Summary
Intentionally sending a newsletter to the spam folder, while counter-intuitive for most marketers, can be a specific requirement for testing spam filters, evaluating email infrastructure resilience, or performing security audits. It involves leveraging the very factors that email service providers (ESPs) and spam filters use to identify unwanted mail, but in reverse. This typically includes deliberately misconfiguring authentication, using content flagged as suspicious, or targeting problematic recipient lists. The goal is to consistently trigger spam classifications, rather than avoid them.
Key findings
- Authentication failures: Poor or absent email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) is a primary trigger for spam filters. Microsoft, for instance, is known to send emails directly to spam folders if DMARC fails. Intentionally misconfiguring these records or sending from an IP without proper reverse DNS can lead to immediate spam classification.
- Content flags: Using known spam trigger words, excessive capitalization, suspicious formatting (like hidden text with CSS), or including spam-testing strings like GTUBE can effectively direct emails to the junk folder. However, some common tests like GTUBE might not trigger modern filters from major providers like Gmail or Yahoo.
- Sender reputation degradation: Sending to non-existent email addresses (which generate hard bounces), known spam traps, or addresses from disposable email services (like Mailinator) can quickly damage a sender's reputation, leading to blocklisting and increased spam placement. This is a common way to simulate bad sending practices and observe the impact on your domain reputation.
- IP address quality: Sending from a fresh IP address with no established reputation, especially one without proper reverse DNS, can instantly flag your emails as suspicious. Utilizing cheap or free Virtual Private Server (VPS) instances for sending without appropriate setup can serve this purpose.
Key considerations
- Reputation impact: Deliberately sending spam can severely harm your IP and domain reputation for future legitimate mailings. Use dedicated testing domains and IPs.
- Blacklisting risk: Actions like sending to non-existent addresses from a poorly configured IP can lead to your sending IP or domain being added to public and private blocklists, such as Spamhaus PBL (Policy Block List).
- Ethical considerations: Always ensure any intentional spamming is done for legitimate testing purposes and to controlled, consent-given recipients (or disposable addresses) to avoid actual harm or legal issues.
- Technical complexity: Achieving consistent spam placement often requires a nuanced understanding of email protocols and spam filter mechanisms. Simply adding Nigerian Prince text or CSS tricks might not be enough for sophisticated filters.
- Disposable addresses: Using services like Mailinator for testing purposes is generally safe for your reputation as bounces to these services are typically not measured as problematic for your ESP or the wider internet. However, bounces to genuinely non-existent addresses will negatively impact your sender metrics.
- Command line sending: For advanced testing, sending raw messages directly from the command line (e.g., using SWAKS or Sendmail from a Linux VPS) can give precise control over headers and content, allowing for deliberate misconfigurations. A guide on sending HTML email from the command line can be found on Stack Overflow.
What email marketers say
Email marketers, when facing the unusual task of intentionally sending emails to the spam folder, often experiment with various tactics that are typically avoided in legitimate campaigns. Their insights tend to revolve around content manipulation, sender identity issues, and list hygiene, albeit with the goal of causing delivery failure rather than success.
Key opinions
- Content is king (for spam): Many marketers believe that injecting classic spam phrases or even using hidden CSS text can lead to spam folder placement, though some note modern filters are more sophisticated and these methods may not be sufficient on their own.
- Sender name tricks: Using ambiguous or questionable sender names, or faking elements like Re: or Fwd: in the subject line, is seen as a way to trigger spam filters by mimicking deceptive practices.
- List quality inversion: Purposely sending to unengaged lists, non-existent addresses, or bought lists is known to significantly increase the likelihood of emails landing in spam. The opposite of sending to an unengaged list with no existing reputation is the goal.
- Subscriber interaction reversal: Causing recipients to mark emails as spam is a direct route to deliverability issues. This can be induced by sending irrelevant content or ignoring stated preferences.
- Incomplete setup: Neglecting to properly set up authentication records (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) or sending from an IP without reverse DNS is a quick way to ensure messages fail Gmail's spam filters and others.
Key considerations
- Avoid real spamming: While the goal is to land in spam, it is crucial not to actually spam unwilling recipients. Utilize controlled test environments or disposable email addresses.
- Domain isolation: To protect a good sending reputation, marketers should use a separate domain and IP for these intentional spam tests.
- Understanding filter evolution: Spam filters are constantly evolving. What worked to trigger spam five years ago (e.g., simple keyword stuffing) may not be effective today. Advanced filters prioritize sender reputation and authentication over simple content analysis. For example, some marketers have found that even the GTUBE string doesn't consistently trigger major email providers' spam filters anymore.
- Monitoring results: Even for intentional spamming, monitoring delivery to the spam folder is key. This helps understand which tactics are most effective at triggering filters.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks notes that including classic spam text, like a Nigerian Prince scam, or using invisible CSS text, surprisingly doesn't always manage to sufficiently damage deliverability and send emails to the spam folder. Modern filters are often more sophisticated than simple keyword or hidden text detection.
Marketer view
Marketer from Better Marketing suggests that using deceptive subject line tactics, such as adding Re: or Fwd: to trick recipients, is a shady tactic that can lead emails straight to the spam folder. These elements are designed to trick email recipients into opening messages.
What the experts say
Experts in email deliverability approach the challenge of intentionally sending to spam from a technical and systemic perspective. Their recommendations often focus on exploiting fundamental weaknesses or misconfigurations in email sending infrastructure and adherence to protocol standards. They understand the intricate dance between sender reputation, authentication, and content filtering.
Key opinions
- DMARC failures are critical: Experts highlight that email providers, particularly Microsoft, are increasingly treating DMARC failures as a direct route to the spam folder. Intentionally failing DMARC is a highly effective method.
- Poor IP configuration: Sending from a fresh IP address, especially one without proper reverse DNS (rDNS) or authentication records (SPF/DKIM), is a surefire way to be flagged as spam. This can even lead to IP blocklisting by services like Spamhaus PBL if combined with sending to non-existent addresses.
- Direct to MX sending: Utilizing tools like SWAKS from a residential network to send raw messages directly to the receiving Mail Exchange (MX) server bypasses standard ESP checks and increases the likelihood of being marked as spam due to lack of trust and proper setup.
- Bounce handling implications: While sending to Mailinator addresses might not significantly affect an ESP's reputation metrics, sending to genuinely non-existent addresses is measured negatively by both the ESP and the receiving MX, degrading sender reputation.
- Outdated spam tests: Some legacy spam trigger strings, like GTUBE, are no longer effective at consistently triggering spam filters on major email services like Gmail or Yahoo, indicating the advanced nature of modern filtering systems.
Key considerations
- Understand the full impact: Intentionally tanking deliverability can have long-lasting negative consequences on an IP or domain's reputation. Even for testing, consider using completely separate, throwaway infrastructure.
- Authentication is paramount: For consistent spam delivery, focus on deliberate misconfigurations of DMARC, SPF, and DKIM. This is often more effective than content-based methods alone.
- Simulating real spam: The most effective way to land in spam is to mimic actual spammers' practices, such as sending from compromised or poorly maintained servers, to unvalidated lists, and without proper authentication.
- Blacklist dynamics: Being listed on a blocklist (or blacklist) can significantly impair email delivery. Understanding how email blacklists work is key to effectively (or in this case, ineffectively) delivering mail. For instance, sending from an IP without rDNS to a non-existent address on a domain using a service like Mimecast might result in a Spamhaus PBL listing, as Mimecast is a datafeed for them.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks states that Microsoft has a policy of treating DMARC failures as a direct signal to send emails to the spam folder. This highlights DMARC compliance as a critical factor for inbox placement, or conversely, a strong lever for intentional spam placement if misconfigured.
Expert view
Expert from Spam Resource explains that a major factor in emails going to spam is a poor sender reputation. This can be built by consistently sending emails that recipients don't want or engage with, leading to complaints and low engagement, thereby ensuring future emails land in the spam folder.
What the documentation says
Official email documentation and industry best practices guides, while primarily focused on achieving inbox delivery, implicitly define the inverse path to the spam folder. They outline the standards and behaviors that, if ignored or deliberately violated, will lead to emails being filtered out as spam. This includes adherence to RFCs, anti-spam guidelines, and proper implementation of authentication protocols.
Key findings
- RFC compliance: Deviating from email standards defined in RFCs, such as malformed headers or non-standard command sequences, can cause emails to be rejected or flagged as suspicious. Intentionally violating these can lead to spam placement.
- Authentication standards: Documentation on SPF, DKIM, and DMARC specifies how these protocols should be configured for legitimate sending. Ignoring these or setting them up incorrectly (e.g., publishing a DMARC policy of p=none but failing to authenticate) will trigger spam filters. Microsoft and Yahoo's latest sender requirements emphasize strict adherence to these.
- Sender reputation metrics: Postmaster tools (like Google Postmaster Tools) provide insights into sender reputation based on factors like spam rate, IP reputation, and domain reputation. Consistently poor metrics in these tools indicate a high likelihood of mail landing in spam. Intentionally engaging in behaviors that degrade these metrics will achieve the desired spam placement.
- List management policies: Documentation emphasizes consent-based sending and list hygiene. Sending to old, uncleaned lists with high bounce rates or known spam traps is a documented method of triggering spam filters and blocklists.
- User engagement signals: ISPs monitor how users interact with emails. Low open rates, high delete-without-reading rates, and especially a high number of spam complaints are strong signals to filter emails. Intentionally sending irrelevant or unwanted content can elicit these negative signals.
Key considerations
- Adherence to legal requirements: Even for testing, be mindful of anti-spam laws like CAN-SPAM. Intentionally violating legal aspects can have severe consequences beyond just spam folder delivery.
- ISP specific rules: Each ISP (e.g., Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo) has its own specific set of filtering rules and thresholds. Understanding these can help fine-tune the intentional spamming process. For example, some documentation suggests that Microsoft (Outlook/Hotmail) has particularly sensitive DMARC enforcement.
- Consistent negative signals: To reliably land in spam, documentation implies the need for consistent negative signals across multiple factors, not just one or two. This includes a combination of poor authentication, low reputation, and bad content.
Technical article
Documentation on Email Deliverability Best Practices explains that using vague or suspicious sender names, like no-reply@ with no brand recognition, can increase the likelihood of emails being marked as spam. Conversely, a clear and recognizable sender name helps build trust and inbox placement.
Technical article
Documentation from Beehiiv Blog on Newsletter 101 states that the quality of your email list profoundly impacts deliverability. Sending to a list with a high percentage of inactive or invalid addresses will quickly damage your sender reputation, ensuring future emails land in the spam folder.
Related resources
15 resources
![Email Deliverability: Avoiding The Spam Folder [2025]](https://moosend.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Email-Deliverability.png)
Related pages
How can I intentionally deliver emails to the spam folder?
How can spam complaints and bad content choices impact email deliverability?
How email blacklists actually work: a simple guide
Spam traps: what they are and how they work
Why your emails are getting a 'DMARC verification failed' error
How to fix 'DMARC policy not enabled' warnings
Why is Gmail sending mail to spam folders?
What are the best practices for email deliverability and avoiding spam filters?
