Should transactional emails have separate authentication from bulk emails?

Summary

The overwhelming consensus among marketers, experts, and documented best practices is that separating authentication for transactional and bulk emails is highly recommended to improve deliverability and maintain distinct sender reputations. This separation can be achieved through various methods, including using separate IP addresses, subdomains, sending domains, or DKIM domains. Separating authentication helps prevent deliverability issues with bulk emails from negatively impacting transactional emails, which are crucial for user experience. However, if the existing setup is functioning well, changes may not be necessary. Additionally, verification emails are often targeted for abuse, reinforcing the need for separate authentication. Using separate SPF records also allows for dedicated authentication and avoidance of SPF limitations.

Key findings

  • Improved Deliverability: Separating authentication enhances email deliverability by isolating sender reputations.
  • Distinct Reputation: Maintaining separate sender reputations for transactional and bulk emails prevents issues in one stream from affecting the other.
  • Various Separation Methods: Different methods exist for separating authentication, including separate IPs, subdomains, sending domains, and DKIM domains.
  • Verification Abuse Prevention: Separation helps protect transactional emails, particularly verification emails, from abuse and spam filters.
  • Separate SPF Records: Having separate SPF records allows for distinct authentication configurations and helps avoid SPF limits.
  • Industry Best Practice: Separating transactional and bulk emails is generally considered an industry best practice for maintaining optimal deliverability.

Key considerations

  • Current Setup: Assess the performance of the current email setup and consider whether changes are necessary if it's functioning well.
  • Technical Expertise: Implementation of separate authentication methods requires technical expertise in DNS records and email authentication protocols (SPF, DKIM, DMARC).
  • Resource Allocation: Allocate sufficient resources and expertise to set up and maintain separate email infrastructures.
  • Email Volume and Risk: Consider the volume of transactional emails and the potential for abuse when determining the level of separation needed.
  • Third-Party Solutions: Consider using third-party email providers for transactional emails to ensure reliable delivery and reputation management.

What email marketers say
12Marketer opinions

The general consensus is that separating authentication for transactional and bulk emails is a best practice to improve deliverability and sender reputation. This can involve using separate IP addresses, subdomains, sending domains, or DKIM domains. It is important to note that if the current setup is working well, it may not be necessary to make changes. Considerations include the volume of emails, potential for abuse, and the existing infrastructure.

Key opinions

  • Deliverability Improvement: Separating authentication improves deliverability by isolating the sender's reputation.
  • Reputation Management: Distinct sender reputations for transactional and bulk emails prevent issues in one stream from affecting the other.
  • Authentication Options: Various methods exist for separation, including separate IPs, subdomains, sending domains, and DKIM domains.
  • Verification Abuse: Verification emails are particularly prone to abuse, making separate authentication beneficial.
  • SPF Limits: Separate SPF records allows you to have separate authentication and avoid SPF limits.

Key considerations

  • Existing Setup: If the current email setup is working without issues, consider whether changes are necessary.
  • Email Volume: The volume of transactional emails may influence the necessity of separation.
  • Abuse Potential: Assess the risk of abuse for transactional emails, particularly verification emails.
  • Infrastructure: Evaluate the existing email infrastructure and the effort required to implement separation.
Marketer view

Email marketer from EmailProviderFeedback shares that it is best practice for authentication to setup your transactional emails with a third party to keep them seperate.

November 2022 - EmailProviderFeedback
Marketer view

Email marketer from StackExchange shares that using a separate subdomain for transactional email is best practice for deliverability.

May 2022 - StackExchange
Marketer view

Marketer from Email Geeks recommends a different sending domain for transactional emails, as long as they share the same organizational domain.

October 2024 - Email Geeks
Marketer view

Marketer from Email Geeks recommends separate authentication for transactional emails regardless of volume, and potentially a separate IP depending on the risks. Verification emails are often the first to be abused.

May 2023 - Email Geeks
Marketer view

Marketer from Email Geeks recommends separate subdomains for authentication, but wouldn't change a working setup.

September 2021 - Email Geeks
Marketer view

Marketer from Email Geeks says If the email setup isn't broken, don't fix it.

June 2024 - Email Geeks
Marketer view

Email marketer from Mailjet explains that separating transactional and marketing emails improves deliverability and reputation. Transactional emails should be sent from a dedicated IP address or subdomain.

February 2023 - Mailjet
Marketer view

Marketer from Email Geeks likes separate DKIM domains for bulk and transactional emails as a minimum.

May 2022 - Email Geeks
Marketer view

Email marketer from SendPulse shares that using a dedicated IP address for transactional emails can improve deliverability, as it isolates the sender's reputation from bulk email campaigns.

February 2025 - SendPulse
Marketer view

Email marketer from Reddit shares that separating transactional and marketing emails is vital as they are very different types of emails and that their reputations should be seperated.

January 2025 - Reddit
Marketer view

Email marketer from Gmass explains that separating transactional and marketing emails and lists increases deliverability.

October 2022 - Gmass
Marketer view

Email marketer from Forumer shares that having separate SPF records allows you to have seperate authentication to increase deliverability and avoid SPF limits.

December 2022 - Forumer

What the experts say
2Expert opinions

Experts agree that separating authentication for transactional and bulk emails is a best practice. This approach helps maintain distinct sender reputations for each type of email, preventing issues in one stream from negatively impacting the deliverability of the other. By implementing separate SPF, DKIM, and DMARC configurations, organizations can ensure that their transactional emails are delivered reliably, even if their bulk email campaigns experience deliverability challenges.

Key opinions

  • Best Practice: Separating authentication for transactional and bulk emails is considered a best practice.
  • Distinct Reputation: Maintaining distinct sender reputations improves deliverability for both email types.
  • Prevent Impact: Separation ensures that issues in one email stream do not negatively affect the deliverability of the other.

Key considerations

  • Implementation Effort: Implementing separate SPF, DKIM, and DMARC configurations requires technical expertise and effort.
  • Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring is necessary to ensure that both email streams maintain their distinct reputations and deliverability.
Expert view

Expert from Word to the Wise emphasizes the importance of sender reputation for different email streams. Separating transactional and marketing emails ensures that issues with one stream do not negatively impact the deliverability of the other.

July 2022 - Word to the Wise
Expert view

Expert from Spam Resource explains that separating authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) for transactional and bulk emails is a best practice. This helps maintain distinct reputations for each type of email, improving deliverability.

January 2023 - Spam Resource

What the documentation says
3Technical articles

Technical documentation consistently recommends separating transactional and bulk emails using distinct domains or subdomains to create separate SPF records and configure authentication protocols (Sender ID, SPF, DKIM, and DMARC) independently. This separation allows for better control over sender reputation and improves email authentication and filtering, ultimately enhancing deliverability for both types of email.

Key findings

  • Domain Separation: Using separate domains or subdomains is a key strategy for separating email streams.
  • Distinct SPF Records: Separation enables the creation of distinct SPF records for transactional and bulk emails.
  • Authentication Configuration: Configuring Sender ID, SPF, DKIM, and DMARC records differently improves authentication and filtering.
  • Reputation Control: Separation allows for better control over sender reputation for each email type.

Key considerations

  • Technical Expertise: Implementing these configurations requires technical expertise in DNS records and email authentication protocols.
  • Infrastructure Changes: Setting up separate domains or subdomains may require changes to the existing email infrastructure.
  • Ongoing Maintenance: Regular monitoring and maintenance of DNS records and authentication configurations are necessary to ensure continued deliverability.
Technical article

Documentation from Microsoft explains that configuring Sender ID, SPF, DKIM, and DMARC records differently for transactional and bulk email domains helps improve email authentication and filtering.

December 2021 - Microsoft
Technical article

Documentation from SparkPost explains that using a separate sending domain for transactional and marketing emails allows for better control over sender reputation and deliverability.

November 2024 - SparkPost
Technical article

Documentation from RFC explains that using separate domains or subdomains for transactional and bulk emails allows for the creation of distinct SPF records, enhancing authentication and deliverability.

May 2023 - RFC