Summary
When choosing an email marketing platform, marketers often prioritize features directly impacting deliverability and the ability to diagnose issues. While many ESPs (Email Service Providers) offer fundamental deliverability features like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC setup, the depth of reporting, ease of troubleshooting, and advanced capabilities can vary significantly between platforms. The conversation extends beyond basic authentication to more nuanced aspects such as proactive warnings for rapid send volume increases, automatic warm-up schedules, and transparent access to raw bounce and deferral data. It is important to distinguish between core deliverability metrics and broader marketing analytics, which can sometimes be conflated in ESP reporting.
Key findings
- Core features: Many ESPs offer basic deliverability features, including setup for SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, as well as list management and hygiene tools to handle bounces and inactive users. However, the sophistication of these offerings can differ.
- DMARC management: There's a consensus that DMARC management is often better handled by dedicated DMARC tools rather than solely within the ESP itself. To understand more, check out our guide on DMARC, SPF, and DKIM.
- RFC 8058 support: Most ESPs are either already supporting or are actively working to implement RFC 8058, which pertains to the one-click unsubscribe header (specifically the post method instead of mailto). For more on this, see the IETF RFC 8058 documentation.
- Reporting transparency: A critical aspect for diagnosing deliverability issues is the ability of an ESP to provide unaltered rejection and deferral messages, along with raw data in formats like CSV. This transparency allows for proper diagnosis and problem-solving. This aligns with approaches to diagnose and improve email deliverability.
Key considerations
- Beyond basic functionality: While many ESPs offer similar foundational features, the true differentiation lies in advanced capabilities such as intelligent volume management (warning against rapid increases, automated warm-up), load balancing during warm-up periods, and sophisticated reputation monitoring with timely alerts for blacklisting.
- Deliverability vs. marketing metrics: It is crucial to distinguish between reports designed for marketing insights (e.g., subscriber movement, campaign performance) and those specifically for deliverability. Deliverability reports should focus on raw technical data, such as bounces and deferrals, without manipulation.
- Data access: Platforms that provide easy access to raw, unadulterated delivery logs and bounce data are generally preferred by deliverability specialists, as this enables more accurate diagnosis of issues.
- Platform variations: The effectiveness of deliverability features can vary significantly between ESPs. Enterprise-level platforms often provide more robust and granular deliverability tools compared to smaller, more simplified services. A comprehensive email deliverability test can shed light on these differences.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often seek platforms that simplify deliverability management and provide clear insights without requiring deep technical knowledge. There's a desire for features that go beyond basic reporting to offer actionable advice, such as automated warm-up suggestions or warnings about risky sending behaviors. However, the perception of what constitutes good deliverability reporting can differ, with some marketers looking for broad program value and others focusing on specific technical indicators. Many marketers recognize that while ESPs offer a baseline, some platforms provide a more intuitive experience for managing email health.
Key opinions
- Standard functionality: Many email marketers feel that basic deliverability features like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC setup, list management, and bounce handling are common across most ESPs.
- Differentiation in depth: Despite basic offerings, marketers believe there's significant room for differentiation in how well these features are implemented, particularly for more advanced or enterprise solutions such as Braze, Iterable, or Emarsys.
- Innovative features desired: Marketers seek innovative features like automated warnings for sending too quickly and suggestions for optimal warm-up schedules to avoid deliverability issues. This is a common need, though many platforms have similar tools.
- Reporting for program value: Many marketers desire reports that show the value of their email program, demonstrating growth, attributing it to specific campaigns, and tracking subscriber lifecycle segments (new, active, churning, inactive). This extends beyond mere open rates and clicks.
- Ease of diagnosis: A key preference is for ESPs that make it easier to diagnose and fix deliverability problems, especially regarding list hygiene and identifying subscriber engagement patterns. This directly contributes to effective analytics for marketers.
Key considerations
- Defining "best": The best ESP is highly subjective and depends on individual business needs, aesthetic preferences, and the level of customization desired in reporting and data access. Some prefer raw data for custom analysis, while others prefer pre-built dashboards.
- Reporting transparency: Marketers appreciate ESPs that are transparent about how they calculate or adjust metrics like open rates, which can sometimes be misleading due to privacy features like Apple's Mail Privacy Protection (MPP). For deeper insight, consider tools for tracking all-round email deliverability.
- Impact of usage: The platform itself is less critical than how the marketer uses it. Good sending practices (segmentation, hygiene, relevant content) are paramount for deliverability, regardless of the ESP. Many of the best email marketing tools emphasize this aspect.
- Avoiding vanity metrics: Marketers should be wary of ESPs that provide pretty reports on vanity metrics that don't offer real, actionable insights into deliverability or email program health.
An Email Geeks Marketer states that most email service providers offer a similar set of basic deliverability features. The challenge is in finding platforms that truly excel in depth and innovation within these common categories, offering more than just surface-level functionality.
A Marketer from Email Geeks notes that while many ESPs are working on supporting one-click unsubscribe headers using the post method (RFC 8058), not all have fully implemented it yet. This feature is becoming increasingly critical for compliance and user experience.
What the experts say
Experts in email deliverability emphasize that while many ESPs offer a baseline of features, there are substantial differences in the quality and depth of their deliverability tools and reporting. They highlight that access to raw, unaltered rejection and deferral messages is paramount for effective troubleshooting. Experts also caution against relying solely on pretty reports that might obscure critical deliverability issues, advocating instead for transparency and direct data access for true diagnosis.
Key opinions
- Substantial differences: Deliverability features vary significantly among platforms, with enterprise-level ESPs generally offering more robust capabilities than simpler ones. This contrasts with the idea that all ESPs are largely the same.
- Raw data is key: The most important feature an ESP can provide is access to unaltered rejection and deferral messages. This raw data is essential for diagnosing and fixing delivery issues effectively.
- Marketing vs. deliverability reports: Many ESP reports are designed for marketing rather than deliverability, often focusing on vanity metrics or presenting data in a way that can be misleading. True deliverability reporting needs to provide unvarnished technical insights. Our discussion of alternatives to Validity touches on advanced reporting.
- Ease of troubleshooting: Some ESPs are inherently easier to work with when it comes to diagnosing and resolving deliverability problems, largely due to their transparency in providing detailed data and logs.
Key considerations
- Misleading metrics: ESPs may categorize 5xx rejections (permanent failures) as successful deliveries to inflate reported delivery rates. This practice can mislead users and make diagnosing issues challenging. It's a common issue that makes it hard to measure your deliverability accurately.
- Customer support burden: ESPs might simplify deliverability reports to avoid overwhelming customers, but this simplification can lead to misunderstandings, increased customer support tickets, and overall dissatisfaction.
- Hidden data: ESPs that hide or manipulate data, or report mail as delivered when it wasn't, hinder a deliverability specialist's ability to provide effective support and solutions. An example is dismissing short-lived blocklist (blacklist) listings like SpamCop.
- Complexities of opens: Given that many marketers may not fully understand how opens are measured (especially with MPP), ESP reports on this metric can be particularly misleading. Experts emphasize the importance of understanding the underlying mechanics. SpamResource often provides insights into these complexities.
An Expert from Email Geeks states that the absence of unaltered rejection and deferral messages is by far the most critical missing feature in many ESPs. Direct access to these messages is indispensable for effective deliverability diagnosis and remediation.
An Expert from WordtotheWise asserts that while ESPs might categorize 5xx rejections as successful deliveries, this practice casts doubt on the integrity of their reporting. This misrepresentation prioritizes satisfying a checkbox requirement over genuine deliverability insights.
What the documentation says
Official documentation and industry standards provide the foundation for robust email deliverability. These resources typically outline the technical specifications for authentication protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, as well as critical features such as one-click unsubscribe headers. While ESPs implement these standards, the documentation emphasizes the importance of accurate data handling, transparent reporting, and adherence to established best practices to ensure optimal inbox placement and sender reputation. The goal is to facilitate clear communication between senders and recipients while minimizing abuse.
Key findings
- Authentication standards: DMARC, SPF, and DKIM are fundamental protocols for email authentication, verifying sender identity and preventing spoofing. Proper configuration is critical for deliverability. Refer to our list of DMARC tags for detailed understanding.
- RFC 8058 (One-Click Unsubscribe): This standard specifies the use of a List-Unsubscribe header field that allows for a one-click unsubscribe mechanism, improving user experience and reducing complaint rates. Compliance with this RFC is increasingly important for major mailbox providers.
- Feedback loops (FBLs): Integration with FBLs from various mailbox providers allows senders to receive real-time data on user complaints. This immediate feedback is vital for maintaining a healthy sending reputation and promptly removing complaining users from lists. This is a core component of email deliverability monitoring.
- Bounce and deferral handling: Proper classification and reporting of bounce and deferral messages are crucial for list hygiene and diagnosing issues. Documentation emphasizes the importance of accurate categorization (e.g., hard vs. soft bounces) and transparent access to these logs for senders.
Key considerations
- Standardized reporting: Industry efforts, such as those by the Email Experience Council (EEC), aim to standardize how metrics like open rates, click-through rates, and conversion rates are calculated across different ESPs. This standardization helps prevent misleading comparisons.
- IP and domain reputation: Documentation often stresses the importance of monitoring IP and domain reputation, including checking for blocklist (blacklist) listings. ESPs should provide insights and alerts for potential reputation degradation. Understanding what happens when your domain is blocklisted is essential.
- Transparent data access: For effective diagnosis, ESPs should allow direct access to raw log data, ideally via an API or exportable files. This enables deliverability professionals to perform their own in-depth analysis beyond aggregated reports.
- Compliance updates: Mailbox providers frequently update their sending requirements (e.g., Google and Yahoo's 2024 changes). ESPs must rapidly integrate these changes and provide tools for senders to comply, impacting deliverability directly.
The IETF RFC 8058 standard mandates a one-click unsubscribe header to simplify the opt-out process for email recipients. This technical requirement enhances user experience and can reduce spam complaints, which in turn benefits sender reputation and deliverability.
Sender Policy Framework (SPF) documentation outlines how domain owners can specify which mail servers are authorized to send email on their behalf. Proper SPF implementation is crucial for preventing email spoofing and ensuring that legitimate emails pass authentication checks, which impacts deliverability.
