How should email service providers respond to spam trap hits?

Key findings

• Signal of poor practices: Spam trap hits are a clear indicator to ESPs and ISPs that a sender's email practices may not align with best practices, potentially impacting their sender reputation.
• Volume matters: The severity of spam trap hits is often proportional to sending volume. A small number of hits within a large send may be less concerning than the same number of hits in a very small send.
• Correlation with other metrics: While significant, spam trap data should be evaluated alongside other metrics like hard bounces and spam complaints, as these collectively indicate overall sending health.
• Types of traps: Different types of spam traps, such as pristine (or pure) and recycled, carry varying levels of severity. Pristine traps are typically more critical as they indicate acquisition issues.

Key considerations

• Define clear thresholds: ESPs should establish specific, data-driven thresholds for when spam trap hits trigger warnings, restrictions, or suspensions for senders.
• Inform senders: Transparently communicate spam trap hit information and the associated consequences to affected senders, providing guidance on how to improve their practices.
• Automate responses: Implement automated systems to detect and respond to spam trap hits in a timely and consistent manner, based on predefined policies.
• Adopt multi-layered detection: Rely on multiple data sources and indicators, not just one, to identify problematic senders and potential bad actors, as detailed by EmailTooltester.com.
• Consider the recipient base: Analyze the frequency and spread of recipients across different domains (public vs. corporate) when assessing the impact of spam trap hits, as this can influence risk.

Key opinions

• Need for formal policies: Marketers frequently express the need for formalized and automated responses to spam trap hits, including clear thresholds for actions like restricting or suspending sending.
• Proportionality with volume: A common sentiment is that the impact of spam trap hits should be assessed proportionally to the sender's total email volume. A high volume sender might have more hits but a lower rate than a low volume sender.
• Client communication: It is crucial to inform senders when they hit traps and the actions being taken, sometimes leading to direct conversations or mandatory blocks.
• Leveraging engagement data: Some marketers suggest using engagement metrics to identify active users and tailor sending restrictions, ensuring less impact on legitimate recipients.
• List hygiene importance: Marketers consistently emphasize that maintaining a clean and healthy contact list is the primary defense against spam traps, as noted by Mailjet.

Key considerations

• Balancing enforcement: ESPs must find a balance between enforcing strict policies to protect their reputation and providing flexibility for legitimate senders, especially those with large lists.
• Clear communication: Develop comprehensive communication plans to educate senders about spam traps, their impact, and the necessary corrective actions.
• Preventive measures: Implement and recommend robust list acquisition and email address validation practices to minimize the entry of spam traps.
• Monitoring and reporting: Continuously monitor and report on spam trap hits, providing senders with actionable data to improve their practices and avoid email deliverability issues.

Key opinions

• Data-driven thresholds: Experts advise gathering frequency distribution data to understand the actual prevalence of spam trap hits before setting concrete blocking or suspension thresholds.
• Holistic view: Spam traps are important indicators, but they are not always the highest correlated factor for blacklisting. Hard bounces and spam complaints often play a more direct role.
• Multi-layered identification: It is critical to use multiple data sources and layers to identify problematic senders, rather than relying on a single source of spam trap data.
• Recipient base analysis: Considering the frequency and spread of recipients across various public and corporate domains is essential for a comprehensive assessment of spam trap impact.
• Proactive hygiene: Proactive list cleaning and suppression of unengaged subscribers are crucial steps to minimize exposure to spam traps and maintain a positive sender reputation, as discussed by Spamresource.com.

Key considerations

• Quantitative analysis: Utilize statistical methods like Spearman correlation tests to understand how spam trap hits relate to other deliverability issues, such as blocklisting.
• Dynamic rule-setting: Develop internal rules and alerts based on historical data and observed patterns of problematic senders, which can be more tailored than external guidelines.
• Continuous monitoring: Maintain vigilant monitoring of email streams for any anomalies associated with spam trap hits to allow for prompt intervention.
• Comprehensive data integration: Integrate spam trap data with a wide array of other deliverability metrics to gain a comprehensive understanding of sender health and potential risks.
• Understanding trap types: Recognize that the type of spam trap hit provides different insights into list acquisition practices. Pristine traps are particularly indicative of poor methods.

Key findings

• Fraud management tools: Spam traps are primarily used as fraud management tools to monitor email communications, identify spammers, and pinpoint senders with incorrect contact management practices, as documented by Mailjet.
• Detection mechanisms: They operate by monitoring email addresses that should not be active or by deploying specially crafted addresses to catch problematic senders.
• Impact on deliverability: Consistent spam trap hits can significantly harm email deliverability, potentially leading to domains or IPs being placed on a blacklist or blocklist, which can entirely prevent emails from reaching inboxes.
• Types of traps and implications: Documentation often distinguishes between pristine (pure) spam traps, which were never valid addresses and indicate poor list acquisition, and recycled traps, which were once valid but repurposed after abandonment.

Key considerations

• Adherence to best practices: ESPs should emphasize and enforce best practices for list management, including obtaining proper consent, regular list cleaning, and avoiding purchased lists, to help senders avoid spam traps.
• Technical definitions: Understand the technical definitions and functions of spam traps to accurately interpret data from sources like 250ok or similar trap providers, as explained by TechTarget.com.
• Impact mitigation: Develop clear guidelines for senders on what happens when a spam trap is hit and how to mitigate the effects, potentially involving temporary sending restrictions.
• Sender reputation preservation: ESPs are responsible for helping their clients preserve their sender reputation, which includes proactive measures against spam traps and clear communication.