Summary
Using public lists of spam trap domains is strongly discouraged by experts, marketers, and documentation sources. These lists are ineffective because they quickly become outdated as spammers adapt. They defeat the purpose of spam traps, which are designed to identify and help correct issues with email sending and collection practices. The data in these public lists is often limited and unreliable, increasing the risk of hitting real spam traps and damaging sender reputation. Publishing or using such lists may be viewed as an abusive practice. Instead, it's recommended to focus on building clean, permission-based email lists, implementing robust validation processes, and maintaining good list hygiene, including double opt-in and removing inactive subscribers. Avoiding open relays and prioritizing data integrity are also crucial for preventing spam traps.
Key findings
- Ineffectiveness: Public spam trap lists quickly become obsolete and ineffective as spammers adapt.
- Counterproductive: Using public lists undermines the purpose of spam traps, which is to identify flawed sending practices and improve data collection.
- Limited Data: Most services offering public lists lack comprehensive data, making the lists unreliable.
- Abusive Practice: Using or publishing public spam trap lists can be considered an abusive practice, potentially damaging email streams.
- Reputation Damage: Hitting spam traps leads to reputation and deliverability problems.
- Recycled Addresses: Recycled addresses, a type of spam trap, are closely guarded, making public lists inaccurate and dangerous.
- Confidential Design: Spam traps are confidential by design, compromising their effectiveness if made public.
Key considerations
- Permission-Based Lists: Build email lists from opt-in subscribers who have given explicit permission.
- Avoid Purchased Lists: Refrain from purchasing email lists, which often contain spam traps and invalid addresses.
- Data Integrity: Prioritize data integrity and legitimate data collection methods.
- Validation Processes: Implement robust email validation to remove invalid or risky addresses.
- List Hygiene: Maintain list hygiene with double opt-in and regular removal of inactive subscribers.
- Open Relays: Avoid open relays to prevent becoming a source of spam traps.
- Ethical Concerns: Be wary of services claiming to offer comprehensive spam trap lists due to potential ethical issues.
What email marketers say
12 marketer opinions
Using public lists of spam trap domains is generally discouraged due to their ineffectiveness and potential harm. These lists defeat the purpose of spam traps, which are designed to identify and address issues in email sending and collection practices. Publicly available lists quickly become outdated as spammers adapt, and the limited data available in such lists often makes them unreliable. Furthermore, using these lists can be seen as an abusive practice, potentially damaging email streams and sender reputation. Instead, experts recommend focusing on building clean, permission-based email lists, implementing robust validation processes, and adhering to email best practices.
Key opinions
- Ineffectiveness: Public spam trap lists quickly become obsolete as spammers adapt and invalidate them.
- Counterproductive: Using public lists undermines the purpose of spam traps, which is to identify flawed sending practices.
- Limited Data: Most services providing public lists lack the comprehensive data needed for effective spam mitigation.
- Abusive Practice: Using public lists can be viewed as abusive and potentially damage legitimate email streams.
- Reputation Damage: Hitting spam traps leads to reputation and deliverability problems.
Key considerations
- Data Collection: Build clean, permission-based email lists to minimize the risk of hitting spam traps.
- Validation Processes: Implement robust email validation processes to remove invalid or risky addresses.
- Sender Reputation: Focus on maintaining a good sender reputation by adhering to email best practices.
- Ethical Concerns: Be wary of services claiming to offer comprehensive spam trap lists, as their practices may be unethical.
- Dynamic Ranges: Be aware that IP ranges are often dynamic and public lists may target innocent email streams.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Spamhaus mentions that anyone publishing or using such lists may be considered an abuser, since they're likely targeting specific IP ranges and can damage legitimate email streams. These ranges are often dynamic.
15 Feb 2025 - Spamhaus
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks questions what list scrubbing services find when they claim to identify spam traps, hinting at potential inaccuracies and ethical concerns.
8 Oct 2024 - Email Geeks
What the experts say
2 expert opinions
Experts discourage using public spam trap lists because they are unreliable and can be dangerous. Recycled addresses, a specific type of spam trap, are closely guarded, making public lists inaccurate and likely to contain real spam traps. Instead of relying on these lists, it's recommended to build a permission-based email list from opt-in subscribers and avoid purchasing lists. Using legitimate data collection methods minimizes the risk of hitting spam traps and renders public lists obsolete.
Key opinions
- Unreliable Lists: Public lists of spam traps are unreliable and often inaccurate, as recycled addresses (a type of spam trap) are closely guarded secrets.
- Increased Risk: Using public lists increases the risk of hitting real spam traps, which can damage sender reputation.
- Obsolete Data: Legitimate data collection methods, such as building permission-based lists, make public spam trap lists obsolete.
Key considerations
- Permission-Based Lists: Focus on building email lists from opt-in subscribers who have given their explicit permission to receive emails.
- Avoid Purchased Lists: Refrain from purchasing email lists, as they often contain spam traps and invalid addresses.
- Legitimate Data: Use legitimate data collection methods to ensure the quality and validity of your email list.
Expert view
Expert from Word to the Wise recommends building a permission-based list from opt-in subscribers and avoiding purchased lists. Using legitimate data collection methods minimizes the risk of hitting spam traps, making public lists obsolete.
21 Mar 2022 - Word to the Wise
Expert view
Expert from Spam Resource explains that recycled addresses, a type of spamtrap, are closely guarded secrets, making public lists unreliable and dangerous. Using such lists increases the risk of hitting real spam traps, damaging sender reputation.
26 Jan 2024 - Spam Resource
What the documentation says
4 technical articles
Documentation emphasizes that public spam trap lists are ineffective and should not be used. Spam traps are confidential by design to maintain their effectiveness in identifying and blocking spammers. Organizations like Spamhaus use them to track malicious behavior. Focusing on data integrity, avoiding open relays, and maintaining list hygiene, including using double opt-in and removing inactive subscribers, are crucial for preventing spam traps.
Key findings
- Confidential Design: Spam traps are designed to be confidential, making public lists counterproductive.
- Compromised Effectiveness: Public lists would compromise the effectiveness of spam traps, as spammers would remove those addresses.
- Malicious Behavior Tracking: Organizations use honeypot systems to track malicious behavior rather than providing spam trap lists.
- Data Integrity: Maintaining data integrity and avoiding open relays are essential to prevent becoming a spamtrap source.
Key considerations
- Avoid Open Relays: Prevent systems from allowing unauthorized parties to send mail to maintain security and integrity.
- Maintain List Hygiene: Implement a double opt-in process and regularly remove inactive subscribers to maintain list hygiene.
- Data Integrity: Focus on data integrity rather than relying on potentially harmful public spam trap lists.
Technical article
Documentation from RFC Editor mentions how to avoid open relays which can be detected as spamtrap sources. This means avoiding any system that allows unauthorized parties to send mail. This helps maintain the integrity and security of email systems.
4 Sep 2022 - RFC Editor
Technical article
Documentation from Project Honey Pot explains that they use a distributed system of honeypot pages that record information about IP addresses that access those pages. This is about tracking malicious behavior, not providing lists of spam traps, but their approach underscores the importance of data integrity.
7 Jul 2021 - Project Honey Pot
Do email list cleaning services effectively remove spam traps?
How can I accurately verify my email list and identify potentially harmful domains?
How can I gain visibility into spam trap hits without professional tools?
How can I identify and prevent spam/bot traffic at email subscription points?
How do email list cleaning companies clean millions of emails daily and avoid being blocked?
How do spam traps and user engagement impact Gmail deliverability, and what list cleaning practices are recommended?
