4 ms·

Interesting, but it’s hard to see the big utility. Most spam signals are based on behavior and reputation rather that content. Your email can look clean at firs

Interesting, but it’s hard to see the big utility. Most spam signals are based on behavior and reputation rather that content. Your email can look clean at first, but if a handful of gmail accounts mark it as spam then your whole network will be on the bozo list within seconds. Gmail in particular is capable of reclassifying messages, if it gets delivered but then your reputation falls, it will get moved to spam if the user hasn’t seen it yet, so initial deliverability is not final. Maybe the other big operators are more content-based?

npsomaratna 7y ago
From repeated testing using multiple sender accounts and domains, we've noticed that Outlook seems to pay significant weight to the content of the email - possibly as much as or even more than the email/domain of the sender. What you say certainly rings true about Gmail - email subjects/bodies that set off warning bells in Outlook seemingly pass through Gmail without a hitch if your account has a good sender reputation - and vice-versa. However, we've also noticed that even if you have a good sender reputation, Gmail can and will (automatically) spam your content if the wording is too spammy/phishy. Yahoo seems to be midway between Outlook and Gmail, at least from what I've observed. Anyway, do give the tool a spin and try out various types of emails. I'm sure you'll find the results interesting! [EDIT] Oh, BTW - you can set the tool to use your own service as well! Obviously, this will be more accurate than using the default (which is an SES account we use).