How do feedback loops (FBLs) function for Google and Oath, and what are ESP domain signing practices?

Key findings

• Google's approach: Google does not provide traditional, per-complaint FBL reports. Instead, it offers aggregate spam percentage data through Google Postmaster Tools, which you can monitor.
• Oath's FBL: Oath (Yahoo, AOL, Verizon) offers a DKIM-based FBL. If you are signing your emails with a custom domain (d=), your ESP or you must explicitly register that domain for the FBL program to receive reports.
• Data absence: Seeing zero abuse (spam) counts might not indicate zero complaints; it could mean your mail is consistently landing in spam or bulk folders, or that the FBL is improperly configured or unregistered.
• ESP signing practices: Some ESPs double sign (with their own domain and your custom domain), while others, especially for larger clients, might only sign with your custom domain. This affects FBL registration.

Key considerations

• Verify FBL registration: Ensure your custom sending domain is properly registered for Oath's DKIM-based FBL. If your ESP isn't double-signing, this responsibility likely falls to you or needs to be managed through them directly.
• Monitor google postmaster tools: Actively use Google Postmaster Tools to track your aggregate spam rates and other metrics, as this is Google's primary FBL mechanism.
• Address bulk folder delivery: If you suspect emails are going to bulk or spam, investigate other deliverability metrics and sender reputation factors. FBLs are less effective if emails don't reach the inbox.
• Understand ESP authentication: Clarify with your ESP their specific DKIM signing practices and how these align with your domain's FBL requirements for different mailbox providers.

Key opinions

• Inconsistent FBL reports: Many marketers find it confusing when their ESP reports FBLs are set up for major providers, yet they see no spam counts, particularly for Google and Oath.
• Custom domain confusion: Marketers often question if their custom sending domain is correctly registered for FBLs, especially with providers like Yahoo, given that their ESP might use a shared domain.
• Assumption of ESP handling: There's a common assumption that an ESP would automatically manage FBL enrollments, including double-signing with their own domain to ensure FBL receipt for clients.
• Concern over bulk folders: A key concern is that a lack of FBL messages might mean emails are being directed straight to spam or bulk folders, bypassing the FBL mechanism entirely.

Key considerations

• Proactive ESP communication: Marketers should explicitly ask their ESP about the exact FBL setup for their custom domain with each major mailbox provider, including Google and Oath. Clarify how bounce data is shared.
• Confirm domain signing: Verify whether your ESP is signing with your custom domain (d=) for DKIM and if that domain is separately registered for FBLs like Oath's, especially if you authenticate with your own domain.
• Monitor inbox placement: Do not solely rely on FBL reports. Use inbox placement testing tools to ensure your emails are consistently reaching the primary inbox, not just bulk or spam.
• Interpret data nuances: Understand that Google provides aggregate percentages, while Oath provides more detailed reports when properly configured. This difference affects how you interpret feedback loop data.

Key opinions

• Google's aggregate data: Google provides spam percentages through Postmaster Tools (GPT), not individual complaint reports like traditional FBLs. This is a crucial distinction for senders.
• Oath's DKIM-based FBL: Oath requires DKIM-based FBL registration. If a custom domain is used for signing, it must be part of the signup process for FBL data to be received.
• Mail to bulk: If emails are consistently going to the bulk (spam) folder, senders will not receive FBL messages, indicating a severe deliverability problem that needs immediate attention.
• ESP signing variations: ESPs have different practices regarding DKIM signing. Some double sign with both their domain and the client's, while others only sign with the client's domain, especially for large enterprise clients seeking full brand control over headers.

Key considerations

• Leverage Postmaster Tools: For Google, consistent monitoring of Google Postmaster Tools is essential for understanding spam complaint trends and overall sender reputation, even without direct FBL reports.
• Ensure Oath FBL registration: If you are using a custom domain and Oath (Yahoo, AOL, Verizon) is a significant recipient base, confirm that your domain is correctly registered for their DKIM-based FBL program. Refer to ISIPP SuretyMail's guide for insights.
• Address delivery issues: If FBL data is absent, investigate if emails are consistently landing in spam. This requires reviewing domain alignment, content, and sending patterns.
• Clarify ESP signing: Engage with your ESP to understand their specific DKIM signing policies and how they impact your ability to receive FBL data for your custom domain.

Key findings

• Gmail's FBL interface: Google's FBL functionality is primarily accessed via Google Postmaster Tools, which provides aggregated data like spam rate, domain reputation, and IP reputation, rather than individual complaint emails.
• Oath's FBL requirements: Oath (Yahoo, AOL, Verizon) requires senders to sign up for their FBL program. Eligibility is often tied to proper DKIM authentication of the sending domain (d=).
• Purpose of FBLs: FBLs serve as a critical communication channel for mailbox providers to notify legitimate senders of spam complaints, enabling them to clean their mailing lists and improve sending practices.
• Data variability: Different mailbox providers' FBLs offer varying levels of detail and reporting formats, from high-level percentages to specific campaign identifiers.

Key considerations

• Adhere to signup processes: Follow the specific instructions and technical prerequisites for signing up for each relevant FBL, especially for Oath, to ensure you receive complaint data.
• Implement DMARC, DKIM, SPF: Ensure your domain is properly authenticated with SPF, DKIM, and DMARC to improve deliverability and be eligible for FBLs.
• Process complaints effectively: Establish a process to regularly review and act upon FBL data (or Postmaster Tools data), promptly removing complainers from your lists to avoid blacklists and maintain sender reputation.
• Understand ESP responsibilities: Be aware of whether your ESP is handling FBL registrations on your behalf and confirm which domain is being used for DKIM signing, as this directly affects FBL reports. As documented by MyEmailVerifier, FBLs enable senders to learn when recipients assign 'spam' status to their emails.