Summary
The Gmail Postmaster Tools Spam Feedback Loop (FBL) not populating can be attributed to a multitude of factors including insufficient email volume to Gmail users, incorrect implementation or formatting of the Feedback-ID header, delays in data reporting, authentication issues related to SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, low IP reputation, and poor inbox placement. Gmail's FBL requires a critical mass and a certain volume of emails to function, and the Feedback-ID header must be correctly formatted and consistently used. Exceeding the limit of unique Feedback-IDs, having overly strict DMARC policies, and insufficient spam complaints can also prevent data from appearing. The tool may also be phased out in future versions, so it is wise to also test with the latest Google Postmaster Tools. Make sure the Postmaster tool is setup correctly by verifying the domain with a TXT record.
Key findings
- Volume: Insufficient email volume to Gmail users prevents data from populating in the FBL.
- Feedback-ID Implementation: Incorrect formatting, inconsistent usage, or exceeding the limit of unique Feedback-IDs inhibits data.
- Authentication Issues: Missing/misconfigured SPF, DKIM, DMARC records, or overly strict DMARC policies block data.
- Reputation & Placement: Low IP reputation and poor inbox placement lead to FBL not populating.
- Complaint Volume: An insufficient number of users marking emails as spam prevents data population.
- Tool Setup: In order for the tool to work, the domain has to be correctly configured
- Data Reporting Delays: There can be delays in the FBL data reporting
- Potential Phase Out: The tool may be phased out in future versions
Key considerations
- Volume Assessment: Assess if email volume meets Gmail's minimum requirement; consider increasing volume if low.
- Feedback-ID Review: Thoroughly review Feedback-ID header format, usage, and number of unique IDs.
- Authentication Audit: Ensure correct setup and configuration of SPF, DKIM, and DMARC records; use relaxed DMARC policies initially.
- Reputation Improvement: Improve IP reputation through best sending practices (engagement, list hygiene).
- Inbox Placement Optimization: Optimize content, sender reputation to improve inbox placement and prevent spam filtering.
- Setup verification: Setup should be checked by verifying the domain with a TXT record.
- Check Tool: If data is broken, this is a low priority and might not be solved for weeks.
- Future Proof: Be aware that the tool may be upgraded or changed meaning it no longer exists
What email marketers say
12 marketer opinions
Several factors can cause the Gmail Postmaster Tools Spam Feedback Loop (FBL) not to populate. Insufficient email volume, incorrect Feedback-ID header implementation, delays in data reporting, authentication issues (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), low IP reputation, and poor inbox placement can all contribute. It's also essential to verify domain setup, manage the number of Feedback IDs used, and allow sufficient time for data to populate.
Key opinions
- Volume: The Spam Feedback Loop requires a minimum volume of emails sent to Gmail users. Low volume = no data.
- Implementation: Incorrect Feedback-ID header implementation prevents correct identification and aggregation of data.
- Reporting: Delays in data reporting can occur; wait before troubleshooting if the setup is correct.
- Authentication: Missing or misconfigured authentication records (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) can impact data reporting.
- Reputation: Low IP reputation prevents data from populating.
- Inbox Placement: Poor inbox placement (emails landing in spam) impacts proper data population in the Feedback Loop.
- Configuration: Incorrect domain configuration prevents the Feedback Loop tool from working correctly.
- Meaningfulness: Data population depends on how meaningful Google thinks the data is and how much it's giving away, it is also grouped based on values for campaigns.
- Broken Data: The feedback loop part of the data may be broken for months for smaller issues and doesn't show correct figures.
Key considerations
- Header Check: Double-check the Feedback-ID header format and placement by the ESP.
- Authentication Setup: Ensure proper authentication setup for all sending domains.
- IP Reputation Improvement: Improve IP reputation through consistent and positive sending practices.
- TXT Record Verification: Verify the domain with a TXT record for proper setup.
- Manage Feedback IDs: Each Feedback-ID should correspond to a unique campaign identifier, and the overall number of IDs should be manageable (ideally under 100).
- Time Allowance: Allow several days or weeks for data to populate after setup.
- Review Practices: Investigate commonalities among those who aren't engaging positively, as spam complaints indicate issues with email practices.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Vendor Help Center explains that a common issue is the incorrect implementation of the Feedback-ID header by the ESP. Double-checking the header format and placement ensures that Gmail can correctly identify and aggregate the data.
8 Nov 2022 - Email Vendor Help Center
Marketer view
Email marketer from Reddit explains that poor inbox placement (emails landing in spam) can prevent the data from populating correctly. Addresses email content, sender reputation and spam trigger words as potential cause.
14 May 2024 - Reddit
What the experts say
3 expert opinions
The Gmail Postmaster Tools Spam Feedback Loop (FBL) may not populate due to several reasons. It was initially designed for ESPs to identify issues on shared domains and might be phased out in future versions. A sufficient email volume is crucial for the FBL to function, and a lack thereof will prevent data population. Feedback loops also need a critical mass of data, and high complaint rates may sometimes be false positives.
Key opinions
- Intended Use: The Spam Feedback Loop was primarily intended for ESPs to identify problems on shared d=domains.
- Minimum Volume: Google's Spam Feedback Loop requires a sufficient volume of email to function; low volume results in no data.
- Critical Mass: Feedback loops require a critical mass of data to function effectively.
- Phase Out: Tool might be phased out as new versions of Google Postmaster tools are released.
Key considerations
- Volume Assessment: Assess whether the email volume sent to Gmail users is sufficient for the FBL to function.
- Data Analysis: Consider the possibility of false positives when encountering high complaint rates.
- Future Changes: Be aware of potential changes to the Spam Feedback Loop with future Postmaster Tools updates.
Expert view
Expert from Spam Resource explains that Google's Spam Feedback Loop (FBL) requires a sufficient volume of email for it to function. If the volume of email being sent is too low, the FBL will not populate with any data.
27 Jul 2024 - Spam Resource
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks explains that the intention of the Spam Feedback Loop was mostly for ESPs to identify clients with problems on shared d=domains. They imagine it going away with v2 as Google now requires d= to align.
5 Jun 2023 - Email Geeks
What the documentation says
5 technical articles
The Gmail Postmaster Tools Spam Feedback Loop (FBL) may not populate due to issues related to Feedback-ID formatting and usage, limitations on the number of unique Feedback-IDs, strict DMARC policies, or a lack of sufficient spam complaints from Gmail users. Correctly formatting the Feedback-ID header and ensuring its uniqueness per campaign is crucial. Additionally, sending to enough users who mark your emails as spam is necessary for data to populate in the tool.
Key findings
- Header Format: Incorrect Feedback-ID header formatting or inconsistent usage prevents data from appearing in the Spam Feedback Loop.
- Uniqueness: The Feedback-ID should be unique per campaign and provide enough diagnostic detail without breaching data privacy.
- ID Limit: Exceeding the limit of unique Feedback-IDs can prevent all data from populating in the Spam Feedback Loop.
- DMARC Policy: Strict DMARC policies (e.g., p=reject) can prevent data from being reported back to the Spam Feedback Loop.
- Spam Complaints: Gmail requires a certain number of users to mark emails as spam before results appear in the feedback loop tool.
Key considerations
- Formatting Check: Verify that the Feedback-ID header is correctly formatted and consistently used.
- ID Management: Use a manageable number of unique Feedback-IDs to avoid exceeding Gmail's tracking limit.
- DMARC Review: Review DMARC policies and consider using p=none or p=quarantine for initial setup to ensure data reporting.
- Volume of Complaints: Ensure enough users are reporting emails as spam if the current volume isn't producing results.
Technical article
Documentation from RFC-5432 explains that the Feedback-ID should be unique per campaign and provide enough detail for diagnostic purposes but not too much that breaches data privacy.
17 Apr 2022 - RFC-5432
Technical article
Documentation from SparkPost explains that DMARC policies that are too strict (e.g., p=reject) can prevent data from being reported back to the Spam Feedback Loop, especially if there are authentication issues. A policy of p=none or p=quarantine is recommended for initial setup.
8 May 2023 - SparkPost
Does Google Postmaster Tools (GPT) data include Google Workspace accounts, or only Gmail.com accounts?
How accurate is the spam data shown in the new Google Postmaster Tools and how can I get data to appear?
How can I accurately monitor complaint rates for email marketing using Google Postmaster Tools, Yahoo FBL, and my ESP?
How can I gain access to Google Postmaster Tools when my ESP controls the subdomain?
How do I add a TXT record to a DNS configuration for Google Postmaster?
How do I set up Gmail Postmaster Tools for a domain with subdomains?
