Summary
Managing Feedback-ID headers when sending emails via Amazon SES, particularly with Google's evolving sender requirements, presents a unique challenge. While Amazon SES typically injects its own Feedback-ID for compliance and internal monitoring, senders often desire to customize this header to gain more granular insights into campaign performance and spam complaints through tools like Google Postmaster Tools. The upcoming changes from Gmail and Yahoo underscore the importance of accurate feedback loops for maintaining a healthy sender reputation and ensuring email deliverability.
Key findings
- SES control: Amazon SES generally controls and injects its own Feedback-ID header for internal compliance and monitoring, making it difficult for users to override directly.
- Reporting needs: The primary motivation for customizing Feedback-ID is to enhance reporting on campaign performance and user-specific spam complaints in platforms such as Google Postmaster Tools.
- Multiple DKIM: Some discussions suggest that implementing multiple DKIM signatures (brand, SES, and sender-specific) might allow access to different sets of feedback data, though this doesn't directly override the SES-injected Feedback-ID.
- Gmail requirements: While controlling the Feedback-ID is desirable for granular reporting, it's not explicitly identified as a critical requirement for complying with Gmail's new sender requirements, which primarily focus on authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) and easy unsubscribes.
Key considerations
- Data utility: Even if access to SES-generated Feedback-IDs is possible, their utility for granular sender-specific reporting depends on how Amazon structures those IDs.
- Compliance vs. reporting: Distinguish between requirements for email deliverability compliance (which SES helps manage) and the desire for detailed reporting metrics, as they may require different solutions.
- Alternative reporting: Explore other metrics and data points provided by SES (bounces, complaints, deliveries) and Google Postmaster Tools (spam rate, domain reputation) to gauge performance and identify issues, rather than solely relying on Feedback-ID customization.
- Google Postmaster Tools: Leverage Google Postmaster Tools for understanding spam complaints and overall sender reputation, which remains crucial regardless of Feedback-ID header control.
What email marketers say
Email marketers and ESPs using Amazon SES frequently encounter challenges with Feedback-ID header customization, primarily driven by a need for enhanced reporting within Google Postmaster Tools. The consensus leans towards accepting SES's default Feedback-ID injection while exploring alternative methods to gain insight into spam complaints and campaign performance, especially given the new bulk sender requirements from Gmail and Yahoo.
Key opinions
- Reporting limitations: Many marketers find it frustrating that SES's control over the Feedback-ID header limits their ability to integrate granular campaign or customer data for internal reporting and analysis via Google Postmaster Tools (GPT).
- Impact of 2024 changes: Concerns are raised about whether the inability to customize Feedback-ID headers might negatively impact compliance or deliverability under the new Gmail and Yahoo sender requirements for 2024. However, it appears other factors are more critical for these updates.
- Seeking workarounds: Some marketers actively seek methods, such as utilizing multiple DKIM signatures, to circumvent SES's default behavior and gain better visibility into spam complaints, even if the primary Feedback-ID remains under SES control.
- Understanding FBLs: There's a general desire to understand how the Gmail Feedback Loop (FBL) operates within the SES ecosystem to ensure proper handling of spam complaints.
Key considerations
- Reputation monitoring: Marketers should focus on overall sender reputation metrics in GPT, such as spam rate and IP/domain reputation, as these are more direct indicators of deliverability and compliance with new requirements, rather than solely on Feedback-ID data.
- Leverage existing data: Utilize the data available through SES event destinations (e.g., SNS for bounces and complaints) and integrate it with internal systems for comprehensive reporting, even if custom Feedback-ID values aren't fully supported.
- Authentication priority: Prioritize proper implementation of SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, as these are fundamental to meeting Gmail's and Yahoo's new authentication mandates for bulk senders.
- Engagement metrics: Focus on high engagement and low complaint rates through list hygiene and relevant content. These factors significantly impact deliverability and are often more influential than specific Feedback-ID customization.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks indicates that the inability to override SES's Feedback-ID is a significant concern, especially when considering the implications of Gmail's 2024 sender requirements. They wonder how this limitation might put them at risk during what they refer to as the 'Great Gmail-aggeddon 2024'.
Marketer view
An Email Geek marketer expresses frustration that SES injects its own Feedback-ID, preventing them from adding campaign or customer-specific information for reporting purposes. They assume that this data is intended to be visible in Google Postmaster Tools (GPT) for better insights.
What the experts say
Experts in email deliverability and ESP operations often confirm that SES's control over the Feedback-ID header is standard practice for their compliance monitoring. While it may limit direct customization for senders, it is generally considered acceptable for meeting core deliverability requirements. They emphasize that the original intent of the Gmail Feedback Loop was primarily for ESPs, and the critical aspects of Gmail's new sender requirements lie elsewhere, focusing on robust authentication and low spam rates rather than granular Feedback-ID control.
Key opinions
- Compliance reason: Experts suggest that SES injects its own Feedback-ID primarily for compliance monitoring and internal management of their sending infrastructure, which is a common practice among ESPs.
- Original FBL intent: The Gmail Feedback Loop (FBL) was originally designed for the benefit of ESPs (or MTA owners) to receive spam complaint data, not necessarily for individual senders to customize extensively.
- Not critical for new rules: Controlling the Feedback-ID header is not viewed as a critical factor for compliance with Gmail's upcoming sender changes, which focus more on authentication (DMARC enforcement) and low spam rates.
- Accessing data: Publishing your own DKIM alongside SES's can potentially allow senders to see the Feedback-IDs in their reporting, assuming Google exposes this data. This implies a multi-layered DKIM approach could offer some data access.
Key considerations
- Focus on fundamentals: Prioritize core deliverability practices like maintaining clean lists, sending relevant content, and ensuring proper SPF, DKIM, and DMARC authentication, as these have a greater impact on Gmail deliverability.
- Interpret existing data: Understand that the Feedback-ID data SES provides, even if not fully customizable, contributes to SES's management of shared IP pools and overall service health. This data is relevant even if not directly consumed by the sender.
- ESPs and FBLs: If you are an ESP using SES, you should ensure that the Feedback-ID data, even if SES-generated, is accessible and meaningful enough for you to manage your customer's sending reputation effectively.
- Gmail Postmaster Tools: Regularly monitor Google Postmaster Tools to proactively identify and address potential spam issues indicated by the spam rate and domain reputation dashboards, which are influenced by feedback loops.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks suggests that SES's tendency to set the Feedback-ID in its preferred way is likely acceptable, especially since they probably use it for compliance monitoring. The expert notes that the ultimate impact depends on what the sender is trying to achieve with the Feedback-ID.
Expert view
An Email Geeks expert (tvjames) explains that if senders can publish their own DKIM signatures on their domains, they should start to see Feedback-IDs published by SES appear in their reporting, assuming Google makes them visible. This offers a potential avenue for data access.
What the documentation says
Official documentation from Amazon Web Services (AWS) confirms that Amazon SES controls the Feedback-ID header for its own operational purposes but has evolved to allow senders to pass custom values. These custom values can be included in the Feedback-ID header to provide additional details, aiming to help senders analyze spam complaints within Google Postmaster Tools more effectively. This functionality is designed to provide greater insights without fully relinquishing SES's control over the primary header.
Key findings
- Custom values supported: Amazon SES now supports the inclusion of up to two custom values within the Feedback-ID header that customers can pass during sending, providing more granular tracking capabilities.
- Enhanced spam data: This feature is explicitly designed to provide additional details that help senders understand spam complaints within Google Postmaster Tools.
- Categorization with variables: Documentation indicates that senders can use variable fields (e.g., VarA:VarB:VarC:MyBrand) within the Feedback-ID to categorize campaigns, customer segments, or other relevant data points for granular reporting.
- Sender ID length: The Sender ID component within the Feedback-ID header must typically be between 5 and 15 characters, providing a specific format for these custom values.
Key considerations
- Implementation for insights: Senders should actively implement the newly supported custom values in their Feedback-ID headers to leverage this feature for better campaign analytics and understanding of user complaints.
- Integration with GPT: The success of this customization depends on how Google Postmaster Tools processes and displays these specific Feedback-ID variables for the sender.
- Compliance context: While Feedback-ID is a valuable tool for understanding spam, senders must also ensure full compliance with Gmail's and Yahoo's new authentication and unsubscribe requirements for bulk senders.
- Strategic tag use: Plan a consistent strategy for using the custom values (tags) within your Feedback-ID to ensure the data collected is actionable and provides meaningful insights into deliverability issues.
Technical article
Amazon Web Services (AWS) documentation specifies that Amazon SES now supports passing up to two custom values in the Feedback-ID header during email sending. This feature aims to give customers more specific details to aid in analyzing spam complaints.
Technical article
Postmastery documentation details that the Sender ID component within the Feedback-ID header should be between 5 and 15 characters. They provide an example format like Feedback-ID: VarA:VarB:VarC:MyBrand, demonstrating how variable fields can be used for categorization.
Related resources
7 resources
Related pages
How to implement the Gmail feedback loop ID and what are Gmail feedback loop reports?
What are the new email authentication and unsubscribe requirements from Gmail and Yahoo for 2024?
How to comply with Gmail's new sending rules for bulk email senders?
Ultimate guide to Google Postmaster Tools V2
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
How does Gmail's Feedback Loop (FBL) work and what data does it provide?
Why your emails are going to spam in 2024 and how to fix it
Boost email deliverability rates: technical solutions from top performing senders
