Summary
Email bounce management is a critical aspect of maintaining good sender reputation and ensuring high deliverability. Email Service Providers (ESPs) play a crucial role in accurately classifying and handling various bounce types to optimize email campaigns. The core challenge lies in distinguishing between temporary (soft) and permanent (hard) failures, and implementing appropriate suppression strategies to prevent future issues and protect sender score.
Key findings
- SMTP codes: Yahoo's SMTP responses 554 30 (mailbox disabled) and 552 1 (mailbox not found) are indicative of permanent failures.
- Hard vs. soft classification: While 5xx SMTP codes generally signify hard bounces (permanent failures), a nuanced approach is necessary, as not all 5xx codes are treated identically across all Mailbox Providers (MBPs).
- Suppression strategy: For permanent bounces, immediate and indefinite suppression of the email address is crucial to protect sender reputation.
- Beyond classification: Some experts advocate for moving beyond the strict hard/soft bounce dichotomy towards a more action-oriented classification based on whether an address should be removed from future mailings, regardless of the temporary or permanent nature of the bounce. This reflects a broader industry sentiment that current bounce management practices may be incredibly broken.
Key considerations
- ESPs' responsibility: ESPs should have robust systems to parse SMTP responses and classify bounces accurately. This includes handling SMTP bounce codes for deliverability and managing soft bounce tolerance.
- Customer communication: ESPs should clearly communicate bounce classifications and their implications to their clients, advising on best practices for list hygiene.
- Reputation impact: Continually attempting to send to bounced addresses (especially hard bounces) can severely damage a sender's reputation and lead to blocklisting.
- Evolving standards: The industry's understanding of bounces is evolving, with a growing emphasis on actionable insights over rigid categorization, requiring ESPs to adapt their systems and advice.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often simplify bounce classification into two main types: hard bounces and soft bounces. Their primary concern is usually the impact on campaign performance and list hygiene. They look to ESPs for clear guidance on what to do with addresses that bounce, prioritizing suppression to maintain sender reputation and avoid wasted sends.
Key opinions
- Clear-cut classification: Many marketers immediately classify 5xx SMTP responses as hard bounces, signifying a permanent delivery failure that requires immediate address removal.
- Action-oriented approach: The practical implication for marketers is whether to stop sending to an address, rather than getting caught up in the technical nuances of bounce types.
- Focus on suppression: Hard bounces mean the email address is invalid or non-existent, and should be promptly added to a suppression list to protect sender reputation.
- Deliverability impact: High hard bounce rates negatively impact deliverability and sender score, making proactive management essential for successful campaigns.
Key considerations
- List hygiene: Marketers should regularly clean their lists based on bounce data, understanding what constitutes a hard or soft bounce.
- Understanding ESP handling: It's important for marketers to know how their ESP processes bounces and what information is provided.
- Avoiding resends: Never resend emails to addresses that have hard bounced. This wastes resources and damages sender reputation, as highlighted by Moosend's guide.
- Monitoring bounce rates: Regularly monitor bounce rates as a key indicator of list health and campaign effectiveness.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks indicates that 5xx errors are typically classified as hard bounces, although there might be rare exceptions. This suggests a general rule of thumb for quick classification by ESPs.
Marketer view
Marketer from MessageFlow highlights that soft bounces are temporary delivery failures, while hard bounces indicate permanent issues. Proper management of each type is crucial for maintaining sender reputation and deliverability.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts emphasize the permanent nature of certain bounce codes and the crucial role ESPs play in interpreting these signals for optimal sender reputation management. They often highlight the shortcomings of traditional hard/soft bounce classifications, advocating for more sophisticated handling that focuses on the practical outcome: whether an address should be suppressed.
Key opinions
- Permanent failure identification: Responses like 554 30 and 552 1 from Yahoo are unequivocally hard bounces, meaning the address is permanently undeliverable.
- Beyond 5xx generalities: While most 5xx codes indicate hard bounces, experienced deliverability experts know to look for rare exceptions that might be temporary.
- Flaws in current systems: The existing frameworks for bounce classification and management are often deemed insufficient or broken, not adequately serving the needs of senders or ESPs.
- Need for actionability: The primary goal of bounce handling should be to determine if an address should be removed from future mailings, simplifying the decision process for ESPs and senders alike.
Key considerations
- ESPs' nuanced handling: ESPs should not just generically classify 5xx codes but also understand specific sub-codes and provider nuances, like reputation-based bounces from Oath.
- Educating clients: ESPs have a responsibility to educate clients on effective bounce management strategies, including when to suppress addresses indefinitely.
- Impact on sender score: Improper bounce handling, especially repeatedly sending to bad addresses, directly harms sender reputation and inbox placement.
- Driving evolution: Experts recognize the need for a shift in how bounces are conceived and managed, urging the industry to move towards more practical, forward-thinking solutions to improve overall deliverability and reduce wasted effort, as discussed on Spam Resource.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks states that both Yahoo's 554 30 and 552 1 responses are considered hard bounces. ESPs should permanently stop attempting to deliver messages to these addresses and advise customers to suppress them.
Expert view
Expert from Spam Resource suggests that strict categorization of bounces into 'hard' or 'soft' sometimes oversimplifies complex scenarios. A focus on the actionable outcome, such as whether to suppress, is often more beneficial for deliverability.
What the documentation says
Official email specifications and industry guidelines provide the foundational rules for SMTP communication, including bounce responses. While RFCs define the codes, practical implementation by Mailbox Providers often introduces nuances. Documentation typically distinguishes between transient (4xx) and permanent (5xx) failures, guiding ESPs on how to classify and react to ensure protocol compliance and maintain system health.
Key findings
- RFC compliance: The SMTP 5xx series of reply codes, as defined in RFCs, signifies permanent negative completion replies, meaning the email action could not be taken and the error condition is likely to persist.
- Specific error codes: Codes like 550 (mailbox not found, rejected for policy reasons) and 554 (transaction failed) are explicitly defined as permanent failures.
- Transient vs. permanent: Official documentation differentiates between 4xx (transient) and 5xx (permanent) error codes, which forms the basis for hard and soft bounce classification.
- Importance of sub-codes: While the primary 5xx category indicates permanence, the sub-codes (e.g., 5.2.1) provide more granular detail on the specific reason for the permanent failure, such as a disabled mailbox.
Key considerations
- Adherence to RFCs: ESPs should adhere to the standards outlined in RFC 5321 and other relevant RFCs for interpreting SMTP responses. This ensures consistent and predictable bounce handling across the ecosystem.
- Automated suppression: Documentation supports the automatic suppression of addresses generating 5xx bounces, as continued attempts are futile and harmful to sender reputation.
- Detailed logging: ESPs should log full SMTP responses, not just a generic bounce type. This detailed information is crucial for accurate analysis and for clients to parse SMTP responses themselves.
- Standardized classification: While specific MBPs may have unique sub-codes or interpretations, the underlying classification into permanent vs. temporary failures remains a consistent guideline from official documentation.
Technical article
RFC 5321, the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol documentation, specifies that 5xx reply codes indicate permanent negative completion replies. This means the command cannot be accepted, and the error condition is likely to be permanent, necessitating a hard bounce classification.
Technical article
Microsoft's documentation for Exchange Server states that a 550 5.1.1 error, common for 'mailbox not found' or 'user unknown', is a non-delivery report (NDR) indicating a permanent failure. ESPs should classify this as a hard bounce and remove the address.
Related resources
8 resources
![Hard Bounce vs Soft Bounce: What's The Difference [2024]](https://moosend.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Hard-bounce-vs-Soft-bounce.png)
Related pages
What is the difference between hard and soft email bounces and how should they be managed?
Should you resend emails to hard bounces, and how are hard and soft bounces defined?
How do email service providers manage soft and hard bounces, bounce codes, and soft bounce tolerance?
How do email service providers classify and manage SMTP bounce codes for deliverability?
What are the definitions and utility of block, soft, and hard email bounces?
How should 'disabled mailbox' email bounces be classified and managed by ESPs?
What types of email bounces should be eliminated and which should be monitored?
What are the best practices for managing hard and soft bounces in daily email campaigns?
Why Your Emails Fail: Expert Guide to Improve Email Deliverability [2025]
An in-depth guide to email blocklists
