Summary
Managing spam complaints across multiple Email Service Providers (ESPs) requires careful consideration, especially when different types of emails (e.g., commercial vs. transactional) are involved. While failing to suppress complaints across all ESPs might seem like a shortcut, it can negatively impact your sender reputation and deliverability in the long run. However, the decision to suppress complaints should align with the specific nature of the email stream and the domains used. It is generally agreed that true transactional emails, such as password resets or receipts, should not be suppressed, even if marked as spam by a user.
Key findings
- Snowshoe spamming: Not suppressing complaints across multiple ESPs, particularly when using different domains, is typically not categorized as snowshoe spamming, which refers to spreading spam over a wide range of IPs and domains to evade detection.
- Reputation impact: The direct impact on your sender reputation varies depending on whether different domains are used for each ESP. If different domains are in use, the reputation problem for each domain tends to be limited.
- Transactional vs. commercial: There's a crucial distinction between commercial marketing emails and essential transactional emails (like receipts, password resets). Suppressing complaints for transactional emails can hinder legitimate user access, as explained in our guide on why emails are suppressed after marking as spam.
- No legal violations: Generally, not syncing complaints across ESPs does not lead to fines or legal violations, although it's not a recommended practice for marketing emails.
Key considerations
- Consistency for marketing emails: If all ESPs are used for high-volume marketing email, syncing spam complaints across them is highly advisable to maintain a consistent sender reputation and improve overall email deliverability. This can help improve email deliverability.
- Distinguish email streams: Clearly differentiate between commercial and true transactional email streams. Complaints for commercial emails should be suppressed, but transactional emails often require different handling.
- Protect deliverability: Regardless of the type of email, a high spam complaint rate can damage your sender reputation and lead to emails being blocked or sent to the spam folder. Understanding why subscribers mark emails as spam is key to reducing these rates.
- Subscriber experience: Suppressing complaints maintains a better subscriber experience and avoids sending unwanted mail, which is fundamental to good email hygiene.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often navigate the complexities of managing multiple ESPs and the associated spam complaints. While the immediate focus might be on preventing blacklists or maintaining sender reputation on a single platform, the broader impact of not syncing suppression lists can lead to diminished returns across all sending efforts. The consensus leans towards syncing for marketing communications but allows for exceptions with critical transactional mail.
Key opinions
- Impact on reputation: Marketers acknowledge that consistent spam reports across ESPs can negatively impact sender reputation and inbox placement, leading to emails landing in spam folders.
- Different domains, different impact: If multiple ESPs are used with distinct domains, the reputation impact of unsynced complaints might be less severe for individual domains, but still undesirable overall.
- Risk of account suspension: Some ESPs have strict policies, and consistently high complaint rates can result in account suspension or termination for unsolicited outreach.
- Maintaining compliance: An email suppression list helps marketers stay compliant with email regulations and best practices, managing who should not receive emails to improve deliverability.
Key considerations
- Suppression for marketing: For marketing email streams, it is crucial to immediately suppress email addresses that generate spam complaints across all active ESPs to protect sender reputation.
- Transactional email exception: If an ESP handles purely transactional emails (like receipts or password resets), suppressing complaints may not be necessary or even advisable, as it could prevent legitimate service delivery.
- Monitoring complaint rates: Regular monitoring of spam complaint rates across all sending platforms is essential. Tools like Google Postmaster Tools can help track these metrics for your domains, as detailed in our guide on how to monitor complaint rates.
- Benefits of suppression lists: Using a suppression list helps maintain email hygiene, improves deliverability, and ensures messages reach the inbox, as highlighted by Mailchimp's guide on suppression lists.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks states that while failing to suppress complaints across multiple ESPs might be unwise, it is not typically categorized as snowshoe behavior, which has a more specific meaning in the industry.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Mailgun advises that too many subscribers marking emails as spam significantly damages sender reputation. They outline five reasons why this occurs and five ways to actively reduce your spam complaint rate to maintain strong deliverability.
What the experts say
Deliverability experts generally agree on the importance of suppressing spam complaints to protect sender reputation, but they also emphasize the nuances between different email types. While unifying suppression lists for marketing emails is a strong recommendation, handling transactional emails requires a different approach to ensure critical communications reach their recipients. Understanding ISP expectations and internal processes is key to effective multi-ESP management.
Key opinions
- Behavioral distinction: Experts differentiate between commercial and transactional email streams when it comes to spam complaint suppression, noting that true transactional emails (like password resets) should often bypass such suppression.
- No snowshoe: Not syncing complaints across multiple ESPs for different email types or brands is not typically defined as snowshoe spamming, which is a specific abusive tactic.
- Reputation segmentation: The reputation impact of complaints is largely contained to the specific domain or IP used by an ESP, limiting cross-platform reputation damage if domains are separate.
- Importance of feedback loops: ESPs play a role in blocking spam, and handling feedback loops correctly is crucial for maintaining sender reputation and avoiding blacklists. For more on this, see Abusix's insights on ESPs and spam.
Key considerations
- Goal clarity: Define the objective when considering complaint suppression across ESPs. If the goal is overall consistency for marketing, then syncing is beneficial.
- Transactional email policy: Implement clear policies for transactional emails to avoid suppressing critical communications that users depend on, even if they mistakenly mark them as spam.
- Unified suppression for marketing: If multiple ESPs are used for the same marketing email campaigns, establishing a global suppression list for complaints is a best practice. This also applies to global suppression lists for hard bounces.
- Sender reputation management: Proactive management of spam complaints is vital for maintaining a healthy sender reputation, which directly influences inbox placement. Learn more about high spam rates and ESP blocking.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks indicates that it is generally not advisable to suppress transactional emails for spam complaints if these emails are critical for user functionality, such as receipts, password resets, or one-time passcodes (OTPs).
Expert view
Expert from Word to the Wise explains that email blacklists are a crucial part of the email ecosystem, used by ESPs to maintain a safe environment. Getting listed on a blacklist is relatively easy for companies that disregard best practices, highlighting the importance of managing complaints.
What the documentation says
Official documentation and industry guidelines typically underscore the importance of honoring subscriber preferences and managing spam complaints efficiently. While specific mandates for cross-ESP suppression may not be explicitly detailed, the underlying principles of maintaining sender reputation and respecting user feedback strongly imply the need for a unified approach to suppression for commercial mail. The key is to leverage feedback loops effectively and integrate suppression processes across all platforms to ensure optimal deliverability and compliance.
Key findings
- ESPs' responsibility: ESPs are critical players in blocking spam and malicious traffic. Their internal systems and policies are designed to manage sender reputation and ensure email ecosystem safety.
- Feedback loop integration: Many ESPs automatically process feedback loop (FBL) data to suppress users who mark emails as spam, which is crucial for compliance and deliverability. Not all ISPs share FBL data uniformly.
- Reputation monitoring: Inbox providers (ISPs) use various factors, including spam complaints, to assess sender reputation and decide email delivery. A too-high spam rate can lead to emails not being delivered.
- Suppression for compliance: Email suppression lists are a vital tool for compliance with regulations and to improve deliverability by avoiding sending mail to recipients who have complained or hard bounced.
Key considerations
- Unified suppression strategy: While not always explicitly mandated for cross-ESP use, a unified suppression strategy for marketing emails is a best practice to protect overall sender reputation across all sending platforms. This aligns with guidelines on handling spam complaints and FBLs.
- Respecting subscriber feedback: Immediately removing addresses that report spam helps maintain a positive relationship with mailbox providers and enhances deliverability.
- Sender reputation management: ISPs monitor spam complaint rates closely. Keeping these rates low (e.g., below 0.3%) is vital to avoid deliverability issues and being added to a blacklist or blocklist, as discussed in WP Mail SMTP's guide on spam thresholds.
- Differentiating email types: Separate handling for transactional emails versus marketing emails is implicitly supported by documentation focusing on responding to abuse complaints and feedback loops.
Technical article
Documentation from Mailchimp resources explains that an email suppression list is a key tool for improving deliverability and ensuring compliance. It helps manage contacts who should not be emailed, including those who have complained or unsubscribed.
Technical article
The Klaviyo Help Center notes that most major inbox providers, like Gmail, do not typically share spam complaints directly with third-party ESPs. This limited visibility often makes it challenging for ESPs to get full feedback loop data directly from all sources.
Related resources
15 resources
Related pages
Should email senders respond to abuse complaints and feedback loops?
Does sending high-spam emails from a shared IP negatively impact other campaigns, and should they be isolated?
Why are emails suppressed by an ESP after a subscriber marks them as spam and re-subscribes?
How can spam complaints and bad content choices impact email deliverability?
How can I track spam complaints for my marketing emails?
Should ESPs use global suppression lists for hard bounces across different customers?
What do ESPs do when a subscriber marks an email as spam?
What is considered a high spam rate that leads to ESP blocking and how should complaint rates be calculated?
An in-depth guide to email blocklists
Why your emails are going to spam in 2024 and how to fix it
