Summary
Email deliverability can often feel like an unpredictable challenge, with messages landing in spam or going missing entirely despite best efforts. This unpredictability stems from the complex and often opaque filtering decisions made by email providers. These decisions are not always purely technical; they can be influenced by assumptions about user behavior, internal organizational structures, and the perceived value of different email streams. Understanding these underlying assumptions is crucial for senders aiming to improve their inbox placement rates.
Key findings
- User interaction signals: Email providers often prioritize aggregate user engagement metrics, potentially penalizing entire campaigns even if a significant portion of users actively engage. This can lead to engaged subscribers receiving desired emails in spam folders, which is a major pain point for senders.
- User behavior assumptions: Providers assume users will check spam folders or actively provide feedback on misclassified emails. However, many users are unaware of their spam folder or the process of marking emails as not spam, leading to a lack of accurate feedback for the filtering systems.
- Feedback loop challenges: The process for users to provide feedback to email providers about misclassified mail is often cumbersome, leading to low participation. Users are more likely to complain directly to the sender rather than engaging with the provider's support systems, limiting data for algorithm improvement.
- Internal complexities: Large email providers, especially those with extensive infrastructure, may face internal organizational challenges that prevent cohesive data analysis and consistent policy enforcement. This can result in conflicting signals or an inability to accurately assess metrics like FBL (Feedback Loop) rates.
- Cognitive biases: Filtering systems may exhibit forms of confirmation bias, where initial negative signals disproportionately influence future filtering decisions, making it harder for senders to rehabilitate their reputation.
Key considerations
- Monitor engagement closely: Pay attention to both overall engagement and the behavior of highly active segments of your audience. If these active users start seeing emails in spam, it indicates a broader issue with your reputation.
- Educate your audience: Encourage subscribers to check their spam folder and mark your emails as not spam or to move them to the inbox. Simple instructions on your website or in onboarding emails can make a difference.
- Simplify feedback: Make it easy for users to report delivery issues directly to you, the sender. While they may not contact the ISP, their feedback to you can help you identify trends and issues.
- Focus on sender reputation: Since providers make their own decisions, maintaining a pristine sender reputation is paramount. This includes proper authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) and consistent good sending practices.
- Acknowledge the black box: Recognize that email filtering is not always logical. Providers use complex algorithms that combine technical checks with behavioral signals, sometimes leading to outcomes that seem inconsistent from a sender's perspective. For a general overview, consider understanding email filtering techniques.
What email marketers say
Email marketers frequently express frustration over the seemingly arbitrary filtering decisions made by email service providers (ESPs) and internet service providers (ISPs). There's a common sentiment that these providers often overlook key indicators of legitimate engagement, leading to a significant portion of valuable email traffic being misclassified as spam. This directly impacts campaign performance and subscriber engagement, prompting marketers to constantly adapt their strategies.
Key opinions
- Ignored engagement: Marketers observe that providers, including giants like Gmail, appear to disregard active user engagement when filtering, pushing even frequently opened newsletters to spam for dedicated readers. This makes it difficult to maintain consistent communication with engaged subscribers.
- Spam folder misconception: There's a strong belief that providers incorrectly assume users will regularly check their spam folders for legitimate mail. Marketers find that most users consider the spam folder a dumping ground and are often unaware of its existence, or how to rescue emails from it.
- User feedback barriers: Marketers lament the difficulty in getting users to provide feedback to email providers. Users are more likely to complain to the sender directly, rather than navigating complex provider support processes to report a false positive.
- Lack of transparency: Many feel that providers operate with a black box approach to filtering decisions, making it hard to diagnose and fix issues effectively. This is especially true for identifying why emails end up in specific tabs.
Key considerations
- Emphasize inbox actions: Actively encourage subscribers to add your email to their address book and move emails to their primary inbox. This direct action provides strong positive signals to ISPs.
- Monitor delivery metrics: Regularly check your delivery and inbox placement rates across different providers. Tools that show where your emails are landing (inbox, spam, promotions) are invaluable. Also, understand why emails might go missing entirely.
- Segment based on engagement: While providers might generalize, segmenting your lists by engagement level and sending more frequently to your most active subscribers can help maintain a positive reputation for those segments.
- Adapt to provider whims: Stay informed about specific provider updates and changes in their filtering algorithms. What works today might not work tomorrow, necessitating continuous adaptation. For instance, mail servers play a pivotal role in email fate.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks suggests that many email providers consistently make filtering decisions that seem illogical or even weird. They often act as if their systems are infallible, even when the outcomes are detrimental to legitimate senders and their engaged subscribers. This leads to a persistent struggle for deliverability.Their assumptions behind these filtering choices are frequently baseless, failing to account for real-world user behavior or the importance of consistent email delivery for daily communications. This disconnect between provider logic and user reality is a significant hurdle for marketers trying to reach their audience.
Marketer view
A marketer on a forum suggests that email providers seem to operate under the flawed assumption that users will diligently search their spam folders for desired emails. This is a critical misunderstanding, as most users are trained to view the spam folder as exclusively for unwanted mail.Furthermore, many users are completely unaware they even have a spam folder, or they lack the knowledge to mark an email as not spam. This disconnect means valuable feedback is rarely provided to improve filtering algorithms, perpetuating the problem.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts often highlight that seemingly weird filtering decisions by email providers stem from a combination of complex, often proprietary algorithms, and fundamental misconceptions about user behavior. These experts point to a systemic issue where provider assumptions, rather than real-world data, drive filtering logic, leading to frustrating outcomes for senders.
Key opinions
- User passivity assumed: Experts find that providers mistakenly assume users are proactive in managing spam, including checking spam folders or engaging with mark as not spam functions. This assumption leads to algorithms that don't receive the necessary user feedback to self-correct.
- Broken feedback mechanisms: The cumbersome nature of official user feedback channels to providers means these systems are underutilized. Users prefer to engage with senders, creating a data void for ISPs trying to refine their filters.
- Inconsistent data insights: Internal organizational silos within large providers can lead to inconsistent data analysis, making it hard to get an accurate picture of critical metrics like Feedback Loop (FBL) rates. This hinders effective policy adjustments.
- Holistic view needed: There's a call for providers to adopt a more holistic view of email engagement, rather than just focusing on negative signals or aggregate data. Distinguishing between active and passive users for filtering decisions is crucial.
Key considerations
- Advocate for transparency: Experts continue to push for greater transparency from email providers regarding their filtering criteria and decision-making processes. This would allow senders to better understand and adapt to the rules.
- Prioritize user experience: Focus on optimizing the user experience to encourage positive engagement signals. This includes clear calls to action, personalized content, and easy unsubscribe options.
- Understand behavioral filtering: Recognize that providers increasingly use individual user behavior to filter emails. This means a good sender reputation might not be enough if individual users rarely engage with your mail. Learn about individual level filtering.
- Leverage Postmaster Tools: Utilize tools like Google Postmaster Tools or similar offerings from other providers to gain insights into your sending reputation and spam rates directly from the source. For example, Google Postmaster Tools V2 can be very insightful.
- Be prepared for the unpredictable: Given the dynamic and sometimes illogical nature of filtering, experts advise senders to continuously monitor their deliverability and be ready to troubleshoot and adapt quickly. Some issues, like phishing attacks, can lead to immediate filtering.
Expert view
Email expert from Email Geeks notes a recurring frustration that Microsoft often seems to complicate email delivery. The concern is that Microsoft's systems, despite their scale, introduce unforeseen issues that impact deliverability for legitimate senders.This suggests a lack of predictability or stability in their filtering, forcing senders to constantly anticipate potential problems rather than relying on consistent performance. It highlights the significant influence a single large provider can have on the broader email ecosystem.
Expert view
An expert from SpamResource comments that a significant challenge in email filtering is the difficulty in accurately measuring key performance indicators, such as the actual volume of Feedback Loop (FBL) reports. They suggest that some large email providers may not even have a clear internal grasp of these numbers.This organizational ambiguity can lead to flawed filtering decisions, as the systems lack the precise data needed to understand the true impact of their policies on user experience and sender reputation. Without accurate metrics, it's hard to improve.
What the documentation says
Official documentation and technical guides on email filtering systems often detail a rigorous, multi-layered approach to combating spam and malicious email. While these resources outline the technical frameworks and best practices, they sometimes gloss over the practical complexities and the human-behavior assumptions inherent in such systems. The discrepancy between theoretical design and real-world outcomes can lead to filtering decisions that appear counter-intuitive from a sender's perspective.
Key findings
- Layered defense mechanisms: Email filtering involves multiple stages, from connection-level checks (IP reputation, blocklists) to content analysis (spam scores, keyword filtering) and behavioral analysis (user engagement).
- Dynamic rule sets: Filtering rules are not static; they continuously evolve using machine learning and artificial intelligence to adapt to new spamming techniques and user feedback. This dynamic nature can lead to shifts in filtering behavior.
- Authentication importance: Standards like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC are foundational for establishing sender legitimacy. However, compliance with these standards doesn't guarantee inbox placement, as other factors come into play.
- Emphasis on user signals: Documentation often stresses the importance of explicit and implicit user feedback (e.g., opens, clicks, replies, spam complaints, spam trap hits) in shaping reputation and filtering outcomes.
Key considerations
- Technical compliance is baseline: While essential, simply having correct SPF, DKIM, and DMARC records is not sufficient for optimal deliverability. These are necessary but not exhaustive conditions for inbox placement.
- Behavioral metrics are key: Focus on driving positive user engagement and minimizing negative feedback. Monitor open rates, click-through rates, and complaint rates closely, as these are heavily weighted by ISPs.
- Content quality matters: Ensure your email content avoids characteristics commonly associated with spam, such as excessive links, suspicious phrasing, or poor formatting, which can trigger content filters.
- List hygiene is critical: Regularly clean your email lists to remove inactive subscribers, hard bounces, and especially spam traps. Sending to unengaged or invalid addresses severely harms your sender reputation.
- Adapt to evolving threats: Email providers continuously update their filtering in response to new spam and phishing techniques. Stay informed about best practices and industry changes (e.g., new blocklist trends) to maintain optimal deliverability.
Technical article
Documentation from MXLayer explains that email filtering acts as a critical gatekeeper for inboxes, diligently analyzing incoming mail for anything suspicious. This process involves a range of techniques, from basic blocklisting to more advanced content and behavioral analysis, designed to protect users from threats like phishing and malware.The underlying assumption is that a comprehensive, multi-layered approach is necessary to ensure inbox security, even if it occasionally leads to legitimate emails being misclassified. The primary goal remains user protection against evolving cyber threats.
Technical article
Documentation from IT Companies Network describes email filtering as a process used to sort emails and identify unwanted messages, such as spam, malware, and phishing attempts. This definition highlights the core function of filtering as a defensive mechanism.The implied assumption is that without robust filtering, email would be unusable due to the overwhelming volume of unsolicited and malicious content. Therefore, aggressive filtering is a necessary measure, prioritizing the user's security over the sender's deliverability in ambiguous cases.
Related resources
9 resources
Related pages
Why are email campaigns suddenly being filtered to social or promotions tabs in Gmail?
Why do emails go missing or get silently dropped instead of going to spam?
How do mailbox providers perform individual level filtering of emails based on user interaction?
Why Your Emails Are Going to Spam in 2024 and How to Fix It
How email blacklists actually work: a simple guide
What does it mean when your email is blacklisted?
Email Deliverability Issues: Getting Your Messages to the Inbox in 2025
Why Your Emails Fail: Expert Guide to Improve Email Deliverability [2025]
Why are AOL and Yahoo flagging emails as spam?
Why do legitimate emails sometimes trigger inconsistent suspicious link warnings in Gmail?
