emailrules.today
Stop 5 of 8WorkingThe same second

Sender reputation

The provider's running opinion of your domain and IP, built from how people have reacted to you over time.

Say it out loud

Gmail's running opinion of us, built over months. One send does not create it, and one bad send can dent it.

Every mailbox provider scores senders against their own history, at the domain and at the IP. Google retired the colour-coded reputation dashboards in Postmaster Tools, so what you can still read is spam rate, authentication results and delivery errors. Microsoft exposes per-IP data through SNDS. Nobody publishes the model, and the scores sold by third parties are somebody else's guess at it.

On screenWhat you can actually see, per providerPublished valuesscrolls →
Google Postmaster spam rate · auth results · delivery errors
reputation dashboards: removed

Google's stated reason was that reputation was not actionable for most senders. Spam rate always was the number.

Microsoft SNDS per-IP complaint and trap data
Microsoft JMRP junk reports, message by message
Yahoo complaint feedback loop, on request
Apple no sender dashboard at all

iCloud publishes requirements and no telemetry. You infer Apple placement or you do not know it.

Nobody publishes the score. You get inputs, never the verdict.

Yours

Nobody does this for you.

Where you find it

  • Google Postmaster Tools → your domain → Spam Rate
  • Microsoft SNDS → your IP range → Data

What goes wrong

Quoting a third-party “sender score” to a client as though it were the provider's opinion. It is a vendor's model of a number Google does not publish, and two vendors will disagree about the same domain on the same day.

What people get told

The claim. Reputation is attached to our IP, so switching IPs resets it.

Actually. Domain reputation follows the domain, and at consumer providers it generally matters more than the IP. Moving to a new IP discards whatever goodwill the old one had and starts you at no history, while the domain carries its record with it. It is a way to make a new problem, not to leave an old one.

The dated rules behind this

A definition is not a citation. These are the pages with the primary source, the date it was published, and what to do about it.

See also

Where this sits

Stop 5, reputation decides. Having proved who you are, you find out whether they want you — and that is mostly about your history, not this message.

FAQ

Awkward questions

Who is this actually for?

People who ship email and are too busy to re-read every PDF: week-one marketers, lifecycle/CRM, deliverability, multi-country ops, DTC brands, agencies — on Klaviyo, Mailchimp, Braze, HubSpot, SFMC, or something else. Pick your tool and geos so product-specific pages only appear when they match. EU and UK are first-class filters. Not for people who sell tools about email and need a fake score to demo.

Why only ~40 rules? Isn’t that… thin?

On purpose. A wall of 400 undated “best practices” is how you look busy and still get burned. Every page needs a primary source we actually read. Thin and checkable beats fat and folklore. Europe, bulk inbox rules, measurement honesty, and protocol topics like BIMI/DMARC policy are on the shelf when we can cite them — not every Member State and not every vendor myth. Coverage map lists what we still refuse to invent.

Is this legal advice?

No. If it were, you’d have a billable hour and a longer PDF. This is a dated operator reference written by an email geek. Confirm anything high-stakes with counsel who knows your facts. Same for “will this make me compliant?” — no tool does that. Lawyers and judges do. We say what the sources say and what to do first on Monday.

Why no trust score out of 100?

Because we refuse to invent a number you can’t audit. Fake scores sell seed tests and panic. You get findings, dates, and links. If that feels less exciting than a red dial, good — you’re not the red-dial customer.

Why should I trust you more than my ESP’s blog?

ESPs sell seats. Seed-score vendors sell fear. AI invents citations when nobody watches. We sell nothing today — no pixels, no placement scores, no affiliate — so we can say when a tool is the problem. A human verifies, dates, and corrects in public. Tools may help draft; they do not ship unsourced claims. Check the primary links. Fail that test and leave.

Do I need an account?

No. Filters live in this browser and the URL. Share the link. That’s it. Accounts come later only if they earn it — not so we can nurture you about email.

I’m an agency. Where’s multi-client mode?

We tried a client-name CRM on the setup card. It made the product feel like work before it felt useful. Role filters + copy link + one-page brief (optional PDF title) is enough for now. Complexity comes back when the free shelf is habit, not before.

Is the quiet changelog a bug?

No. Quiet means nothing material moved. We don’t invent urgency so the homepage looks “alive.” Sticky risks still show what usually needs a person when the market is still.