Summary
The consensus from both experts and marketers, supported by technical documentation, leans heavily towards suppressing spam complaints across multiple ESPs to maintain a positive sender reputation, improve deliverability, and avoid being flagged as a spammer. Centralized suppression lists are crucial for ensuring consistent list hygiene and preventing emails from reaching users who have unsubscribed or marked emails as spam. Feedback Loops (FBLs) are also essential for identifying and removing subscribers who mark emails as spam. However, the treatment of transactional emails is an exception, as suppressing complaints might disrupt essential communications. The decision to sync suppression lists also depends on whether the ESPs manage different types of emails or if they all send marketing emails. Tools like Google Postmaster Tools and Microsoft JMRP are useful for monitoring spam rates and managing complaints, while standards like ARF help standardize the feedback process.
Key findings
- Reputation: Suppressing complaints maintains a positive sender reputation.
- Deliverability: It improves email deliverability by preventing emails from reaching disinterested recipients.
- List Hygiene: Centralized suppression ensures consistent list hygiene across platforms.
- Feedback Loops: FBLs are crucial for identifying and removing complainers.
- Standardization: ARF facilitates standardized reporting of email abuse.
- Monitoring: Tools such as Google Postmaster Tools and JMRP enable monitoring and management of email deliverability.
Key considerations
- Transactional Emails: Carefully consider suppressing complaints for transactional emails due to potential disruptions.
- ESP Types: Assess whether suppression list syncing is necessary based on the types of emails managed by each ESP (marketing vs. transactional).
- Implementation: Implementing and managing a centralized suppression list can be complex.
- Fines & Legal: It's important to remember that there are no fines or legal violations associated with not suppressing lists.
- Multiple ESPs: Clarify the business goal when using multiple ESPs.
What email marketers say
10 marketer opinions
The general consensus is that suppressing spam complaints across multiple ESPs is crucial for maintaining a positive sender reputation, improving deliverability, and avoiding legal repercussions. Centralized suppression lists help ensure consistent list hygiene and prevent sending emails to users who have unsubscribed or marked emails as spam, which can damage sender reputation and increase spam filtering. Some sources note exceptions for transactional emails, while others advise syncing suppression lists across all ESPs, especially when sending marketing emails.
Key opinions
- Centralized Suppression: Centralizing suppression lists across multiple ESPs maintains sender reputation and avoids sending to disengaged users.
- Improved Deliverability: Suppressing spam complaints improves overall deliverability by preventing emails from reaching users who are likely to mark them as spam.
- Consistent List Hygiene: Consistent list hygiene ensures that only engaged subscribers receive emails, leading to better engagement and ROI.
- Reduced Spam Filtering: Suppressing spam complaints across all ESPs reduces the likelihood of emails being filtered as spam.
- Legal Compliance: Avoids legal repercussions and maintains compliance with email marketing regulations by respecting unsubscribe requests and spam complaints.
Key considerations
- Transactional Emails: Consider whether to suppress complaints for transactional emails, as some experts advise against it due to potential service disruptions.
- ESP Types: If using different ESPs for different types of emails (e.g., marketing vs. transactional), assess whether syncing suppression lists is necessary.
- Implementation: Implementing and managing a centralized suppression list can be complex and requires careful planning and execution.
- List Cleaning: Regularly clean email lists by suppressing hard bounces, unsubscribes, and unengaged users.
- Feedback Loops: Utilize Feedback Loops (FBLs) to identify and remove subscribers who mark emails as spam.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email on Acid shares that a clean email list with suppressed addresses leads to better deliverability, engagement, and ROI. Sending to engaged subscribers is far more cost effective and ensures messages reach their intended recipients. A central suppression list ensures consistency of list hygiene across systems.
6 Jul 2022 - Email on Acid
Marketer view
Email marketer from Quora shares that if you're using multiple ESPs, it's crucial to sync your suppression lists to maintain a consistent sending reputation and avoid annoying subscribers. They claim it's a basic hygiene requirement.
18 Aug 2022 - Quora
What the experts say
5 expert opinions
Experts generally agree that suppressing spam complaints across multiple ESPs is a good practice for maintaining list hygiene and deliverability. While sending from multiple ESPs without shared suppression is not necessarily 'snowshoe spamming,' it is not recommended. Although there may not be legal violations, it is vital to consider the reputation impact. Feedback Loops (FBLs) are helpful for senders to receive complaint data in order to take action on their email lists. However, transactional emails may be an exception, as suppressing complaints for these types of messages could cause service disruptions.
Key opinions
- Good Practice: Suppressing spam complaints is generally a good practice for list hygiene and deliverability.
- Not Snowshoe Spam: Using multiple ESPs without shared suppression is not necessarily snowshoe spamming, but it is still unwise.
- Reputation Impact: Failure to suppress can impact sender reputation.
- FBLs Essential: Feedback Loops (FBLs) are a great idea for senders to get information from ISPs and maintain clean lists.
Key considerations
- Transactional Emails: Consider whether suppressing complaints for transactional emails is appropriate, as it could disrupt service.
- Business Goals: Clarify the business goals behind using multiple ESPs before implementing a suppression strategy.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks explains there are no fines or legal violations, and if ESPs use different domains the reputation impact is limited, and the business goal should be clarified, either to suppress complaints or other reasons.
22 Apr 2024 - Email Geeks
Expert view
Expert from Spam Resource explains that FBLs are crucial for ISPs to provide timely feedback about spam complaints to senders. This feedback enables senders to remove complainers from their lists, improving sender reputation and deliverability. This should be implemented everywhere.
13 Mar 2023 - Spam Resource
What the documentation says
5 technical articles
Technical documentation from various sources highlights the importance of managing and acting on spam complaints to maintain good email deliverability. Standard formats like ARF facilitate feedback, while tools like Google Postmaster Tools and Microsoft JMRP enable monitoring and list management. ESPs such as SparkPost and AWS SES automatically suppress addresses based on bounces and complaints. A key takeaway is that comprehensive spam complaint management, potentially through central suppression, is crucial for protecting sender reputation and avoiding spam flagging.
Key findings
- ARF Standard: Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) standardizes feedback for email abuse.
- Spam Rate Monitoring: Monitoring spam rates through tools like Google Postmaster Tools is essential for maintaining deliverability.
- Junk Reporting: Microsoft's JMRP allows users to report unwanted emails, providing senders with feedback.
- Suppression Lists: Properly managing suppression lists is critical for deliverability.
- Automatic Suppression: Services like AWS SES automatically add complaining emails to a suppression list.
Key considerations
- Central Suppression: Central suppression management is important to implement and manage suppression lists across platforms, but complex to execute.
- List Integration: Integrate suppression processes with other services/ESPs.
Technical article
Documentation from SparkPost describes that suppression lists prevent sending to users who have unsubscribed or marked emails as spam. They highlight that properly managing suppression lists is critical for maintaining deliverability and avoiding being flagged as a spammer. This management is best performed in a central location.
11 Sep 2023 - SparkPost
Technical article
Documentation from ietf.org defines the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF), the standard format for providing feedback about email abuse. It highlights that ESPs and mail providers use this feedback to identify and address sources of spam, phishing, and other types of email abuse. Using ARF across ESPs creates standardisation.
7 Oct 2021 - ietf.org
Are spam complaint rates siloed by provider affecting deliverability?
Do spam complaints from different email domains have different weights in deliverability?
How can I accurately monitor complaint rates for email marketing using Google Postmaster Tools, Yahoo FBL, and my ESP?
How do DMARC, spam complaints, and IP reputation affect email deliverability and rejections?
How do spam complaints from Google and Yahoo inform ESPs, and how should ARF reports be used?
How do spam complaints on one email address affect the deliverability of other addresses on the same domain?
