Summary
Validity, a prominent email deliverability provider, plays a significant role in processing Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) reports, which are crucial for managing sender reputation and maintaining clean mailing lists. The core question often arises whether Validity actively modifies these ARF reports, particularly by redacting recipient email addresses, and what impact this has on a sender's ability to identify and remove specific users from their lists. Understanding this process is vital for senders who rely on feedback loops (FBLs) to manage spam complaints effectively.
Key findings
- Recipient redaction: Recipient email addresses within ARF reports are frequently redacted or obfuscated. This is a common practice aimed at protecting user privacy.
- Source of modification: The redaction can occur either at the mailbox provider (MBP) level before the report reaches Validity, or by Validity itself as part of its processing for FBL services like its Universal Feedback Loop (UFBL).
- List removal mechanism: Despite redaction, senders are generally expected to identify the complaining recipient for list removal through unique identifiers (often encoded IDs) embedded within the original email, rather than relying on the direct recipient address in the ARF report. This is an explicit recommendation within RFC 6449 on complaint feedback loops.
- Purpose of ARF: The primary goal of ARF is to provide actionable intelligence for senders to maintain good sending practices and manage their email lists, not necessarily to provide raw, unredacted recipient data.
Key considerations
- Data utility: The utility of ARF reports for list removal hinges on the sender's ability to embed and process unique identifiers. If these are not present, redaction can indeed make reports less useful.
- ESPs and raw data: Many email service providers (ESPs) do not retain or expose raw ARF reports to their clients, instead integrating the complaint data into their own dashboards or APIs. This is discussed further in which ESPs pay Validity.
- Validity's role: Validity's Universal Feedback Loop (UFBL) services aggregate and standardize feedback from various MBPs, often including existing redactions or performing their own according to privacy guidelines.
- RFC compliance: The ARF specification (RFC 5965) explicitly allows for redaction for privacy reasons, indicating it is an intended feature of the format.
- Cost implications: The structure and delivery of these reports, even with modifications, impact how Validity charges for its services, as detailed in our guide on Validity's UFBL ARF report costs.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often approach ARF reports and feedback loops with practical goals: identifying problematic subscribers to remove them from their lists and improve deliverability. Their concerns usually revolve around the usability of the data provided, especially when direct recipient email addresses are not visible. This can lead to questions about the effectiveness of FBLs for list hygiene and the true source of data modifications.
Key opinions
- Data obfuscation: Many marketers express confusion or frustration when recipient email addresses appear to be obfuscated or redacted in ARF reports.
- Source of redaction: There's often an assumption that Validity itself performs all the obfuscation, rather than it potentially originating from the Internet Service Provider (ISP) or Mailbox Provider (MBP).
- Report utility: Some marketers question the utility of ARF reports if direct recipient identification isn't straightforward, believing it hinders effective list removal.
- Expected format: The expectation for ARF reports is often that they would contain the full original email as an attachment, including the clear recipient address.
Key considerations
- Encoded identifiers: Marketers need to ensure their email campaigns include unique, encoded identifiers in headers or the body to map ARF complaints back to specific subscribers for efficient list management. This aligns with strategic considerations for list validation.
- Understanding FBLs: A deeper understanding of how feedback loops function, including the typical redaction practices and the role of FBL providers like Validity, is crucial.
- Impact on deliverability: Failing to act on complaint data, even if redacted, can negatively impact sender reputation and inbox placement. This is a key part of the ultimate email deliverability guide.
- ESPs' role: Marketers often rely on their ESPs to parse and provide actionable insights from ARF reports, highlighting the importance of ESPs effectively processing spam complaints from Google and Yahoo.
Marketer view
An Email Geeks marketer asks if Validity is modifying ARF reports before forwarding them, noting that their understanding of ARF was simply wrapping the email as an attachment and sending it on without changes.
Marketer view
An Email Geeks marketer expresses agreement, suggesting that there might be a misunderstanding or an assumption that more obfuscation is occurring than is actually the case, or that Validity is the sole party performing it.
What the experts say
Experts in email deliverability and anti-abuse generally have a nuanced understanding of ARF reports and the role of FBL providers like Validity. They recognize that privacy concerns necessitate redaction, and that the design of FBLs accounts for this by leveraging other identifiers within the email. The key is often in clarifying misconceptions and ensuring senders implement the necessary technical solutions.
Key opinions
- Standard practice: Redaction of recipient addresses in ARF reports is a standard privacy-driven practice by Mailbox Providers (MBPs) and FBL operators, including Validity.
- Encoded identifiers: The mechanism for identifying recipients for list removal has always relied on senders embedding unique, encoded fields in the email headers or body. This is distinct from the recipient address in the feedback report.
- Not 'un-useful': Experts contend that redaction does not render ARF reports 'un-useful' for list removal if senders have correctly implemented unique identifiers.
- Validity's role: Validity's primary function in processing FBLs is to consolidate and normalize data from various sources, passing on information that may already be redacted by the MBPs.
Key considerations
- Sender responsibility: It is the sender's responsibility to implement unique tracking identifiers within their emails to accurately process FBLs and remove complainers, as highlighted by RFC 6449 operational requirements.
- Privacy vs. utility: There's a constant balance between protecting recipient privacy (via redaction) and providing senders with actionable data. The current FBL system aims to achieve both.
- Education: Experts often stress the need to educate marketers on the actual mechanisms of FBLs and how to use them effectively, rather than focusing on perceived obfuscation. This plays into the benefits of Validity Certification.
- ARF structure: The Abuse Reporting Format itself is designed to accommodate various types of feedback, and redaction is an allowed component within its specification, as outlined in RFC 5965.
Expert view
An Email Geeks expert clarifies that recipient addresses are indeed redacted in FBL reports, a modification that can occur either by the Mailbox Provider (MBP) or by the FBL provider like Validity, but this does not make the reports unusable.
Expert view
An Email Geeks expert emphasizes that senders are expected to identify recipients for list removal through encoded fields within the original email, and that the misconception that redaction makes reports un-useful needs correction.
What the documentation says
Official documentation, primarily the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) RFCs concerning email feedback loops and abuse reporting, lays out the technical specifications and operational requirements for ARF reports. These documents clarify how recipient privacy is addressed, and how senders should leverage these reports for list management, emphasizing the role of embedded identifiers over direct email addresses.
Key findings
- ARF specification: RFC 5965, the An Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports, explicitly allows for the redaction of recipient email addresses by report generators for privacy reasons.
- FBL purpose: RFC 6449, Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Requirements, states that the core purpose of a feedback loop is to enable the original sender to identify and remove the complaining recipient from their mailing list.
- Identification method: Documentation implies that this identification is achieved not by revealing the recipient's direct email address in the report, but through unique identifiers placed in the original message by the sender.
- Data utility: The ARF format is designed to provide sufficient data for senders to understand the nature of the complaint and take appropriate action, even with recipient details redacted.
Key considerations
- Sender implementation: Documentation places the onus on senders to correctly implement unique identifiers (e.g., List-Unsubscribe header or unique tracking IDs) to make FBLs actionable for list removal. This also relates to how email forwarding affects reporting.
- Privacy compliance: The redaction practice aligns with general privacy principles, ensuring that sensitive recipient data is not unnecessarily exposed through complaint feedback loops.
- Standardization: The ARF format provides a standardized way for various parties (MBPs, FBL providers, senders) to communicate abuse reports effectively, ensuring consistency in data interpretation.
- DMARC integration: While not directly an ARF modification, the principles of email authentication like DMARC are often integrated with FBLs to provide more comprehensive abuse data, as covered in a simple guide to DMARC.
Technical article
RFC 6449 (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Requirements) states that feedback loop reports enable the sender to remove the Recipient from the Mailing List, even if the Recipient's Email Address is not sufficient or explicitly provided in the report for direct identification.
Technical article
RFC 5965 (An Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports) suggests that report generators might redact the recipient's email address to avoid revealing a valid address on the list that could otherwise remain hidden, prioritizing privacy.
Related resources
4 resources
Related pages
Why is Validity charging for Universal Feedback Loop (UFL) ARF reports?
How do spam complaints from Google and Yahoo inform ESPs?
Strategic considerations for email list validation and identifying who to email
Which ESPs pay Validity for ARF reports and how data is used?
Understanding and troubleshooting DMARC reports from Google and Yahoo
Why Your Emails Fail: Expert Guide to Improve Email Deliverability
Email Deliverability Issues: Getting Your Messages to the Inbox
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
What happens when your domain is on an email blacklist?
An in-depth guide to email blocklists
