Summary
Interpreting Spam Confidence Level (SCL) scores in Microsoft email headers is crucial for understanding why your emails might be landing in junk folders. These scores, assigned by Microsoft's Exchange Online Protection (EOP), range from -1 to 9 and provide a direct indicator of how likely an email is perceived as spam. Higher scores signify a greater probability of the message being considered unsolicited, leading to delivery issues.
Key findings
- Score range: SCL scores span from -1 to 9, where -1 indicates a high confidence that the email is legitimate, and 9 indicates a very high confidence that it's spam.
- Junk folder threshold: Emails with SCL scores of 5 or 6 are typically classified as spam and are often moved to the recipient's junk or spam folder. Scores of 7 and above are usually treated as high-confidence spam and may be quarantined or rejected entirely.
- Non-spam indicators: An SCL of -1 often applies to messages from trusted senders, safe lists, or those bypassing spam filtering. Scores of 0 to 1 generally mean the email is considered not spam and should reach the inbox.
- Related headers: Alongside SCL, other Microsoft headers like PCL (Phishing Confidence Level) and BCL (Bulk Complaint Level) also contribute to an email's overall deliverability verdict. For example, a high BCL score (indicating bulk email) can negatively impact delivery, even if the SCL is low. Learn more about BCL scores.
- Authentication impact: Proper email authentication, including SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, plays a significant role in achieving lower SCL scores. A lack of proper authentication can lead to higher SCL values and poor inbox placement, regardless of content.
Key considerations
- Analyzing headers: To interpret SCL scores, you need to extract the email headers. Tools can help parse the X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL header, revealing Microsoft's assessment.
- Content and reputation: While SCL is a direct indicator, the underlying factors include sender reputation (IP and domain), email content (spammy words, links, formatting), and recipient engagement. A consistent pattern of high SCL scores points to deeper deliverability issues.
- SCL variability: SCL scores can vary even for the same email sent to different recipients within Microsoft 365, as filtering is highly personalized and adaptive. This is due to individual user settings, organizational policies, and real-time threat intelligence. Understanding why SCL scores vary is essential.
- Proactive monitoring: Regularly monitoring your email deliverability and SCL scores is crucial. If you consistently see high SCL scores, investigate your sending practices, content, and authentication. Microsoft's official documentation on Spam Confidence Level offers detailed insights.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often encounter high SCL scores as a primary indicator of deliverability challenges into Microsoft environments. Their discussions frequently revolve around practical troubleshooting steps, the impact of various content elements, and the elusive nature of Microsoft's filtering algorithms. They focus on understanding the immediate implications of SCL scores on campaign performance and how to adapt strategies to improve inbox placement.
Key opinions
- Tools are essential: Many marketers express a desire for tools that can parse Microsoft email headers automatically, simplifying the complex task of manual interpretation and allowing for quicker analysis of SCL and other relevant scores.
- PCL confusion: There's often confusion around the significance of PCL (Phishing Confidence Level) scores, with marketers trying to determine if it's as critical as SCL for general deliverability.
- Score interpretation debates: Marketers frequently debate the exact thresholds for SCL scores, particularly whether low positive scores (like 1 or 2) are truly 'neutral' or already signify minor issues.
- Higher is worse: There's a general consensus that any SCL score above a certain low threshold (often perceived as 1 or 2) indicates a problem that needs addressing to avoid the junk folder.
- Content matters: Marketers recognize that email content, including specific keywords and formatting, can heavily influence the assigned SCL. Poorly formatted HTML, excessive images, or spammy phrases can trigger higher scores.
Key considerations
- Consistent monitoring: Marketers need to consistently monitor their SCL scores, as they can fluctuate based on sending volume, list hygiene, and engagement. Tools that automate this process are highly valuable for proactive deliverability management.
- Holistic view: While SCL is a key metric, it shouldn't be the only one. Marketers should consider the full picture of their sender reputation and other factors impacting deliverability, as discussed in our guide on interpreting sender reputation scores.
- Address underlying issues: A high SCL score is a symptom, not the root cause. Marketers must delve into their sending practices, such as list acquisition, segmentation, sending frequency, and content quality, to address the underlying reasons for poor scoring. This aligns with advice on fixing email spam issues.
- Adapt to Microsoft's requirements: Microsoft's filtering is dynamic. Marketers must stay updated with changes in Outlook's junk mail filtering and adjust their sending strategies accordingly to maintain optimal SCL scores and inbox placement.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks asks about available tools for parsing Microsoft headers because manually deciphering them is a time-consuming and complex task. They hope to avoid deep dives into lengthy documentation to quickly understand email classifications.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks wonders if PCL is the sole factor influencing deliverability, indicating a lack of clarity on how different Microsoft scores interrelate. They are trying to pinpoint the most critical metrics for inbox placement.
What the experts say
Experts in email deliverability offer refined insights into SCL scores, often clarifying misconceptions and emphasizing the broader context of Microsoft's filtering. They highlight the interplay between SCL and other email authentication and reputation signals. Their advice focuses on strategic adjustments to email programs rather than just tactical fixes, ensuring long-term inbox placement and trust with Microsoft properties.
Key opinions
- PCL's significance: Experts affirm that PCL (Phishing Confidence Level) is specifically for phishing detection, and any positive score here is detrimental, irrespective of the SCL score.
- SCL baseline: A common expert view is that SCL 0 is truly neutral, and scores of 1 and 2 are on the lower, less concerning end of the scale, often still leading to inbox delivery. This clarifies earlier misconceptions among some marketers.
- Dynamic scoring: Experts understand that SCL scores are not static and are influenced by a dynamic range of factors, including real-time recipient engagement, sender history, and Microsoft's evolving threat intelligence. This explains inconsistent Outlook.com deliverability.
- Header analysis tools: Seasoned professionals often recommend specific Microsoft-provided or third-party tools for parsing email headers, making the diagnostic process more efficient and accurate.
- Beyond the score: Experts emphasize looking beyond just the SCL score to other headers, such as X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery and SFV (Spam Filtering Verdict), for a complete understanding of Microsoft's decision.
Key considerations
- Official documentation: Experts strongly recommend consulting Microsoft's official documentation for the most accurate and up-to-date information on SCL scores and their actions. This is key to understanding Outlook's sender requirements.
- Proactive policy changes: To reduce high SCL scores, experts advise reviewing and adjusting internal email policies, content strategies, and ensuring proper email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) are in place and correctly configured. Even hidden SPF DNS timeouts can be a factor.
- Sender reputation management: SCL is a reflection of overall sender reputation. Experts suggest focusing on maintaining a clean sending reputation by avoiding spam traps, managing subscriber engagement, and promptly addressing complaints. This is crucial for managing Microsoft's evolving spam filters.
- Troubleshooting methodology: When facing high SCL scores, a structured troubleshooting approach is recommended, starting with header analysis and then drilling down into content, infrastructure, and list quality issues.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks confirms that PCL (Phishing Confidence Level) specifically targets phishing emails, implying that any positive score on this metric is inherently bad and indicates a serious issue. They emphasize that PCL is distinct from general spam scoring.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks initially believed SCL 0 was neutral but then corrected themselves, confirming that SCL 1 and 2 are considered low or neutral. This clarification provides a more accurate understanding of the lower end of the SCL scale.
What the documentation says
Official documentation from Microsoft and related technical resources provide the definitive guide to interpreting SCL scores. These documents outline the specific ranges, their corresponding actions within Exchange Online Protection (EOP), and the various factors that influence these scores. They offer a comprehensive, technical perspective on how Microsoft's anti-spam engines evaluate incoming mail.
Key findings
- Official definition: Microsoft documentation defines SCL as a numeric score from -1 to 9 that indicates the probability a message is spam. Higher values signify a greater likelihood of being spam.
- Action mapping: Each SCL value correlates to a specific action. For example, SCL -1 indicates bypassing spam filtering, SCL 1-4 are considered non-junk, SCL 5-6 typically move to junk, and SCL 7-9 are high-confidence spam actions like quarantine or rejection.
- Header attribute: The SCL score is embedded within the X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL email header, which is added by Exchange servers after determining the spam confidence level.
- Multiple factors: SCL is determined by various factors including sender reputation, content analysis, and policy settings, not just isolated indicators. This comprehensive approach aligns with typical spam filtering mechanisms used by major inbox providers.
- Interaction with BCL: Documentation often mentions SCL in conjunction with BCL (Bulk Complaint Level), indicating that a high BCL score (for bulk email) can also lead to messages being treated as spam, even if their SCL isn't extremely high.
Key considerations
- Parsing complexity: While the documentation explains the meaning, extracting and parsing email headers can be technically involved. Specialized header analyzers are often recommended to simplify this process, making it easier to troubleshoot Outlook junk mail placement.
- Configuration impact: Administrative configurations in Exchange Online Protection can override default SCL actions, meaning that a particular SCL score might not always result in the same filtering outcome for all organizations.
- Comprehensive analysis: Documentation suggests looking at other related headers, such as SFV (Spam Filtering Verdict), alongside SCL for a complete picture of Microsoft's classification reason. This is important for understanding how a message was categorized.
- Dynamic updates: Microsoft's anti-spam technology, including how SCL is calculated, is continuously updated. Relying on outdated documentation can lead to misinterpretations. This is why it's important to understand technical solutions for email deliverability.
Technical article
Documentation from Ammar Hasayen specifies that the Spam Confidence Level (SCL) is a score set by anti-spam engines, which indicates the likelihood of a message being considered spam. This definition highlights the core function of SCL in email filtering.
Technical article
Documentation from CIAOPS indicates that the SCL is a numeric score ranging from -1 to 9, where higher values signify an increased likelihood of the message being spam. This provides the fundamental scale for SCL interpretation.
Related resources
7 resources
Related pages
What do Microsoft email headers reveal about spam classification?
How to fix Outlook junk mail placement and high SCL scores despite proper email authentication?
How to interpret and use email sender reputation scores effectively, especially for low volume senders?
Why do SCL scores vary for the same email sent to different O365 accounts?
What factors influence a BCL 6 score in Outlook email deliverability?
Understanding X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery Header Values
Why Your Emails Are Going to Spam in 2024 and How to Fix It
Boost Email Deliverability Rates: Technical Solutions from Top Performing Senders
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
How To Comply With Outlook's New Sender Requirements
