL Importance: Handling FBLs is crucial for maintaining sender reputation and improving deliverability.
- Identification Methods: Identifying users from FBL reports typically involves unique identifiers embedded in email headers or custom headers.
- Automated Processing: ESPs commonly use automated systems to process FBL reports and update suppression lists.
- Benefits of FBLs: Actively managing FBLs leads to lower spam rates, improved reputation with ISPs, and better inbox placement.
- ARF format: FBL reports often conform to the ARF format.
Key considerations
- Custom Systems: Consider building a custom FBL processing system for better control and reporting capabilities.
- Dedicated Addresses: Set up dedicated email addresses for receiving FBL reports for easier management.
- Prompt Suppression: Implement systems to promptly suppress users who generate spam complaints to prevent further issues.
- Unique Identifiers: Ensuring each email has a unique identifier helps match the email to a recipient for suppression
Marketer view
Email marketer from Reddit explains that FBLs are processed by first receiving the ARF report, then using unique identifiers (like custom headers) to match the complaint to a specific user. Finally, the user is automatically unsubscribed.
2 Apr 2024 - Reddit
Marketer view
Email marketer from Litmus discusses the importance of FBLs by highlighting that they are a direct line to understanding subscriber complaints. Proper processing and suppression improve sender reputation and deliverability.
27 Oct 2024 - Litmus
What the experts say
4 expert opinions
Email service providers (ESPs) process Feedback Loop (FBL) emails by encoding or hashing recipient addresses or embedding unique identifiers in email headers, allowing them to correlate abuse reports with specific users and automate suppression. Most ESPs develop their own FBL processing systems to manage these reports efficiently.
Key opinions
- Encoding/Hashing: ESPs often encode or hash recipient addresses in headers for identification.
- Unique Identifiers: Using unique identifiers is key to correlating reports with users.
- Custom Systems: Most ESPs build their own FBL processing systems.
- Automated Suppression: FBL processing enables automated unsubscription of complainers.
Key considerations
- Identifier Embedding: Ensure emails contain unique identifiers in headers.
- Hashing: Consider hashing recipient addresses.
- System Development: Plan to develop or adapt an FBL processing system.
Expert view
Expert from Word to the Wise explains that processing FBLs involves ESPs using unique identifiers (often hashed email addresses or custom headers) within each email to correlate abuse reports with specific users in their system, enabling them to automatically unsubscribe complainers.
6 Jan 2022 - Word to the Wise
Expert view
Expert from Spamresource.com shares that the key to automating FBL processing is ensuring you're embedding unique identifiers in your email headers. These can then be extracted from the ARF report to pinpoint the specific recipient and take appropriate action (suppression).
27 Nov 2024 - Spamresource.com
What the documentation says
5 technical articles
Email service providers (ESPs) process feedback loop (FBL) emails, which are reports from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) regarding spam complaints. This process involves receiving these reports, often in the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF), parsing them to extract user information, identifying the users who triggered the complaints, and then suppressing them from future mailings. This helps to maintain a healthy sending reputation and prevent deliverability issues caused by high spam complaint rates.
Key findings
- FBL Reports: ISPs send reports about spam complaints to ESPs through FBLs.
- ARF Format: FBL reports are often in the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF).
- User Identification: ESPs identify users who trigger spam complaints from FBL reports.
- Suppression: Identified users are suppressed from future mailings.
- Deliverability Impact: High spam complaint rates negatively impact deliverability.
Key considerations
- FBL Monitoring: Implement a system for monitoring and processing FBLs.
- ARF Parsing: Develop the ability to parse ARF reports to extract user information.
- Suppression Lists: Maintain accurate and up-to-date suppression lists based on FBL feedback.
- Reputation Management: Actively manage FBLs to maintain a healthy sending reputation and ensure deliverability.
Technical article
Documentation from RFC Editor explains that the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) is a standard format for feedback reports about email abuse. It provides a structured way for ISPs to report spam complaints, which ESPs can then parse to identify and suppress offending users.
29 Jul 2022 - RFC Editor
Technical article
Documentation from SparkPost details that FBL implementation involves parsing ARF (Abuse Reporting Format) reports to extract user information. ESPs then use this information to update their suppression lists and prevent further email delivery to those users.
30 Jun 2021 - SparkPost
Are abuse reports and feedback loops (FBLs) still useful in email marketing, and how do they work with different email clients?
Can ESP clients sign up for Validity FBL and how do they validate their IPs/domains?
Do ISPs provide 'not spam' feedback data, and how can ESPs use it?
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 critical are Feedback Loops (FBLs) for sender reputation, and how often do they require re-enrollment?
How did Yahoo update their FBL ARF format and how did it impact ESPs?
How does Google's Feedback Loop (FBL) work and what are the best practices for implementation?
