Thoughts on SenderScore

Kevin Senne posted over on the Oracle blog about how we need to stop caring about SenderScore and why it’s not as useful a metric as it used to be.
I can’t argue with anything he’s said. I think there is way too much focus on IP reputation and SenderScore. There’s so much more to deliverability than just one or two factors.
In fact, if you’ve been to any of my recent webinars or talks you will probably have seen some version of this image in my slides:
SenderScore99_cropped
Basically, just because you have a great SenderScore doesn’t mean you’re going to have good delivery.  Likewise, having a poor SenderScore doesn’t mean your mail is destined to be undelivered.
I tell clients, and people who ask about SenderScore that it reflects the data that Return Path gets, run through their proprietary algorithms to come up with a score. And that score is relevant for those ISPs that pay attention to it. But most ISPs make the deliver or not deliver decision based on their own internal data, not on the IPs SenderScore.

What’s more important for deliverability is the email reputation. Email reputation combines content reputation, link reputation, IP reputation and sender reputation into one score. Emails with poor reputation are often blocked during the SMTP transaction. After mail is accepted it goes through the personalized filters and then it’s delivered to the inbox or the bulk folder.
NewDeliverabilityModel
Filters are complex. I’m not ready to give up any available data, including the SenderScore, when troubleshooting delivery problems for my clients. But I also don’t work to fix a client’s SenderScore. I work to fix a client’s deliverability. Sometimes that improvement is shown in SenderScore improvements. Sometimes it’s not.

Related Posts

Twisting information around

One of my mailing lists was asking questions today about an increase in invitation mailings from Spotify. I’d heard about them recently, so I started digging through my mailbox to see if I’d received one of these invites. I hadn’t, but it clued me into a blog post from early this year that I hadn’t seen before.
Research: ESPs might get you blacklisted.
That article is full of FUD, and the author quite clearly doesn’t understand what the data he is relying on means. He also doesn’t provide us with enough information that we can repeat what he did.
But I think his take on the publicly available data is common. There are a lot of people who don’t quite understand what the public data means or how it is collected. We can use his post as a starting off point for understanding what publicly available data tells us.
The author chooses 7 different commercial mailers as his examples. He claims the data on these senders will let us evaluate ESPs, but these aren’t ESPs. At best they’re ESP customers, but we don’t know that for sure. He claims that shared IPs means shared reputation, which is true. But he doesn’t claim that these are shared IPs. In fact, I would bet my own reputation on Pizza Hut having dedicated IP addresses.
The author chooses 4 different publicly available reputation services to check the “marketing emails” against. I am assuming he means he checked the sending IP addresses because none of these services let you check emails.
He then claims these 4 measures

Read More

Return Path announces new abuse prevention service

Return Path announced a new product this morning, designed to help mailbox providers stop outbound abuse.

Read More

Return Path partners with Symantec

Today Return Path announced a partnership with Symantec to improve their anti-phishing product. Return Path is incorporating the Symantec Trusted Domain List into their authentication and filtering product to help customers protect their brands. Press Release
Phishing scams affect everyone, and having a brand that is used in phishing can reduce consumer trust in that brand. Protecting brands in email has been one of the more difficult challenges facing the email community. With the adoption of DKIM and DMARC by major brands and ISPs it has become easier to track and address phishing.

Read More