The TempFail (suspected spam) error message can be misleading, often pointing to temporary issues while masking underlying, more permanent problems. While it might suggest a transient block or a queueing issue, it frequently indicates deeper deliverability concerns such as poor email list hygiene, misconfigured sender policies, or an ESP's inaccurate classification of bounce codes. To truly troubleshoot this, it is crucial to look beyond the generalized error message and analyze the raw SMTP bounce codes from the recipient's mail server.
Key findings
Misleading classification: ESPs often oversimplify or misclassify bounce messages, leading to inaccurate troubleshooting.
Raw bounce messages: The actual deferral messages from the recipient's ISP are critical for understanding the true nature of the delivery issue.
Permanent disguised as temporary: Many errors reported as TempFail are actually permanent failures, such as invalid recipient addresses or domain configuration issues.
Spikes indicate issues: Even small increases in delivery error rates can signal underlying problems with data quality or sender reputation.
Key considerations
Obtain raw bounce messages: Always request the full, unedited bounce messages from your ESP for accurate diagnosis.
Verify ESP classification: Do not solely rely on your ESP's interpretation of bounce codes. Consult resources on SMTP codes and their meanings.
Examine mailing list quality: Poor engagement or outdated email addresses are common causes for these errors.
Monitor for subtle changes: Consistent monitoring of delivery metrics can help detect early warning signs before they escalate.
What email marketers say
Email marketers frequently encounter generic TempFail suspected spam messages, which often lack the specific details needed for effective troubleshooting. Their experience highlights the frustration of dealing with bounce classifications that obscure the true underlying deliverability issues.
Key opinions
ESP reporting limitations: Marketers find that ESPs sometimes provide generalized or inaccurate bounce classifications.
Need for detailed information: The actual bounce message is essential for proper diagnosis, as ESP summaries are often insufficient.
Impact on deliverability: Even seemingly temporary errors, if consistent, can indicate broader deliverability challenges and a risk to sender reputation.
Data quality concerns: Many suspected spam issues are rooted in poor list hygiene or unengaged recipients.
Key considerations
Request full bounce messages: Always insist on obtaining the detailed deferral messages directly from your Email Service Provider (ESP).
Assess recent list acquisitions: Investigate new data sources if error rates correlate with list growth.
Implement regular list hygiene: Proactively remove unengaged or invalid email addresses to maintain list quality and prevent issues listed in the email delivery failure causes.
Cross-reference metrics: Look beyond a single metric like spam rate and check other indicators such as delivery error rate and overall domain reputation.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks observes a delivery error rate increase (0.2%-0.4%) across two domains since November 12th, noting no prior issues or spikes in spam rate or IP/domain reputation.
25 Nov 2024 - Email Geeks
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks shared specific bounce messages, including a Google error 554-5.4.7 [internal] (last transfail: 452-4.2.2 The recipient's inbox is out of storage space), and non-Google errors such as 550 permanent failure and 554 5.4.7 [internal] (last transfail: 454 4.4.4 [internal] no MX or A for domain), indicating various internal and permanent issues.
25 Nov 2024 - Email Geeks
What the experts say
Deliverability experts consistently advise against relying solely on an ESP's generalized bounce classifications. They advocate for a deep dive into the raw SMTP response codes, as these provide the precise reasons for delivery failures, often revealing that what appears as a temporary issue is, in fact, a permanent one rooted in data quality or infrastructure problems.
Key opinions
ESP classifications are unreliable: ESPs often generalize bounce messages, making them unhelpful for accurate troubleshooting.
Soft bounces are often hard: Errors like inbox full or no MX or A for domain are frequently permanent, despite being reported as temporary (soft bounces).
Internal suppression: Bounce messages with [internal] often mean the sending Mail Transfer Agent (MTA) suppressed the message and did not attempt delivery.
Data quality is critical: A significant portion of these delivery errors stems from invalid or unengaged email addresses, reinforcing the importance of list hygiene. Refer to Word to the Wise for more.
Key considerations
Demand original deferral messages: Always seek the raw SMTP response codes from your ESP, as they provide accurate insights into the problem.
Implement robust bounce management: Ensure your system effectively removes invalid addresses to prevent repeated failures that might lead to SMTP 550 errors.
Address list churn: Understand that a certain bounce rate is natural due to recipient churn, but identify abnormal spikes.
Distinguish soft vs. hard bounces: Proper classification of bounce types is crucial for effective list hygiene and improving deliverability. This can also prevent issues with DNS records.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks cautions against trusting ESP's classification of bounce messages, advising senders to obtain the actual deferral messages to get a clear idea of what is happening.
25 Nov 2024 - Email Geeks
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks explains that the recipient ISP sends a deferral message starting with a three-digit number, which the ESP should be able to provide to the sender.
25 Nov 2024 - Email Geeks
What the documentation says
Technical documentation, particularly SMTP RFCs, defines the distinction between temporary (4xx) and permanent (5xx) email delivery errors. While a TempFail (4xx) suggests a transient issue that should be retried, its explicit labeling as suspected spam often points to recipient server policies reacting to sender reputation or content quality. Errors indicating no MX or A for domain are typically permanent despite any TempFail wrapper.
Key findings
4xx vs. 5xx codes: 4xx codes denote temporary conditions (e.g., mail server busy), while 5xx codes signify permanent failures (e.g., invalid address, blacklisted sender).
Retry mechanism: Mail servers are designed to retry delivery for 4xx errors over a period, as detailed in SMTP standards like Fastmail's explanation of bounces.
Spam detection indication: A TempFail with suspected spam suggests the recipient mail server flagged the message due to content, sender reputation, or other policy violations.
DNS records: Errors like no MX or A for domain indicate permanent failures due to incorrect or missing DNS mail routing records.
Key considerations
Adherence to RFCs: Understanding SMTP RFCs (e.g., RFC 5321) helps in accurately interpreting complex bounce messages and ensuring protocol compliance.
Proper bounce handling: Implement system logic to distinguish between retriable 4xx errors and unretriable 5xx errors for efficient queue management.
Sender reputation feedback: Mail server responses are direct feedback on your sender reputation. A TempFail suspected spam signal indicates a need to review your email content and sending practices.
DNS configuration: Regularly verify your domain's MX and A records for correct setup to prevent permanent delivery failures. This is also important for email authentication.
Technical article
SMTP standards document that 4xx class response codes indicate a temporary failure, meaning the client should retry the transaction at a later time without modification.
20 Sep 2023 - RFC 5321
Technical article
Fastmail help explains that messages may bounce back if recipient servers suspect spam, which can be due to various reasons depending on the receiving server's specific policies.