How to identify if a company uses email filtering/security measures like Mimecast or ProofPoint?

Key findings

• MX record analysis: The primary method to identify a company's email security setup is through a DNS lookup of their MX records. These records indicate the first-hop receiving Mail Transfer Agent (MTA), which often belongs to a filter provider.
• Limitations of MX records: MX records don't always reveal the full picture, as some organizations use on-premise filters or cloud vendors that resell services like Proofpoint under different domains.
• Bounce log insights: Examining bounce logs can uncover hidden complexities, such as a Microsoft MX record returning a Proofpoint rejection message, indicating a multi-layered filtering environment.
• Impact on open rates: Significant swings in open rates (e.g., 80% to 2%) for B2B communications are a strong indicator of advanced email filtering at the recipient's end.

Key considerations

• Root cause analysis: While identifying filters is useful, addressing the underlying reasons for messages being filtered (e.g., sender reputation, content issues) is always the better long-term strategy for improving email deliverability.
• Data classification: Automated processes can classify a large percentage of domains by their first-hop filter, though some organizations (e.g., government, education) may require more nuanced identification methods due to custom or on-premise solutions.
• Email sending platform: Your email sending platform (e.g., Salesforce Marketing Cloud) doesn't directly reveal recipient filters, but understanding how to extract MX records from recipient domains is key.
• Dynamic filter environments: Mailbox providers like Microsoft are constantly improving their ability to filter unsolicited B2B mail, even if it passes through an initial gateway like Mimecast. This highlights the multi-layered nature of modern email security.

Key opinions

• Variability in open rates: Marketers frequently observe significant fluctuations in open rates, from high percentages to very low ones, which they attribute to the presence of email filtering and security measures at the recipient company.
• Need for awareness: The desire isn't necessarily to circumvent security but to know if a target uses such protection to inform ABM strategies and manage expectations.
• MX record challenges: Some marketers new to deliverability deep dives seek practical guidance on how to access and interpret MX records for recipient domains, especially when using specific email platforms.
• Internal filtering effectiveness: Many marketers note that their own organizational Mimecast or Microsoft Outlook filters are highly effective at catching unwanted B2B solicitations, suggesting that outbound marketing efforts face similar scrutiny.

Key considerations

• B2B deliverability: Achieving good B2B deliverability means understanding that corporate networks often employ stringent email security measures that can affect inbox placement, even if mail passes initial filters.
• Strategic targeting: Knowing which companies use advanced filters helps marketers refine their audience targeting and content strategy for better engagement and to avoid common spam filtering triggers.
• Tooling for insights: Marketers can benefit from tools that allow them to upload lists of domains to analyze underlying MX records and understand recipient provider distribution.
• Comparing solutions: Understanding the differences between email security solutions like Mimecast and Proofpoint can help marketers anticipate how their messages might be handled by various recipients, as detailed in comparisons found on sites like Teramind Blog.

Key opinions

• MX record reliability: Experts confirm that DNS lookups of MX records are the foundational step, often revealing the domain name of the filter provider as the first-hop receiving MTA.
• Hidden complexities: Bounce logs can expose situations where an MX record (e.g., Microsoft) returns a rejection message from another filter (e.g., Proofpoint), indicating a more intricate filtering setup beyond the initial MX record.
• Classification accuracy: While a high percentage (75-80%) of domains can be classified by their first-hop filter, organizations using on-premise or government/educational systems can be harder to identify, yielding lower classification rates (around 50%).
• Automated processing: Custom scripts and database systems are used to automate DNS lookups, consolidate multiple MX records per domain, and label known filter providers for large-scale analysis.

Key considerations

• Beyond MX records: Relying solely on MX records can be misleading; deeper analysis of bounce messages and Mail Exchange Agents (MTA) behavior provides a more accurate picture of the actual email infrastructure.
• Data consolidation: Effective identification requires standardizing and consolidating MX records, for instance, grouping various Microsoft 365 entries under a common domain while treating others distinctly.
• Authentication standards: Even with advanced filters like Proofpoint, ensuring proper email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) is vital to mitigate issues like emails being identified as spoofed.
• Dynamic filtering: Microsoft's increasing effectiveness at routing unsolicited B2B mail to spam folders underscores a trend towards more sophisticated filtering regardless of the initial gateway, a topic often discussed by experts on platforms like SpamResource.

Key findings

• Gateway functionality: Mimecast Secure Email Gateway and Proofpoint Email Protection are primarily secure email gateways designed to filter inbound and outbound email traffic before it reaches the end-user inbox.
• Multi-layered protection: These solutions typically offer multiple layers of defense, including spam and malware detection, phishing protection, and URL analysis.
• DLP and large file handling: Beyond basic filtering, many enterprise-level solutions also incorporate data loss prevention and secure large file transfer capabilities.
• Integration with cloud services: Many email security providers integrate with popular cloud email services like Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace to enhance their built-in security features, as highlighted in comparisons of G Suite and Proofpoint.

Key considerations

• Configuration impact: The effectiveness of these filters heavily depends on their configuration within an organization's email infrastructure, which can vary widely.
• Authentication protocols: These systems rely on email authentication protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC to verify sender legitimacy, but can also enforce stricter policies based on DMARC reports.
• False positives: While aiming for high spam protection, reputable solutions also strive for low false positive rates, meaning legitimate emails are less likely to be blocked or blacklisted.
• Threat landscape: Documentation often emphasizes these solutions' roles in combating evolving threats, including Business Email Compromise (BEC) and advanced phishing attacks, which require constant updates and adaptive filtering logic, as noted by Keepnet Labs.