Which ESPs are known to be paying Validity for ARF reports?

While Validity has not published a public list, industry observations suggest a mixed approach. Some large ESPs, like Acoustic, appear to be paying for the service. Many others have reportedly chosen not to pay, opting for alternative data sources or relying more on direct feedback loops from mailbox providers.

How do ESPs primarily use the ARF data they receive?

ARF data is primarily used by ESPs for list hygiene, specifically to process unsubscribes and remove recipients who have marked emails as spam. Some ESPs also aggregate this data to provide clients with an overview of complaint rates and trends.

Are ARF reports effective for identifying email abuse beyond unsubscribes?

While ARF reports are essential for list hygiene, they may not be the most effective for detecting actual abuse or identifying specific spam traps. ESPs often use other metrics, such as bounce rates, spam trap hits, and direct feedback from major ISPs, for more comprehensive abuse detection. ARF data reflects the date of the complaint, not necessarily the campaign send date.

What alternatives do ESPs use if they don't pay for Validity's ARF reports?

ESPs that do not pay for Validity’s ARF reports typically rely on a combination of methods. This includes direct feedback loops from major mailbox providers (like Google and Yahoo Postmaster Tools), internal engagement metrics, and other third-party deliverability tools to monitor sender reputation and performance.

Which ESPs pay Validity for ARF reports and how is the data used? - Sender reputation - Email deliverability - Knowledge base

The landscape of email deliverability is constantly shifting, and one of the most significant changes in recent times has involved Validity’s decision to begin charging for their Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) reports. This move sparked considerable discussion among email service providers (ESPs) and the broader email community, raising questions about costs, the utility of the data, and the overall impact on sender reputation management.

For years, ARF reports have been a cornerstone of feedback loops (FBLs), allowing mailbox providers to inform senders when recipients mark their emails as spam. This vital feedback helps ESPs and senders identify problematic campaigns, manage subscriber lists, and ultimately improve their email programs. However, the introduction of a fee created a new hurdle, forcing ESPs to re-evaluate their strategies and the value they placed on this specific data.

The decision to pay for these reports became a crucial business and deliverability choice for many ESPs. This article will explore which ESPs have reportedly chosen to pay for these reports, how they utilize the data, and the alternative approaches taken by those who opted out. Understanding this dynamic is key to navigating the complexities of modern email deliverability.

The role of ARF reports in email deliverability

ARF, or the Abuse Reporting Format, is a standardized format for reporting email abuse. It provides details like the full email headers and additional machine-readable metadata, crucial for identifying the sender and the offending email content. This format became a de facto standard for feedback messages, used by nearly all major mailbox providers, including Yahoo. These reports are intended to help senders remove problematic recipients from their lists and prevent future deliverability issues.

The shift to a paid model

Validity, a prominent player in email deliverability, announced in 2023 that they would begin charging for access to individual ARF reports via their Universal Feedback Loop (UFBL) service. The fee was set at an annual rate, impacting ESPs and large senders who relied on this data. This decision was met with mixed reactions across the industry, with some fearing negative impacts on the broader email ecosystem, as it could limit access to crucial feedback data for many organizations.

The change meant that ESPs had to consider the financial implications of maintaining access to these reports, weighing the cost against the benefits of the data. For a comprehensive breakdown of the pricing and its implications, it’s worth reviewing the details on why Validity started charging for ARF reports and how their pricing tiers compare.

ESPs that pay for ARF reports

Following Validity’s announcement, ESPs were faced with a strategic decision: pay the fee to continue receiving ARF reports, or find alternative methods for feedback data. While no official public list exists of which ESPs decided to pay, indications from within the industry suggest a mixed response. Some large ESPs, for whom deliverability data is paramount, likely opted to pay to maintain comprehensive feedback channels. For instance, Acoustic has been observed to be receiving the data, which suggests they are among those who opted into the paid service.

However, many other ESPs reportedly chose not to pay, deeming the cost too high or the value of the data, especially when compared to other metrics, insufficient to justify the expense. This decision often led them to explore alternative feedback mechanisms or rely more heavily on other deliverability insights they already possessed. It highlighted a potential divergence in how different ESPs prioritize and manage their feedback loops.

The ESP dilemma

The choice to pay or not often depended on an ESP's client base, scale of operations, and existing deliverability infrastructure. Those heavily invested in providing granular deliverability reporting to their clients might have found it necessary to continue subscribing to Validity's service, while others with different models or more diversified data sources could afford to bypass it. This also spurred interest in alternatives to Validity for certification and deliverability data.

Paying for ARF reports

Comprehensive data: Continues to receive individual ARF reports, providing detailed spam complaint data across various mailbox providers.
Client reporting: Can offer clients a more complete picture of their campaign performance, including specific complaint details.
Seamless integration: Avoids the need to develop new data acquisition or processing methods for these specific reports.

Not paying for ARF reports

Cost savings: Avoids the annual fee for Validity's service, reducing operational costs.
Focus on other metrics: Encourages reliance on other key deliverability indicators that may offer more actionable insights.
Diversified data sources: Promotes seeking feedback directly from other major ISPs or using internal analytics.

How ESPs use ARF data

For ESPs that do subscribe to Validity’s ARF report service, the data is primarily used for list hygiene and abuse mitigation. The core function of an ARF report is to signal that an email recipient has marked a message as unwanted or spam. Upon receiving such a report, an ESP should immediately remove that recipient from the sender’s active mailing list to prevent further complaints and protect sender reputation.

Beyond unsubs: limitations of ARF data

While essential for unsubscription processing, ARF reports are often not the best sole indicator for identifying actual malicious abuse or spam trap hits. Other metrics and internal monitoring tools provide more comprehensive insights into such issues. For example, sudden spikes in bounce rates or hits on known spam traps can be stronger signals of broader sending issues than individual ARF reports. You can read more about how spam complaints should be used.

ESPs also aggregate ARF data internally to provide a broader context for their clients. This involves normalizing complaint rates based on domain volumes and integrating them into client dashboards. This allows clients to see trends over time, understand the overall health of their sending practices, and make informed decisions. However, a common pitfall is that some ESPs do not normalize this data, leading clients to potentially misunderstand their actual complaint rates.

Understanding ARF data aggregation

When ESPs receive ARF reports, the data typically pertains to the date the complaint was filed, rather than the specific campaign date. This means a complaint filed today could be for an email sent a week ago. This characteristic impacts how ESPs analyze the data, making it more suitable for understanding overall subscriber sentiment and list hygiene than for pinpointing the exact performance of a single campaign.

ESPs must account for this when presenting complaint rates to clients, ensuring clarity on whether the data reflects current sends or a rolling window of complaints. Proper interpretation helps avoid confusion and provides more accurate insights into deliverability performance.

Alternative feedback and data utilization

Beyond Validity’s FBL service, ESPs rely on a variety of feedback mechanisms and internal data to manage deliverability and sender reputation. Major mailbox providers like Google and Yahoo also provide their own direct feedback loops and postmaster tools. These tools offer aggregated data on spam complaints, domain reputation, and other key metrics, allowing senders to monitor their performance without relying solely on third-party services. This includes engagement feeds and other valuable insights, as discussed in our article on which mailbox providers report spam complaints.

Internal metrics, such as open rates, click-through rates, unsubscribe rates, and bounce rates, play an equally critical role. These engagement signals provide immediate and often more granular feedback on subscriber interest and list quality. Combined with data from blocklist monitoring and spam trap hits, ESPs can build a holistic view of a sender’s deliverability health. This integrated approach is essential for identifying patterns of potential abuse or areas for optimization.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of an ESP’s deliverability strategy relies less on a single data source and more on its ability to synthesize information from various channels. Whether an ESP pays for Validity’s ARF reports or opts for alternative feedback mechanisms, the goal remains the same: to ensure legitimate emails reach the inbox while preventing unwanted messages from harming sender reputation. Understanding the essential ESP capabilities for deliverability insights is key.

Data source	Type of feedback	Primary use
Validity FBL (ARF)	Individual complaint reports	Subscriber list hygiene, unsubscribe processing
Google Postmaster Tools	Aggregated complaint rates, reputation scores	Monitoring domain reputation and overall deliverability health
Comcast FBL / Yahoo Postmaster	Aggregated complaint data	Insights for specific providers, list management for Comcast users
Internal ESP metrics	Open rates, clicks, bounces, unsubscribes	Campaign performance, subscriber engagement, list quality

Adapting to the evolving landscape

The email deliverability landscape continues to evolve, and the shift in Validity's ARF report policy is a testament to this. While some ESPs have chosen to pay for continued access to this data, many others have adapted by leveraging alternative feedback mechanisms and robust internal analytics. Regardless of the approach, the core principles of good sending practices, such as maintaining clean lists and sending relevant content, remain paramount.