16 ms·
A deep dive into email deliverability in 2024
- xoneill 3y agoJust a freindly reminder. I wrote a thorough guide on email hygeine here, includes validation tools to help troubleshoot & straighten things out.
- ryantgtg 3y agoAt an even more basic level than what you described here, I recently improved my delivery rate by adding a name to the transactional emails that we send (from: 'My Name <admin@foo.com>') where previously we didn’t have a name. As well as cleaning up subject lines - where previously we included some abbreviations. Providers like mac.com were previously soft bouncing some emails, and now they seem to accepting them. Hotmail/yahoo/aol all still seem to shove our transactional emails into spam pretty often (judging purely on the amount of those users who fail to confirm their accounts).
- xoneill 3y agoThanks for the info. For years, I've been using trial & error / reverse engineering approaches to improve deliverability. Frustrating!
- patja 3y agomac.com is the worst. I ban that domain from new registration now. And Apple sends no dmarc reports nor do they implement any actionable feedback loop.
- acidburnNSA 3y agoI'm surprised anyone's been getting through at all without perfectly configured SPD, DKIM, and DMARC. I've had a well configured self-hosted personal email server for years and still struggle to get through sometimes, though it does seem to be getting better.
- xoneill 3y agoI've been wrestling with this for years as well. I hope with these guidelines being published / transparent by the big 3, things behave consistently.
- theK 3y ago> perfectly configured SPD, DKIM, and DMARC Just having them perfectly configured doesn't mean that the receiving servers will also see it that way. Microsoft servers are particularly prone to randomly failing perfectly fine dkim setups for no reason whatsoever.
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago‘Randomly’ when you just happen to not be part of the mail cartel, they just can’t say that.
- shsbdncudx 3y agoBecause it’s not just about configuration, it’s also about reputation and a low sending volume you are in danger of getting dropped merely out of not being a well known sender
- StayTrue 3y ago“Prove you’re not a spammer by sending a larger volume of emails.” True and diabolical.
- jesterson 3y agoI am surprised people think deliverability consists of configuring SPF (SPD is Seattle police), DKIM and DMARC. Spammers can do exactly same given low entry barrier. It's important but have very little connection to deliverability in real world.
- layer8 3y agoDKIM hasn’t been necessary in my experience, and is still not necessary according to the new Google guidelines if you use SPF.
- kureikain 3y agoI run an email forwarding service[0] and it's damn hard to get into inbox of any major provider if SPF/DKIM aren't config properly. DMARC or ARC might be optionally but an email without SPF/DKIM, good luck having it hit any inbox. Office365 is the toughest, email just randomly land on spam no matter what I do. Icloud, actually it's ProofPoint is tough sh*t too. So I'm so surprise these guide just pop-up now like it's a new thing. --- [0]: https://mailwip.com https://mailwip.com
- xoneill 3y agoThis was my initial thought too. These guidelines have been around for ages, and just now being officially implemented in 2024.
- 77pt77 3y ago> but an email without SPF/DKIM, good luck having it hit any inbox And that's a decent thing. Someone that doesn't do that has no business sending email. The problem is that even doing that and even sending only a couple of emails a day is still usually considered SPAM.
- jmb99 3y agoI’ve been running a personal mail server since 2016, and I’ve been struggling mostly with Microsoft off-and-on. I haven’t make any changes since setting up DMARC, SPK, and DKIM in 2016, but I’ll still sometimes randomly get blacklisted for 2~30 weeks for seemingly no reason, and then get unblocked again for seemingly no reason. It’s recently started happening with iCloud too. For 5.5 weeks any email I sent would either get bounced or land straight in Junk, until yesterday when the powers that be decided my mail was worth delivering again. I’ve somehow never had an issue with Gmail or Yahoo, and of course never with any other non-big-three mail servers.
- dugite-code 3y agoCould be your IP block gets the odd spammer or you don't send enough emails and their servers resets you IP address reputation, meaning you essentially become a new email server.
- deadbunny 3y agoSo what any competent sysop has been doing for years?
- louis-lau 3y agoSometimes it's not about competence but about priority. If email is something a business does as a side thing and not a core thing, and if email keeps working without changing anything, there's no need or priority on setting up newer things. From a priority perspective at least. But yes if it's a recent setup, or email is a core part of the product, any competent sysadmin should have been doing this.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- amelius 3y agoIsn't there any open source project that solves the e-mail delivery problem? If not, why not? This sounds like something that can be fixed by software.
- xoneill 3y agoThere's some online tools out there, and an OSS project that'll scan DKIM reports for you - but this was all I could find. Beyond this, there's commercial tooling / services. I may implement something that keeps a tab on things if I come across any issues.
- jspaetzel 3y agofor a long time it hasn't been a software problem. It's been a reputation problem, the only recent change is we're more interested in the domain then the IP now.
- louis-lau 3y agoPlease elaborate on this, as I'm not exactly sure what you mean. The email deliverability problem is a side effect of false positives in spam filtering. Unless you have a proposal to completely eradicate false positives?
- bo1024 3y agoWhat do you mean by the email delivery problem? Do you mean setting up DKIM, SPF, and DMARC? It's not that hard, compared to setting up an email server in the first place.
- jjav 3y ago> Isn't there any open source project that solves the e-mail delivery problem? Aplogies if you do, but it sounds like you misunderstand how email works. The problems are stricly in policy, not in software. So there is nothing an open source project can do. The problem is that "too big to fail" megacorporations like microsoft just randomly decide to block incoming email from most of the Internet. If email was fully decentralized (everyone runs their own server) this centralized power could not exist and there wouldn't be any problem. (That all said, I run my own email infrastructure since long ago and it works fine. But I know some people struggle, which is contrary to the intent of the Internet.)
- superkuh 3y agoThe worst is when they accept the mail but silently tag it spam and put it some place the intended receipient will never see it. Google's gmail is the worst about this. Corporate email isn't email anymore. It's a walled garden / silo like Facebook.
- rrr_oh_man 3y ago> Corporate email isn't email anymore. It's a walled garden Thank god. Otherwise I'd drown in cold email spam. edit: But on a serious note — I'm using Gmail for all companies because I gave up trying to run and administer our own server. It's a travesty that this has become so hard. I feel if you're not on a well-configured Gmail Workspace there's no chance your email gets through, even if legit.
- plantain 3y agoI'm certainly not saying it's right - but it works. Gmail's spam filter (and promotions filter) works with >99% reliability as a user, with really trivial numbers of false positives.
- ndriscoll 3y agoI haven't found this to be true at all. I've probably marked thousands of linkedin messages as spam, but they still land in my inbox occasionally. I also get random e-commerce related spam from sites I've never heard of. The false negative rate is massive on corporate spam that should be trivial to classify I'd think. e.g. some of them literally have some variation of "this is an advertisement" along with unsubscribe links.
- arccy 3y ago> I've probably marked thousands of linkedin messages as spam, but they still land in my inbox occasionally. at this point maybe you should just create a filter rule
- nh2 3y agoCannot confirm. We get a large number of false positives at our business GMail: Customer requests for quotes, Paypal/Stripe security messages, lots of other important emails go to spam. See e.g. https://github.com/nh2/gmail-spamfilters-paypal-security-messages https://github.com/nh2/gmail-spamfilters-paypal-security-mes... For a while now I suspect that GMail has some bug with its own group email addresses: When somebody sends an email to our GMail group email address team@example.com, it shows up in GMail as "Sombody via team@example.com". Of course, teamexample.com receives both spam and non-spam. I suspect that when we mark spam that comes "via team@example.com", GMail learns that as "things 'via team@example.com' are often Spam", even though info@example.com is a Google Groups email. And by now, everything that comes 'via team@example.com' is marked as Spam. So it seems that when we mark an email that arrived at team@example.com as Spam, Google punishes its own Group email address, instead of the sender.
- ttul 3y agoThis change was necessary and long overdue. Requiring domain owners who send significant volumes of email to properly sign their messages allows receivers to more clearly delineate good from bad based on domain reputation rather than IP address reputation. As more domains send email through shared IP space on transactional and marketing services, having the ability to attach reputation reliably to the sender domain is incredibly helpful in reducing abuse.
- xoneill 3y agoAgreed, this is the upside for sure. Despite frustrations, I'm hoping this cleans things up.
- adrian_b 3y agoThe condition about "significant volumes" is not true. Google states that the new requirements are mandatory only when you send at least 5000 messages per day. This is a lie. I send at most a few messages per day and usually less than one per day was towards a gmail account and I had implemented a part of the requirements, but not all of them. Nevertheless, Google has started to reject my messages, so I was forced to waste time with the implementation of all requirements, even if they are somewhat redundant.
- skrause 3y agoMaybe someone else sent 5000 mails to Gmail users using your unauthenticated domain.
- b112 3y agohttp://139.177.194.177/bah.png http://139.177.194.177/bah.png
- adrian_b 3y agoThat would not have been possible, with the already existing checks. While the individual messages were not yet signed, Gmail should have already rejected any message claiming to be from my domain that was not sent by my own server.
- 77pt77 3y agoMy personal VM has just been placed in some RBL because the entire /24 address space was blacklisted. Someone (allegedly) sent SPAM and now my machine that sends maybe 3 emails a week is blacklisted
- xoneill 3y agoThat sucks! And fixing reputation is at best a nightmare. I've seen suggestions about purchasing / sending email from other domains - to protect your primary domain. Not something I really care to do.
- nickburns 3y agoi've personally observed an increase in this tactic from both reputable companies' blast communications and marketeers alike.
- cj 3y agoGoogle themselves recommends sending different types of emails from different subdomains of the primary domain to help Google differentiate between transactional, marketing, newsletters, outbound, etc Any half decent marketer will 100% use a different domain for outbound sales (or any use case where spam rate might be abnormally high).
- 77pt77 3y agoThe "de facto" solution is to outsource that to Google. Email on a personal machine and domain has been dead for over 10 years. You just can't own your data. You can receive it, no problem. But you can't send it.
- cj 3y agoThe thing that kills me about DMARC is how often is fails with Microsoft specifically. And also with any use case involving the recipient forwarding mail (which breaks SPF alignment) I want to follow best practices it recently changed p=quarantine to p=none after fear that legitimate emails aren’t passing DMARC despite properly configured DKIM and SPF. Hell, I would love p=reject but not until recipients fix their incoming mail servers to handle edge cases like email forwarding breaking DMARC
- louis-lau 3y agoSenders that apply dmarc and want their emails to be forwarded should use dkim. Forwarding a dkim signed message doesn't break dmarc at all.
- zinekeller 3y ago> how often is fails with Microsoft specifically This is the most important part. Exchange (due to its history as an X.400 server, not as an SMTP server) does sometimes mangle the message to the point that DKIM simply breaks. This both breaks origin-incoming and forwarded messages. BTW, Apple also sometimes mangle messages that it fails DKIM, although I do not know why is this the case (as I doubt they use Microsoft Exchange for their mail service).
- mjl- 3y agothis is a long standing problem with mailing lists. they are often configured to add a "[...]" prefix to the subject or add a footer, breaking the dkim signature. this leads some more recently updated mailing lists to always rewrite to their own "message from" header, so they control dmarc alignment for their messages. for incoming email on mailing lists i'm subscribed to, i don't enforce the dmarc policy. i think this is what the parent post hints at. i'm not sure how easy this is to configure with the various mail server software out there. i'm also not aware how you would configure this with sieve scripts (i looked, didn't find it, but it seems like a basic case). if you're running a mailing list, hoping for all subscribers to not enforce dmarc policy enforcement doesn't seem like a great strategy. the forwarding case should be easier to keep working.
- midnitewarrior 3y agoThis looks like a good document, but the author made it political by referencing "Hilary" Clinton and her emails and linking to some Trump stuff. I can't take tech stuff seriously that's dropping in political crap. Go away!
- g4zj 3y agoYes, this put me off enough that I was no longer interested in reading the article. The silly reference is one thing, but was a link to that YouTube video really necessary?
- wetpaws 3y ago[dead]
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y agoAnd it's for a company? OP you might want a part-time PR person to review these...
- xoneill 3y agoRemoved! Yeah, bad attempt at humor. And certainly not done in support of said candidate.
- xoneill 3y agoVery valid point. I just removed my poor attempt at political humor. It was not meant in support of any candidates.
- jesterson 3y agoAre you a truth seeker or attention seeker manifesting your political preferences instead of focusing on what article actually discusses? that's a rhetorical question - you already answered it.
- EGreg 3y ago1. GMail will block your email if you don’t allow one-click unsubscribe. But this is very insecure since anyone can unsubscribe you if you forward your email Easy Unsubscribe: Implement easy unsubscribe options (One-click Unsubscribe). Gmail users have tools to report spam, unsubscribe from unwanted emails and control their inbox experience. If it is too difficult to unsubscribe from your emails, customers will be more likely to flag your email as spam. Additional links provided in the ‘References’ section at the end of this article. 2. At the same time, Apple’s ITP will start removing all the information from the URL and only leave the domain, if it classifies your site as a “bounce tracker”. This means you won’t even know who to unsubscribe on one click! So all your emails will be blocked. https://getcake.com/apples-intelligent-tracking-prevention-2-0-itp-how-will-this-impact-you/ https://getcake.com/apples-intelligent-tracking-prevention-2...
- louis-lau 3y agoWhy would apple identify the domain used for unsubscribes as in use solely for being a bounce tracker?
- snowwrestler 3y agoGmail does not require one-click unsubscribe, what they actually require is that you include the “List-Unsubscribe” header in bulk emails, with a functioning mailto or http target. If I forward your newsletter, that’s not a bulk email and it won’t include that header. This is an important distinction that seems to get glossed over in a lot of the coverage and guides about the recent Gmail and Yahoo changes.
- xyst 3y agoGiven how much weight “Gmail”, “Outlook”, and “Yahoo” email providers pull, I have always wondered about a different type of attack on business entities: “targeted failed deliverability” Basically in this attack, a victim (particularly a business or mailing list or NGO) is sending out bulk emails to which the attacker owns. Even sourcing this out to shady off shore click farms would work too. Attacker then marks the victim’s emails as spam in Gmail/Yahoo/Outlook. The “AI spam filters” pick up on this new “spam activity” and will then mark future emails as spam or even delete them before reaching real customers. After a year, company bleeds money on a quarterly basis. Ad departments wonder why there is decreased engagement through email. Technical departments are bamboozled. Maybe a big company will be able to weather the storm or just ditch email altogether. But small companies would definitely take a hit. Even smaller NGO or political mailing lists would lose donations (assuming email was a significant source of new donations). Probably a very low vector of attack tbh, but something that has lingered in my mind.
- nemomarx 3y agoA webforum I know has a rule against marking email notifications they send at spam (You can opt out of receiving them through the site, they just don't want you doing it on the email client end) to avoid this happening to them. For a small org, it's kind of a real risk? I'm not sure how larger orgs mitigate it.
- uuddlrlrbaba 3y agoThey pay 3rd parties to handle relay duties. A large chunk of reliable delivery is based on those received headers, aka what systems your mail is relayed through.
- awesomeMilou 3y agoLol wait, that sounds like e-mail deliverability is almost set up like cartels.
- ozr 3y ago
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y agoAs usual in any email thread about email deliverability, the amount of FUD in these comments is absolutely mind-boggling to me. I’m not unusually smart or intelligent or capable. I wouldn’t consider myself a deliverability expert. It’s only a small small part of my job. I’ve never worked for any organisation that sells email delivery services to third parties. Why the hell can I understand this stuff, and get it to work, while there are so many people here that very clearly indicate (via what they’re saying in their comments) that they DON’T get it yet have a serious axe to grind? I’m left feeling like homegrown email delivery is some sort of lightning rod for stuck-in-the-past faux-sysadmin types that can’t get past the fact that it’s not 2003 anymore and lazily / maliciously comply with SPF / DKIM. IT’S NOT THAT HARD.
- snowwrestler 3y agoWithout knowing everyone’s domains and IPs and history, it’s hard to judge competency in a thread like this. SPF, DKIM, and DMARC are important to set up correctly, but doing so is NOT sufficient for good deliverability. In fact it is only a small component of success. Well-established organizations that have a long history of sending steady volumes of high quality content with low complaints have a huge leg up. So if you work at such a place, or you contract with such a vendor, you’re going to feel like it’s obvious that the DNS entries work well.
- bongodongobob 3y agoYeah it takes like 5 minutes. I have no idea what people are crying about. On a tech site no less. This is entry level have the intern do it stuff.
- gruez 3y ago>As usual in any email thread about email deliverability, the amount of FUD in these comments is absolutely mind-boggling to me. [...] What type of "FUD" are you talking about? The objections in the thread seem pretty well founded (eg. being shadowbanned despite complying with SPD/DKIM, or this requirement breaking email forwarding), and there aren't really any that are against implementing SPF / DKIM.
- nh2 3y ago
- r1ch 3y agoI'm surprised how many big companies fail the one-click unsubscribe test. Whether it's Cloudflare or Akamai blocking the connection, pages that take 5+ seconds to load, pages that require you to sign in or input your email address again... don't be surprised when customers reach for the Report Spam button instead.
- Ayesh 3y agoI'm using NextDNS with AdBlock list, which is effectively a Pi-hole on the cloud. The most annoying this is when email senders use click tracking on domains that are blocked by those AdBlock lists. I keep a separate browser instance to copy-paste those links into, but then I have to login again. I prefer sending unsubscribe emails instead of clicking links. Gmail can automate it.
- iamacyborg 3y agoThe only reason some clicks still get through is because they’re using CNAME cloaking to mask the tracker.
- encom 3y agoAny email I get with click tracking, gets reported as spam.
- nottorp 3y agoI don't unsubscribe from emails I haven't opted in to. So report spam it is.
- JoshTriplett 3y agoSame. If I subscribed to it (rare), I'll unsubscribe. If I get unsolicited mail of any kind, I'm not "unsubscribing", I'm nuking from orbit by any means available, including reporting to hosting providers. (This has, on occasion, resulted in the termination of a spammer's account, but the success rate is low.)
- 3y ago
- hedgehog 3y agoOne thing the April changes break is forwarding between e-mail services. If you currently forward from say an old university address at foo@school.edu to a personal GMail account at bar@gmail.com that will no longer work. This must be relatively uncommon if the major providers are charging ahead with these changes but it's pretty annoying for the people affected.
- Ayesh 3y agoWhy will it no longer work? When you forward an email, unless the email forwarder modifies the message content, it should still match the DKIM signature, so it still passes.
- hedgehog 3y agoI don't know the details but my rough understanding is after forwarding the next hop delivery will fail SPF.
- gtech1 3y agoRoughly 50% of my daily Spam comes from @gmail & @hotmail/@outlook accounts. What exactly are they doing about that ?
- jesterson 3y agoThey may not - but you fail to properly set up DMARC.
- mjl- 3y agoat least gmail.com has a dmarc policy p=none, so a failing dmarc check is not a reason to reject email. i don't think it's that common for small-scale installs to enforce dmarc policies. there are other signals to use though. plenty of bigfreemail spam is actually sent from their network, they're an interesting target for spammers, and at least some of them put a lot of effort in preventing abuse.
- jjav 3y ago> What exactly are they doing about that ? Nothing at all, because they are too big to care. Aggressive decentralization is the only way to save the Internet. Host your own email, get everyone you know to host their own email.
- samirillian 3y agoFantasy solution, will never happen.
- jjav 3y agoYou might be surprised, if you're young enough, to hear that this is exactly how it worked for a very long time. At my first corporate job, and my second one as well, all email was sent and received directly from/to each persons individual workstation. There was no concept of centralized email server. (Let alone outsourcing it to some other company, that would have been completely unthinkable.)
- Animats 3y agoThen there's the other side - receivability. IDrive is supposed to send me an email each day reporting backup status as seen by the backup servers. Those messages have been flaky since mid-February. Logs indicate the backups run; it's just the completion emails that fail. Their support people blame me, although they admit others have the same problem. They're not using a mail delivery service - the emails come directly from an IDrive server. They're sending to my web site, which forwards to my personal address. There's no filtering at the first stage, and a division into Accept/Greymail/Junk at the next stage. Neither Google nor Yahoo is involved at any point.
- nanidin 3y agoI ran my own mail server for more than a decade. Same IP the entire time, never sent spam (for personal use only.) Finally threw in the hat last year and moved to a paid service - it was a pain to tell every person I sent mail to to check their spam box and mark me as not spam or add me to contacts. Beyond that, gmail smtp servers kept getting onto spam blocklists, so I wasn't receiving mail from gmail at times.
- dugite-code 3y agoGmail and Microsoft require a certain volume of email hitting their servers otherwise they forget you exist. I ended up switching to using Amazon's SES service to keep my selfhosted server running. I use seperate emails for each service much like a seperate password so I'm heavily invested in keeping my own server at least for recieving.
- solatic 3y agoNo mention of BIMI (either for or against)? I'm surprised...
- Avamander 3y agoIt doesn't affect deliverability in a measurable way compared to DKIM/DMARC.
- solatic 3y agoThe article is branded as a "deep dive". If it doesn't affect deliverability in a measurable way, then at least mention it in passing to say that it doesn't affect deliverability in a measurable way...
- briandear 3y agoI wish we could solve the unsolicited SMS problem.
- elric 3y agoI have received exactly 2 such messages in the 25+ years I've had a mobile phone. I imagine this is a regional thing, and that where you are eithet mobile networks are insecure, or operators are in cahoots with spammers?
- ai_what 3y agoI totally agree, and also unsolicited calls. Right now the only options that I'm aware of are: 1) Blocking numbers (which is pointless because they rotate them and spoof residential numbers). 2) Whitelisting numbers and blocking everyone else (this would cause me to miss legitimate calls). 3) Blocking entire ranges (this doesn't work because of the spoofing). 4) Using one of those spam screening services (currently looking into this). Still a bit concerned about missing valid calls and the privacy issue with this.
- BlueTemplar 3y agoUnsolicited calls are annoying but not that much of a problem, because unknown number real people that have a good reason to join me can always leave voicemail, while spammers never do (not worth it for them I guess) ?
- jeffbee 3y agoI haven't got any since I switched to Android. Same with spam calls. Their crowdsourcing really works.
- keybored 3y agoI’ve gotten some emails from Gmail about delaying my emails to Gmail users because I apparently send too many emails. I use git-send-email(1) which might send a cover letter plus X patches right after each other. These Gmail users are then in the CC. So I’m not a mailing list. The email list is the To recipient. I’ve been wondering if this was the cause. I don’t send out 5000 emails (I’m not 10X). But there’s this part: > While these guidelines primarily affect bulk senders, senders with less volume per day can also be affected if they are not adhering to these guidelines. I haven’t looked into it yet but I guess I should. I use my own domain and I’m hosted by a not-Gmail provider.
- mmd45 3y agohttps://github.com/trusteddomainproject/OpenARC/issues/163 https://github.com/trusteddomainproject/OpenARC/issues/163 https://github.com/trusteddomainproject/OpenDKIM/issues/186 https://github.com/trusteddomainproject/OpenDKIM/issues/186 OpenARC/OpenDKIM don't parse email headers to spec. Help wanted.
- paulnpace 3y agoI wonder how this ends up impacting government agencies and especially courts and law firms. My experience has been all three struggle with these things.
- andimm 3y agoI think you mixed envelope (RFC5321) and headers (RFC5322) in your text. The domain name in the From: field in the email envelop header is inspected and aligned with other domains authenticated by either SPF or DKIM: The envelope does not have any header, the headers are in the content/body of the email. Also your screenshot of the "Here’s an example email envelop from an organization that passes all of the email security guidelines:" are the mail headers and not the envelope information. Great presentation on this topic from dmarc.org https://dmarc.org/presentations/Email-Authentication-Basics-2015Q2.pdf https://dmarc.org/presentations/Email-Authentication-Basics-...
- xoneill 3y agoFixed, thanks! Embarrassing :).
- willyt 3y agoSpeaking as someone in an industry that receives a lot of unwanted and seemingly un-unsubscribable marketing emails. I have never ever bought anything from a company that has sent me an email cold. I have my inbox set to show the first two lines and I delete them without opening them pretty much all the time. The only thing marketing emails do is annoy me.
- inetknght 3y agoSpam is indistinguishable from malicious content. You did not sign up for the "newsletter". Your email address was harvested and given to malicious actors hell-bent on screwing you. Clicking on anything will take you to a website where your best interest is not at all what the company is going to do with your information. At best you might just remove one source of junk in your inbox. At worst, you end up clicking on something that turns out to install malware on your machine. So what should you do? 1. Don't click on unsubscribe links. 2. Click the spam report button 3. Stop using big email services that ignore spam reports. Gmail panders to other big businesses by letting them spam you without giving you the option to blacklist the entire domain yourself. Malicious content will continue to enter your inbox until you move to an email provider that takes your privacy and security seriously.
- DeanGadberry 3y agoFair assessment. Which email service provider do you use?