Should email spam complaints be suppressed across multiple ESPs?

Email marketer from Email on Acid shares that a clean email list with suppressed addresses leads to better deliverability, engagement, and ROI. Sending to engaged subscribers is far more cost effective and ensures messages reach their intended recipients. A central suppression list ensures consistency of list hygiene across systems.

Email marketer from Quora shares that if you're using multiple ESPs, it's crucial to sync your suppression lists to maintain a consistent sending reputation and avoid annoying subscribers. They claim it's a basic hygiene requirement.

Email marketer from Reddit argues that global suppression lists are essential for managing multiple brands or sending streams. If a user unsubscribes from one brand, they should be globally suppressed to avoid future complaints and maintain a positive sender reputation. Syncing lists prevents sending to people that don't want emails.

Email marketer from Email Marketing Forum mentions that not suppressing spam complaints across all ESPs can lead to a damaged sender reputation and increased spam filtering. Sending to users who have already marked as spam on one platform signals poor list hygiene.

Email marketer from Litmus explains the importance of regular list cleaning and suppression to maintain engagement and avoid spam complaints. They recommend suppressing hard bounces, unsubscribes, and users who haven't engaged in a while. This helps you to only mail to the right users.

Marketer from Email Geeks shares an example of a customer reporting a transactional email (magic link) as spam by accident and how it blocked login, and that it may be ok to keep separate ESPs if each is for a different mail stream, but if they are all sending marketing email then they should be synced.

Email marketer from StackOverflow explains that maintaining an updated suppression list across multiple email sending platforms is crucial for preventing spam complaints and maintaining a good sender reputation. Without a centralized list, users who have opted out or marked as spam on one platform may still receive emails from another, leading to increased complaints.

Email marketer from Mailjet explains that feedback loops (FBLs) are essential for identifying and removing subscribers who mark emails as spam, and integrating FBLs across multiple ESPs provides a comprehensive view of subscriber engagement and prevents sending to disengaged or abusive users.

Email marketer from SendGrid shares that centralising your suppression list helps maintain sender reputation, avoid sending to users who have unsubscribed or marked emails as spam, and improve overall deliverability across different sending platforms. They mention that if you have multiple ESP's or sending platforms, it is vital to keep all suppression lists in sync.

Email marketer from exampleemailmarketing.com says that having a centralized email marketing system assists with managing spam complaints and suppression lists across all sending domains/IPs and it helps improve sender reputation overall.

Expert from Email Geeks explains there are no fines or legal violations, and if ESPs use different domains the reputation impact is limited, and the business goal should be clarified, either to suppress complaints or other reasons.

Expert from Spam Resource explains that FBLs are crucial for ISPs to provide timely feedback about spam complaints to senders. This feedback enables senders to remove complainers from their lists, improving sender reputation and deliverability. This should be implemented everywhere.

Expert from Email Geeks suggests that transactional emails (receipts, password resets, OTPs) should generally not have complaints suppressed.

Expert from Email Geeks shares that sending from multiple ESPs without shared suppression isn't necessarily snowshoe spamming, but it is unwise.

Expert from Word to the Wise explains that maintaining good list hygiene is essential to avoid deliverability issues. They suggest that suppressing spam complaints across all sending platforms is a key aspect of responsible email marketing. They strongly promote the use of Feedback Loops.

Documentation from SparkPost describes that suppression lists prevent sending to users who have unsubscribed or marked emails as spam. They highlight that properly managing suppression lists is critical for maintaining deliverability and avoiding being flagged as a spammer. This management is best performed in a central location.

Documentation from ietf.org defines the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF), the standard format for providing feedback about email abuse. It highlights that ESPs and mail providers use this feedback to identify and address sources of spam, phishing, and other types of email abuse. Using ARF across ESPs creates standardisation.

Documentation from Google highlights the importance of monitoring spam rates through Google Postmaster Tools. It emphasizes that a high spam rate can negatively impact deliverability to Gmail users. Consistent spam rates across all platforms can show a unified reputation profile.

Documentation from AWS SES shares that SES automatically adds email addresses that generate hard bounces or complaints to a suppression list to protect sender reputation. Integrating with other services would require the ability to ensure central suppression across platforms.

Documentation from Microsoft details the Junk Email Reporting Program (JMRP), where users can report unwanted emails as junk. Senders can use this feedback to identify and remove problematic addresses from their lists. Aggregating JMRP data across all sending IPs gives a holistic overview.