Summary
Interpreting sender rejection data from Return Path compared to your ESP requires a multifaceted approach. Since Return Path monitors a subset of the email ecosystem, discrepancies with your ESP are common. Experts and marketers recommend comparing Return Path's data with your ESP's data, Google Postmaster Tools (if Gmail is significant), Microsoft SNDS, and analyzing bounce codes and SMTP error codes. Investigate specific ISPs monitored by Return Path if issues are localized. Prioritize your ESP's data but use Return Path as an early warning system. Verify sender authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), clean email lists, prioritize inbox placement, ensure list segmentation, correlate engagement metrics, and analyze rejection patterns to identify and address potential deliverability issues. Understand the differences between reputation blocks at ISPs (based on engagement) and blocklist providers (focused on spam), and focus on understanding which ISPs are more important for your business.
Key findings
- Subset Monitoring: Return Path monitors a subset of ISPs and mailboxes, leading to potential discrepancies with ESP data.
- Early Warning System: Return Path can serve as an early warning system for potential deliverability issues.
- Localized Problems: Issues identified by Return Path may be localized to specific ISPs or segments.
- Data Correlation is Key: Comparing Return Path with ESP, Google Postmaster Tools, Microsoft SNDS, bounce codes, and SMTP errors is essential.
- Engagement Matters: Low engagement within the Return Path subset indicates content or filtering issues.
- Blocklist vs. ISP Reputation: Reputation blocks based on engagement (ISP) differ from spam-focused blocklists.
Key considerations
- Prioritize ESP Data: While valuable, ESP data generally offers more complete view than Return Path
- Detailed Report Analysis: Request and analyze detailed reports from both Return Path and your ESP.
- Authentication is Crucial: Verify SPF, DKIM, and DMARC to ensure proper authentication.
- List Hygiene is Paramount: Clean your email list to remove invalid or risky addresses.
- Optimize for Engagement: Segment lists and tailor content to increase engagement and relevance.
- Monitor Gmail and Microsoft: Monitor Google Postmaster Tools (Gmail) and Microsoft SNDS for specific deliverability insights.
- Acquisition Process Evaluation: Assess email list acquisition methods to identify potential problems.
What email marketers say
10 marketer opinions
Interpreting sender rejection data from Return Path in relation to your ESP requires understanding that Return Path monitors a subset of the overall email ecosystem. Discrepancies often arise due to this limited scope. Experts advise comparing Return Path data with your ESP data, examining bounce data and error codes, investigating specific ISPs monitored by Return Path, verifying sender authentication, and cleaning email lists. Prioritizing inbox placement data and engagement metrics can also provide a more accurate understanding of email performance. Analyzing patterns in rejections and ensuring proper list segmentation are also recommended to identify and address potential deliverability issues.
Key opinions
- Subset Monitoring: Return Path monitors a subset of ISPs and mailboxes, leading to potential discrepancies with your ESP's broader view.
- Early Warning: Return Path data can act as an early warning system for deliverability issues before they become widespread.
- Localized Issues: Problems identified by Return Path might be localized to specific ISPs or segments of your audience.
- Actionable Insights: Analyzing error codes and patterns in rejections reported by Return Path can highlight potential target areas for improvement.
- Engagement Matters: Low engagement within the Return Path monitored subset may indicate content irrelevance or spam filter triggers.
Key considerations
- Compare Data: Compare Return Path data with your ESP data, bounce data, and error codes to identify patterns and discrepancies.
- Authentication: Verify sender authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) to ensure proper email authentication and prevent deliverability issues.
- List Hygiene: Clean your email list using a third-party email verification service to remove invalid or risky email addresses.
- Inbox Placement: Prioritize inbox placement data over just deliverability metrics for a more accurate understanding of email performance.
- List Segmentation: Ensure proper email list segmentation to deliver relevant content to recipients and reduce spam complaints.
- ISP Focus: Investigate specific ISPs and email domains monitored by Return Path exhibiting higher rejection rates.
Marketer view
Email marketer from MarketingProfs advises looking for patterns in the rejections reported by Return Path. Are rejections concentrated on specific domains? What are the error messages associated with rejections. The trends will highlight potential target areas.
22 Sep 2021 - MarketingProfs
Marketer view
Email marketer from LinkedIn recommends to ensure your email lists are properly segmented. Poor segmentation can lead to some recipients receiving emails that are not relevant to them. This can lead to recipients reporting spam or unsubscribing, both of which impact your sending reputation.
23 Jun 2023 - LinkedIn
What the experts say
3 expert opinions
Interpreting sender rejection data from Return Path in relation to your ESP involves understanding the nuances of the data sources. Experts recommend requesting detailed reports from Return Path to compare with your ESP data, focusing on delivery rates and identifying acquisition process issues. It's crucial to recognize that Return Path data represents a subset of the email ecosystem and shouldn't be the sole basis for panic. Understanding the importance of different ISPs to your business and differentiating between reputation blocks at ISPs (based on engagement) versus blocklist providers (focused on spam) is also essential for informed decision-making.
Key opinions
- Data Comparison: Compare detailed rejection data from Return Path with your ESP's data to assess the scope and significance of the issue.
- Subset Perspective: Recognize that Return Path data represents a subset of the email ecosystem and may not reflect overall deliverability.
- ISP Importance: Identify the ISPs that are most crucial to your business to prioritize efforts based on their impact.
- Engagement vs. Spam: Distinguish between reputation blocks at ISPs (based on engagement data) and those at blocklist providers (focused on spam).
Key considerations
- Request Details: Request detailed reports from Return Path regarding rejected emails to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue.
- Acquisition Process: Evaluate your email acquisition process for potential problems that may be contributing to sender rejection.
- Data Source Differences: Understand the methodologies and data sources used by Return Path and your ESP to interpret discrepancies accurately.
- Prioritize Action: Focus on actions that address the most critical issues based on the importance of specific ISPs to your business.
Expert view
Expert from Word to the Wise explains that you should understand the difference between reputation blocks at ISPs and blocks at blocklist providers. ISPs use real engagement data to determine what mail gets to their customer while blocklist providers only focus on spam.
2 Feb 2024 - Word to the Wise
Expert view
Expert from Word to the Wise explains that you should try to understand which ISPs are more important to your business and then understand the differences between the data that each data source is providing, and understand what each source is measuring. You can then take action based on what is most important for you.
15 May 2023 - Word to the Wise
What the documentation says
5 technical articles
Interpreting sender rejection data from Return Path in relation to your ESP involves comparing it with other data sources to get a holistic view. Documentation emphasizes that Return Path data represents a sample of the overall email ecosystem. Experts advise cross-referencing Return Path data with ESP data, Google Postmaster Tools (if Gmail is significant), Microsoft SNDS, and analyzing bounce codes and SMTP error codes to identify patterns and pinpoint specific deliverability issues. Prioritize your ESP's comprehensive data while using Return Path to identify issues at specific ISPs. It's important to monitor bounce types (hard vs. soft) and analyze feedback loops for spam complaints to adjust sending practices.
Key findings
- Sampled Data: Return Path data represents a sample of the overall email ecosystem, not a complete picture.
- Data Correlation: Comparing Return Path data with ESP data, Google Postmaster Tools, and Microsoft SNDS helps identify correlations and discrepancies.
- Bounce Code Analysis: Understanding bounce codes (hard vs. soft) can provide insights into the nature of delivery issues.
- SMTP Error Codes: Monitoring SMTP error codes generated upon rejection can give insight on the issue.
- Feedback Loops: Utilizing feedback loops to monitor spam complaints provides insights into recipient perceptions.
Key considerations
- ESP Priority: Prioritize your ESP's comprehensive data as the primary indicator of deliverability.
- ISP Identification: Use Return Path data to identify potential issues at specific ISPs within their monitored network.
- Adjust Practices: Adjust sending practices based on bounce code analysis and spam complaint feedback.
- Gmail Monitoring: Monitor Google Postmaster Tools if Gmail is a significant portion of your audience.
- Microsoft SNDS: Monitor Microsoft SNDS to address deliverability issues affecting Microsoft email addresses.
Technical article
Documentation from Validity Knowledge Base explains that Return Path data provides insights into your sender reputation within their monitored network, which is a sample of the overall email ecosystem. Compare the Return Path data with your ESP data to identify potential issues at specific ISPs, but prioritize your ESP's comprehensive data.
27 Feb 2023 - Validity Knowledge Base
Technical article
Documentation from Google Postmaster Tools explains that you should compare their data (if a significant portion of your audience uses Gmail) with Return Path's data and your ESP. Look for correlations between reputation scores and delivery issues reported by both Return Path and your ESP. Use the feedback loop to identify spam complaints.
4 Sep 2024 - Google
How accurate are email spam testing tools and what are the alternatives?
How accurate are seed lists for email deliverability testing?
How accurate is SNDS and Google Postmaster Tools reputation data?
How can I accurately test and measure email deliverability and sender reputation?
How do I interpret 'Rejected' errors in Gmail Postmaster Tools?
How reliable is ReturnPath inbox rate and why might it not correlate with open rates?
