How should I interpret sender rejection data from ReturnPath compared to my ESP?

Email marketer from MarketingProfs advises looking for patterns in the rejections reported by Return Path. Are rejections concentrated on specific domains? What are the error messages associated with rejections. The trends will highlight potential target areas.

Email marketer from LinkedIn recommends to ensure your email lists are properly segmented. Poor segmentation can lead to some recipients receiving emails that are not relevant to them. This can lead to recipients reporting spam or unsubscribing, both of which impact your sending reputation.

Email marketer from Deliverability Forum advises prioritizing inbox placement data over just deliverability metrics from your ESP and Return Path. Use tools that measure actual inbox placement rates to gain a more accurate understanding of your email's performance.

Marketer from Email Geeks explains that Return Path's monitoring network represents a subset of all mail/data providers. He advises to check bounce data for blocked messages, compare list composition based on blocks to prioritize efforts, and inquire with Emarsys about rejected mail reports and associated error codes to help troubleshoot. He also suggests regularly monitoring blocks at different providers, as error codes can help identify issues early on.

Email marketer from Reddit shares that Return Path data can be an early warning system, showing potential deliverability issues before they become widespread in your ESP data. He recommends investigating any significant discrepancies and proactively addressing potential problems with your sending practices.

Email marketer from Mailchimp Community Forum suggests examining the seed list performance within Return Path. A poor seed list performance, combined with discrepancies with your ESP, may mean that your email content or subject lines are triggering spam filters for a subset of recipients.

Email marketer from Email Marketing Tips Blog explains that differences between Return Path and ESP data may stem from list hygiene issues. He suggests using a third-party email verification service to clean your list of invalid or risky email addresses to improve overall deliverability and reduce discrepancies between data sources.

Email marketer from Email Marketing Community suggests correlating engagement metrics (opens, clicks) from your ESP with the rejection data from Return Path. A low engagement rate among recipients monitored by Return Path may indicate that your content is not resonating with that specific audience segment.

Email marketer from Email Marketing Forum advises that if Return Path indicates issues not reflected in your ESP, investigate the specific ISPs monitored by Return Path. It's possible your problems are localized. Verify sender authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) and check your IP address against known blocklists to isolate the source of the discrepancy.

Email marketer from Stack Overflow responds that discrepancies between Return Path and ESP data often arise because Return Path monitors a specific subset of ISPs and mailboxes. Focus on your ESP data as it provides a more comprehensive view of your overall sending reputation and deliverability.

Expert from Word to the Wise explains that you should understand the difference between reputation blocks at ISPs and blocks at blocklist providers. ISPs use real engagement data to determine what mail gets to their customer while blocklist providers only focus on spam.

Expert from Word to the Wise explains that you should try to understand which ISPs are more important to your business and then understand the differences between the data that each data source is providing, and understand what each source is measuring. You can then take action based on what is most important for you.

Expert from Email Geeks suggests asking ReturnPath for details about the rejected emails and comparing that data with Emarsys's data to determine the significance of the issue. He suggests focusing on actual delivery rates and addressing any acquisition process issues, but cautions against panicking solely based on ReturnPath's numbers.

Documentation from Validity Knowledge Base explains that Return Path data provides insights into your sender reputation within their monitored network, which is a sample of the overall email ecosystem. Compare the Return Path data with your ESP data to identify potential issues at specific ISPs, but prioritize your ESP's comprehensive data.

Documentation from Google Postmaster Tools explains that you should compare their data (if a significant portion of your audience uses Gmail) with Return Path's data and your ESP. Look for correlations between reputation scores and delivery issues reported by both Return Path and your ESP. Use the feedback loop to identify spam complaints.

Documentation from Microsoft SNDS explains monitoring your sender health via Microsoft's Smart Network Data Services (SNDS). Compare SNDS data with Return Path and ESP data to identify any specific deliverability issues affecting Microsoft email addresses. Address any spam trap hits or complaint rates reported in SNDS.

Documentation from SparkPost explains understanding bounce codes from your ESP and comparing them against potential blocks reported by ReturnPath can provide insights into delivery issues, focusing on hard bounces indicating permanent delivery failures, and soft bounces indicating temporary delivery issues, allowing you to adjust your sending practices accordingly.

Documentation from ietf.org outlines standards and protocols related to internet technologies, explains that when a message is rejected, an SMTP error code is generated. It may be transient or permanent, it is recommended to monitor SMTP error codes.