How do I use SPFBL feedback loop for email?

Key findings

• Purpose: SPFBL's feedback loop helps senders understand why their emails are being marked as spam, enabling them to improve their sending practices and email deliverability.
• ARF reports: The system delivers complaints in the Abuse Reporting Format, a standard for reporting email abuse.
• Geographic reach: While initially noted for Brazilian providers, SPFBL is increasingly adopted by various international (e.g., Russian) internet service providers (ISPs).
• Reputation management: Leveraging these feedback loops is essential for maintaining a positive sender reputation and preventing issues like domain blacklisting.
• Complaint data: Even emails rejected at the RCPT TO command can generate feedback, indicating a persistent complaint from the recipient.

Key considerations

• Data accuracy: Be aware that ARF reports from SPFBL may lowercase the SMTP From address, which can impact data usability if case sensitivity is important for your records.
• Registration process: To receive ARF reports directly, you might need to contact SPFBL directly to declare your IP ranges and specify a recipient email address for these reports. More details on general FBL registration can be found in a guide to using email feedback loops.
• Cost implications: Access to SPFBL's feedback feed is free if you own your Autonomous System (AS). However, end users with only a few IP addresses may need to pay for the service.
• Integration and response: Ensure your system can effectively process ARF reports to identify and suppress complainers, which is a key aspect of responding to abuse complaints.
• Automated suppression: Implementing an automated process to remove users who mark emails as spam is critical for maintaining good sender reputation and avoiding blacklists.

Key opinions

• Data format issues: Some marketers find SPFBL's practice of lowercasing the SMTP From address in ARF reports problematic, as it can make the data unusable if case sensitivity is required for internal tracking.
• Increasing adoption: There's an observed increase in the volume of reports from SPFBL, suggesting more Brazilian and other international (like Russian) ISPs are implementing it, making it a more relevant feedback source.
• Responsive support: Marketers appreciate SPFBL's responsiveness, particularly through communication channels like WhatsApp, for inquiries regarding IP declarations and ARF report setup.
• Unexpected reports: Some marketers report receiving SPFBL ARF reports even without explicitly signing up, often directed to their standard abuse email addresses, highlighting the system's broad reach. This can be useful for understanding how FBLs function with different email clients.

Key considerations

• Signup clarity: The signup process for SPFBL feedback can be unclear from their public documentation, often requiring direct contact with the provider.
• Cost structure comprehension: Marketers need to understand the distinction between free access for those owning an Autonomous System (AS) and paid access for individual IP addresses.
• Processing rejected mail reports: It is important to implement mechanisms to process ARF reports for emails rejected at the RCPT TO stage, as these indicate persistent complaints and necessitate immediate suppression to prevent blocklisting. This is a critical step in how email service providers process FBL emails.
• Impact on deliverability: Swift action based on FBL data directly impacts sender reputation and deliverability, helping to avoid issues that can lead to being listed on a blocklist.

Key opinions

• Crucial for reputation: Experts agree that feedback loops are fundamental for understanding user engagement and complaint rates, directly impacting sender reputation. Consistent monitoring and action on FBLs are paramount.
• Proactive suppression: The primary benefit of FBLs is the ability to promptly remove complainers from mailing lists, thereby reducing future spam complaints and improving overall email deliverability. This is vital to prevent being placed on a blocklist.
• Data integration: Effective use of FBLs requires robust systems to parse ARF reports and integrate complaint data into a sender's suppression list management. Learn more about how critical feedback loops are for sender reputation.
• Beyond major providers: While major FBLs like Google's and Yahoo's are well-known, experts stress the importance of lesser-known FBLs (like SPFBL) which can provide crucial insights into specific regional or smaller ISP complaint data. For more, see MailMonitor's guide on email feedback loops.

Key considerations

• Holistic view: FBL data should be combined with other deliverability metrics, such as open rates, click-through rates, and bounce rates, for a comprehensive understanding of email program health.
• Immediate action: Delayed processing of FBL data can lead to continued complaints, potentially escalating into blocklistings or IP reputation damage.
• Avoiding spam traps: By suppressing complainers identified via FBLs, senders also reduce the risk of hitting spam traps, which can severely impact deliverability and lead to being put on a blacklist.
• Compliance: Utilizing feedback loops is a key component of responsible sending practices and helps maintain compliance with anti-spam regulations.

Key findings

• Service description: SPFBL presents its feedback system as a tool for filtering mail and eliminating spam before it reaches the network, indicating a focus on reducing unwanted email traffic.
• Contact for enrollment: The SPFBL feedback system documentation directs interested companies to contact them to request inclusion of their IP ranges for receiving ARF reports.
• Pricing model: SPFBL's documentation implies a budget request process for receiving ARFs, suggesting a paid service model depending on the user's specific setup, particularly concerning IP range declarations.
• Target audience: The phrase inclusion of each IP range in our DNSAL suggests that the service is primarily aimed at larger entities managing multiple IP addresses or ASNs (Autonomous Systems).

Key considerations

• Engagement methods: Direct contact (email or WhatsApp) is the stated method for enrollment, indicating a non-automated onboarding process for senders.
• Technical requirements: Senders must be prepared to handle ARF formatted reports, which typically requires specific parsing capabilities within their email system to extract complaint data and identify offending messages. Official documentation from Abusix provides further details.
• Scope of data: While SPFBL provides FBL data, senders should clarify the exact ISPs and recipient domains covered by their service to assess its overall value for their specific sending needs.
• Policy understanding: It is important to review SPFBL's terms of service regarding data usage, reporting frequency, and any specific requirements for maintaining enrollment, to ensure continuous access and compliance.