Summary
When reporting a client mailing from a stolen list to an Email Service Provider (ESP), the appropriate response time for the ESP to act can vary. It depends on several factors, including the ESP's internal policies, the severity of the abuse, and the history of the client and the ESP's abuse desk responsiveness. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for effective spam mitigation and maintaining email ecosystem health.
Key findings
- Initial action: After sending a heads-up to abuse@ about a client mailing a stolen list containing a spamtrap, a key question arises regarding how long to wait for the ESP to suspend the customer or suppress the spamtrap before escalating the issue to other blocklisting organizations.
- Spamtraps and blocklists: Spamtrap hits are often shared with various DNSBLs (Domain Name System Blacklists), meaning inaction by the ESP can quickly lead to widespread blocklistings and damage to their IP and domain reputation. Learn more about email blacklists and how they affect deliverability.
- Client history: A client that has been previously terminated by other ESPs for similar abuse (e.g., SendGrid) indicates a repeat offender, which should prompt faster, more decisive action from the current ESP.
- Impact on ESP: Allowing such a client to continue sending can severely harm the ESP's overall sender reputation, affecting legitimate senders using their platform. This highlights the shared responsibility in email deliverability.
Key considerations
- ESP responsiveness: The typical responsiveness of the specific ESP's abuse desk plays a significant role. If they have a history of prompt action, more time might be warranted.
- Severity of abuse: Mailing stolen lists is a serious breach of acceptable use policies and can directly lead to blocklisting, necessitating a swift response. Learn how to identify unprofessional email marketing tactics and respond to spam.
- Ecosystem protection: The primary goal of reporting is to protect the email ecosystem from abuse. If an ESP fails to act, escalating to other blocklist providers is a necessary step to mitigate harm. As Gravitec.net states, reporting spam to an ESP can lead to the spammer being blacklisted by them. (How to Unsubscribe from Emails Without an Unsubscribe Link).
- Timeframe for action: While immediate action is preferred for severe cases, a reasonable grace period, often around 24 hours, is typically considered appropriate before escalating the issue further.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often discuss the delicate balance between giving an ESP enough time to respond to an abuse report and protecting their own assets, like spamtraps, from further misuse. Their perspectives frequently center on practical timeframes and the history of responsiveness from different ESPs.
Key opinions
- Immediate action desired: Many marketers would prefer immediate action from an ESP when a client is caught sending to a stolen list, especially if it involves a spamtrap that can lead to rapid blocklisting.
- 24-hour grace period: A common suggestion is to give the ESP at least 24 hours to respond before escalating the issue to other blocklists or taking further action.
- Client recidivism: The client's history of being kicked off other ESPs, such as SendGrid, significantly influences the urgency with which marketers believe an ESP should act. This pattern indicates a high-risk client.
- Unfamiliar ESPs: If the ESP is not one typically reported to, marketers acknowledge it might take longer for their abuse desk to process the report due to potential smaller teams or less established protocols.
Key considerations
- Protecting assets: Marketers are primarily concerned with protecting their spamtraps and preventing their data from leading to unwarranted blocklistings.
- Consequences of inaction: Delays by the ESP can result in their IPs or domains being added to major blocklists, affecting legitimate email traffic. Monitoring your blocklist status is essential.
- Esp policy alignment: The decision to escalate also depends on the ESP's published acceptable use policy regarding stolen lists and spamtraps.
- Maintaining relationships: While wanting quick action, some marketers also consider the professional relationship with ESPs and prefer to give them a chance to rectify the situation internally, especially if it's their first interaction on an abuse case.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks suggests that after sending a heads-up about a client mailing a stolen list with a spamtrap, and then receiving mail from that client, the next step is whether to allow the ESP more time to suspend the customer or suppress the spamtrap before sharing the mail with other blocking organizations. This situation highlights the urgency of the matter for the affected party.
Marketer view
A marketer from Email Geeks recommends giving the ESP at least 24 hours to take action before escalating the issue, implying that a reasonable waiting period is standard practice in the industry for such reports.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts typically advise on a pragmatic approach to reporting abuse, balancing the need for swift action against the operational realities of ESP abuse desks. Their insights often factor in the reputation of the ESP and the nature of the offending client.
Key opinions
- History matters: The ESP's past track record for handling abuse reports is a primary determinant of how much time to allocate for their response. If they are historically unresponsive, less patience is warranted.
- Severity and speed: Serious infractions, like mailing stolen lists that trigger spamtraps, demand a quicker response due to the immediate risk of blocklistings and reputation damage. For instance, how to expedite email delisting after a breach outlines steps.
- Esp size: Smaller ESPs, or those less frequently engaged with, might have smaller abuse teams (perhaps only 1-2 people), requiring a more generous response time.
- Preventing widespread harm: The overarching goal is to prevent widespread harm to the email ecosystem. If an ESP is not acting to prevent spam from a specific client, escalation to relevant blocklists is a necessary protective measure.
Key considerations
- Client recidivism: Information about the client having been kicked off other ESPs is critical intelligence that should prompt a more urgent internal response from the current ESP to mitigate their own risk.
- Communication quality: Providing clear, concise, and actionable information in the initial report helps ESPs respond more efficiently. You should also be aware of the challenges with unresponsive postmasters.
- Monitoring impact: While waiting for an ESP's response, it's vital to monitor for any direct impact on your own sending reputation or spamtrap activity, which might necessitate quicker escalation. For instance, understanding spam traps is crucial.
- Industry standards: Although there isn't a universally mandated response time, implicit industry expectations for abuse reports on severe issues range from a few hours to 24-48 hours, depending on the ESP's staffing and the severity of the issue.
Expert view
An expert from Email Geeks suggests that the appropriate response time largely depends on the specific ESP's prior history and responsiveness in handling abuse complaints. A positive track record might warrant more patience.
Expert view
An expert from Email Geeks advises giving the ESP a bit more time, especially if their abuse desk has typically handled requests seriously in the past. This implies trust in the ESP's eventual action.
What the documentation says
Official documentation from ESPs, internet standards, and security organizations often outlines the responsibilities of senders and service providers regarding email abuse. While specific response times for stolen list reports may not be explicitly mandated, the underlying principles of maintaining email ecosystem integrity are clear.
Key findings
- Acceptable use policies (AUPs): Most ESPs have strict AUPs prohibiting the use of stolen or scraped email lists and the sending of unsolicited commercial email (spam). Violation of these policies typically results in account suspension or termination.
- Reporting mechanisms: Documentation often provides clear channels (e.g., abuse@ email addresses, web forms) for reporting suspected abuse, indicating an expectation that these reports will be acted upon.
- Role of ESPs: ESPs are responsible for vetting their clients and ensuring compliance with industry best practices and legal requirements (like CAN-SPAM, GDPR). This includes preventing clients from sending to stolen lists, as highlighted by Mailgun's documentation on DMARC implementation to prevent fraudulent email.
- Impact on reputation: Technical documentation from ISPs and blocklist operators details how sending to spamtraps or invalid addresses directly harms sender reputation and can lead to IP and domain blocklisting. This underscores the need for rapid ESP intervention.
Key considerations
- Absence of explicit timelines: While AUPs detail prohibited activities, specific timeframes for ESP response to abuse reports are rarely publicly documented, leaving it to internal service level agreements (SLAs) or industry norms.
- Cooperation: Documentation often implies a cooperative effort between reporters and ESPs. Providing sufficient evidence (headers, logs) is crucial for an ESP to investigate and act quickly.
- Preventative measures: Many ESPs document their own preventative measures, such as list hygiene requirements and automated spam detection, which are meant to reduce the incidence of such reports. This also includes proper SPF configuration, as detailed in HighLevel's email error library.
- Legal and ethical obligations: Beyond technical considerations, ESPs have legal and ethical obligations to prevent their platform from being used for illegal or abusive activities, reinforcing the need for timely action when a stolen list is reported.
Technical article
Mailgun documentation on DMARC explains that a DMARC policy instructs ISPs to reject emails from fraudulent IPs attempting to use a domain. This mechanism is crucial for preventing the unauthorized use of domains, which is often a component of mailing stolen lists, thereby reducing the impact of such abusive activities.
Technical article
EmailLabs.io documentation states that ESP platforms allow tracking of email deliverability, including recipient server responses, which is essential for identifying issues like spam complaints or blocklistings that arise from mailing illicit lists.
Related resources
13 resources
Related pages
What recourse is available for spam sent from personal email addresses to scraped lists?
How to recover email domain and IP reputation after a spam incident or large accidental send?
How to resolve email blacklisting when an ISP postmaster is unresponsive?
What is an email blacklist and how does it work?
Spam traps: what they are and how they work
Should email senders respond to abuse complaints and feedback loops?
What is the division of email deliverability responsibility between ESPs and businesses?
Why Your Emails Are Going to Spam in 2024 and How to Fix It
How email blacklists actually work: a simple guide
How long does it take to recover email deliverability after IP blacklisting or poor domain reputation?
