by Anil Jalela | Nov 7, 2025 | Linux
TL;DR
-
Gmail’s bulk-sender compliance rules move into full enforcement in November 2025.
-
Domains sending 5,000+ messages/day to personal Gmail accounts must meet all authentication and compliance requirements.
-
Missing or failing SPF, DKIM, DMARC, or List-Unsubscribe headers can now cause hard rejections (5xx) or deferrals (4xx).
-
Gmail will display specific bounce codes to indicate the reason for non-delivery.
-
Treat this as a mandatory compliance deadline, Gmail is enforcing, not warning.
Background & Definitions
Google’s bulk-sender guidelines have been in motion for some time:
-
As of February 2024, senders of 5,000+ messages/day to Gmail were required to adopt full authentication and best practices.
-
Beginning November 2025, the enforcement phase starts in earnest for domains sending to personal Gmail accounts (addresses ending in @gmail.com or @googlemail.com).
-
Note: These rules do not apply in the same way to inbound mail sent to Google Workspace domains (corporate addresses such as @yourcompany.com hosted under Workspace).
Terminology you should keep straight:
-
Bulk Sender: Any domain sending roughly 5,000 or more messages per day to personal Gmail addresses. Once classified as “bulk,” that status is persistent.
-
Authentication Protocols:
-
SPF (Sender Policy Framework) :- authorizes IPs via DNS.
-
DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) :- signs messages with a private key.
-
DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance) :- aligns SPF/DKIM with the visible “From:” domain.
-
Alignment: The “From:” domain must align with either the DKIM d= domain or the SPF domain for DMARC to pass.
-
One-Click Unsubscribe / List-Unsubscribe Header: Marketing mail must include a valid List-Unsubscribe: header (RFC 8058) so Gmail can display an unsubscribe button.
Technical Deep Dive
1. DNS & Authentication
Create a DMARC record such as:
-
Move to p=quarantine or p=reject after confidence increases.
-
Ensure alignment between “From:” and DKIM/SPF domains.
-
Maintain valid PTR (reverse DNS) for all sending IPs.
-
Require TLS 1.2+ for SMTP connections to Gmail.
2. Sending Infrastructure & Hygiene
-
Keep complaint rate under 0.3 %; Gmail’s filters react quickly to spikes.
-
Warm up new IPs gradually.
-
Include the List-Unsubscribe: header in all commercial email.
-
Validate contact lists — avoid purchased or stale data.
-
Segment transactional vs. promotional traffic.
3. Monitoring & Bounce Codes
Key Gmail bounce codes to watch:
| Code |
Meaning |
Action |
| 421 4.7.26 |
SPF/DKIM failed |
Fix authentication or DNS |
| 421 4.7.40 |
Missing DMARC policy |
Publish a DMARC record |
| 550 5.7.26 |
Blocked due to alignment/auth failure |
Verify DKIM/From domain match |
| 421 4.7.32 |
High spam or poor reputation |
Improve list hygiene and engagement |
Monitor logs, set up alerts, and use Google Postmaster Tools to track authentication and spam rates.
4. Escalation & Support
If compliant yet facing rejections:
-
Verify all DNS and alignment settings.
-
Gather logs, headers, and Postmaster metrics.
-
Submit a request via Google’s Sender Contact Form.
Note: Senders without compliance are ineligible for mitigation.
Provider-Specific Behavior (Gmail)
-
Gmail now rejects rather than silently spam-filters non-compliant bulk mail.
-
Personal Gmail addresses (@gmail.com / @googlemail.com) are in scope.
-
Business Workspace domains behave differently — but best practice is to comply universally.
-
Gmail’s “Unsubscribe” banner only appears when the List-Unsubscribe: header exists; missing it can reduce deliverability.
-
Updated bounce wording now explicitly states why a message was deferred or rejected.
Implementation Steps
1. Audit all sending domains
-
-
Confirm SPF, DKIM, DMARC, PTR, TLS, and alignment.
Test authentication by sending to a Gmail account and checking “Show original.”
2. Fix issues
-
Publish missing DNS records.
-
Configure MTA DKIM signing (Postfix, Exim, or ESP-side).
-
Add unsubscribe headers for all marketing streams.
3. Monitor continuously
-
-
Track Gmail Postmaster Tools daily.
-
Alert on 4xx/5xx bounces.
-
Rotate DKIM keys periodically.
4. Warm and segment
5. Document everything
-
-
Keep change logs, authentication keys, and DMARC reports.
-
Record unsubscribe SLAs and complaint handling workflows.
Validation & Monitoring
-
Use Google Postmaster Tools for:
-
Set automated alerts for bounce codes(4.7.26, 4.7.40, 5.7.26).
-
Review DNS records monthly.
-
Track unsubscribe handling — Gmail expects requests honored within 48 hours.
Reputation Thresholds and Complaint-Rate Impact
Gmail evaluates not only technical compliance but also recipient engagement and complaint patterns.
Complaint-Rate Reference
| Complaint Rate |
Classification |
Gmail Reaction |
| < 0.08% |
Healthy |
Normal inbox placement |
| 0.10–0.30% |
Warning zone |
Inbox ↔ Promotions/Spam mix |
| > 0.30% |
Risk threshold |
Throttling or Spam filtering |
| > 0.50% |
Major issue |
Domain/IP reputation drop |
| > 1.0% |
Critical |
Gmail blocks sender traffic |
How Gmail Responds When Complaints > 0.30%
| Complaint Level |
Gmail Response |
What You See |
| 0.10–0.20% |
Reputation warning |
Inbox → Promotions/Spam mix |
| 0.20–0.30% |
Throttling / Greylisting |
4xx soft bounces |
| > 0.30% |
Traffic flagged unwanted |
Spam placement + 5xx rejects |
| > 0.50% |
Domain reputation declines |
Multiple streams impacted |
| > 1.0% |
Sender deemed abusive |
Domain/IP blocks |
Behavioral Signals Monitored
| Signal |
Positive |
Negative |
| Opens |
✅ |
❌ No opens |
| Clicks |
✅ |
❌ No engagement |
| “Not Spam” clicks |
✅ |
❌ Frequent “Spam” reports |
| Deletes unread |
✅ / Neutral |
❌ High ratio → unwanted |
| Replies / Forwards |
✅ |
❌ None across list |
Transition to Enforcement
| Complaint Range |
Pre-Enforcement (2024–2025) |
After Nov 2025 Enforcement |
| 0.10–0.30% |
Inbox ↔ Spam fluctuations |
Deferrals (4xx) |
| > 0.30% |
Throttling / Spam placement |
Spam + Permanent reject (5xx) |
| > 1.0% |
Heavy Spam placement |
Domain-level blocks |
Common Pitfalls & Fixes
| Pitfall |
Risk |
Fix |
| Missing DMARC |
Mail deferred/rejected |
Add _dmarc record with p=none |
| Weak DKIM (≤1024 bit) |
Failures, 4.7.30 errors |
Generate new 2048-bit key |
| From-domain misalignment |
DMARC fail |
Align DKIM/SPF to match From: |
| No List-Unsubscribe header |
Spam risk |
Add header + working unsubscribe URL |
| Poor hygiene / high spam rate |
Reputation loss |
Clean lists, segment, throttle |
| TLS misconfiguration |
Security downgrade |
Verify certificate + ciphers |
FAQ
Q1. Does this apply to Google Workspace recipients?
Not directly — enforcement targets personal Gmail accounts. Still, the same authentication improves Workspace delivery.
Q2. What if I send under 5,000 emails/day?
You may not be flagged as “bulk,” but authentication and unsubscribe best practices still apply.
Q3. What happens if I temporarily fail DKIM?
Expect deferrals (4xx) or rejections (5xx). Fix immediately; Gmail tracks trends.
Q4. Are transactional messages exempt from unsubscribe requirements?
Yes, transactional messages (password resets, invoices) are exempt, but authentication is still mandatory.
Q5. What’s the best DKIM key size?
Use 2048-bit keys; shorter keys may be rejected in future policy rounds.
Q6. Can multiple ESPs share one domain?
Yes, if each is properly authorized via SPF/DKIM and aligns under DMARC.
Q7. How should I monitor deliverability post-November 2025?
Through Google Postmaster Tools, internal bounce analytics, and reputation dashboards.
Q8. Can Gmail block compliant senders?
Rare, but possible if complaint rate or spam classification spikes. Compliance ≠ immunity , maintain reputation.
Conclusion / Next Steps
November 2025 marks the moment Gmail moves from guidance to enforcement. If you manage outbound infrastructure or send at scale:
-
Audit all domains, DNS, and MTAs now.
-
Fix SPF/DKIM/DMARC alignment issues.
-
Ensure unsubscribe headers, TLS, and list hygiene.
-
Monitor Gmail feedback daily.
-
Document compliance , because Gmail’s filters now expect proof, not promises.
Strong authentication and transparent unsubscribe flows aren’t optional anymore and they’re the baseline for inbox trust.
by Anil Jalela | Oct 13, 2025 | Linux
- Yahoo’s Sender Insights introduces genuine transparency for DKIM-authenticated senders.
- The dashboard aggregates data across all sending domains under the same DKIM domain, not per From: domain.
- Metrics like spam complaint rate are now calculated based on inbox-delivered messages only.
- Engineers can finally spot early deliverability decay before enforcement or throttling kicks in.
- A long-awaited counterpart to Gmail Postmaster Tools — but with a DKIM-first architecture.
Background: Yahoo’s Step Toward Postmaster Transparency
For years, Yahoo Mail operated as one of the least transparent large mailbox providers. Deliverability teams had to infer Yahoo’s behavior from indirect signals — rising deferred rates, FBL complaints, and traffic throttling patterns.
That’s changing.
In 2025, Yahoo introduced Sender Insights, part of the Yahoo Sender Hub, giving domain owners authenticated visibility into message delivery and complaint performance. It’s a significant milestone: Yahoo now provides first-party data for postmasters and no third-party intermediaries, no feedback loop dependence.
Unlike Google’s Postmaster Tools, Yahoo’s approach is rooted in DKIM identity, not From: domain identity. That’s a major shift — one that better reflects how serious senders operate across multiple sub-brands, ESPs, or shared infrastructure.
Technical Deep Dive: What Yahoo Sender Insights Measures
Yahoo’s Sender Insights provides metrics that finally allow a DKIM domain owner to understand sender health holistically.
| Signal |
Description |
Key Notes for Engineers |
| Delivered |
Total messages accepted and delivered to Yahoo-managed domains |
Includes Yahoo Mail (.com, .fr, .co.uk, .ca, etc.) |
| Spam Complaint Rate |
Complaints as a % of inbox-delivered messages |
Excludes spam-foldered mail — isolates genuine user dissatisfaction |
| Delivery Volume |
Total volume by DKIM domain per selected timeframe |
Enables traffic pattern validation vs. MTA logs |
| Timeframe Comparison Delta |
% change vs. previous period |
Helps monitor trend degradation (rolling 7-day window) |
| Timezone Consistency |
Data reported in UTC |
Supports global coordination of deliverability monitoring |
| DKIM-Domain Aggregation |
Data rolled up across all subdomains using the same DKIM domain |
Ideal for centralized monitoring across multiple ESPs |
The emphasis on DKIM-domain aggregation means that if you operate multiple subdomains (like mail.brand.com, alerts.brand.com, and marketing.brand.com), all traffic signed with the same DKIM domain (e.g., d=brand.com) appears in one unified dataset.
That’s a fundamental design improvement over systems that segment per-From domain, especially in environments using shared ESP infrastructures or distributed sending clusters.
Yahoo vs. Gmail: Philosophical Differences in Data Design
While Gmail’s Postmaster Tools remain the gold standard for reputation monitoring, Yahoo’s approach solves a different pain point.
| Aspect |
Gmail Postmaster Tools |
Yahoo Sender Insights |
| Identity Basis |
Envelope From / DKIM / IP |
DKIM Domain only |
| Complaint Rate Source |
Global spam complaint ratio |
Inbox-only complaint rate |
| Data Freshness |
~24h delay |
~24–48h delay |
| Granularity |
Domain and IP-level charts |
Aggregated DKIM domain-level charts |
| Access Model |
Gmail account verification |
DKIM-based domain verification |
| Spam Filtering Insight |
Reputation categories |
Complaint delta trends |
Yahoo’s Inbox-only metric is especially valuable. It filters out the “false noise” created by spam-foldered mail. That means you’re measuring real dissatisfaction from real recipients and a far more reliable quality signal.
Accessing Yahoo Sender Insights
Access is handled via the Yahoo Sender Hub:
- Visit yahoo.com and log in with a Yahoo account.
- Add and verify your DKIM domain (not From: domain).
- Verification is completed by publishing a TXT DNS record that Yahoo provides.
- Once confirmed, Yahoo starts populating deliverability metrics within a few days.
Verification Example
# Example TXT record (synthetic)
selector._domainkey.brand.com. IN TXT “v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBg…”
yahoo-verification.brand.com. IN TXT “yahoo-domain-verification=abcdef123456”
After validation, Yahoo links your account to all traffic signed with d=brand.com in the DKIM header.
Core Benefits for Deliverability Engineers
The engineering value of Sender Insights goes beyond marketing analytics. It enables:
- Proactive reputation management before large-scale throttling or filtering occurs.
- Unified reporting across multi-ESP environments using consistent DKIM keys.
- Historical baselining for complaint rates, ideal for post-campaign analysis.
- Cross-correlation with MTA-level logs to diagnose acceptance anomalies.
- Alignment verification, since only properly DKIM-authenticated messages are included.
In short, it’s the first real visibility Yahoo has ever given to postmasters who do things by the book — authenticated, compliant, and signed mail.
Implementation Steps: From Setup to Insight
1. Authenticate via DKIM
Ensure all outbound traffic — including transactional and marketing streams — uses a consistent DKIM domain (d=). Avoid mismatched selectors or inconsistent key deployment.
2. Verify in Yahoo Sender Hub
Add your DKIM domain, publish the TXT verification record, and confirm ownership.
3. Wait for Data Propagation
Metrics usually start appearing within 24–72 hours. Historical data is not backfilled.
4. Interpret Trends
- Rising complaint deltas → look for creative fatigue or segmentation issues.
- Volume dips → possible acceptance throttling.
- Stable volume + rising complaints → likely inbox placement degradation.
5. Cross-Validate with Internal Logs
Compare Yahoo’s “Delivered” volume with MTA accepted logs (e.g., Postfix status=sent entries).
Discrepancies may point to bounce loops or DSN mismatches.
Validation & Monitoring Techniques
To monitor Yahoo deliverability in real time:
- Use MTA syslog parsing (Postfix, Exim, KumoMTA) to extract Yahoo response codes (421, 451, 554).
- Match Yahoo’s daily “Delivered” counts with your MTA logs to confirm parity.
- Combine with Feedback Loop (FBL) data for granular user complaint context.
- For DKIM validation, run daily checks using:
opendkim-testkey -d brand.com -s selector -vvv
If the key fails or rotates, your Yahoo Insights data will stop accumulating — a subtle yet critical detail for automation pipelines.
Common Pitfalls & Fixes
| Issue |
Symptom |
Resolution |
| Mismatched DKIM selectors |
Partial data in Insights |
Standardize DKIM selectors across ESPs |
| Rotating ESP keys |
Gaps in Insight data |
Re-register DKIM domain after key rotation |
| Inconsistent signing domain |
Missing traffic in reports |
Align all mail to same d= value |
| FBL-only monitoring |
False sense of health |
Combine FBL and Insights data |
| High complaint delta (>0.3%) |
Precursor to Yahoo filtering |
Reduce frequency, improve targeting |
Yahoo Enforcement Behavior and Thresholds
Yahoo’s ecosystem has long been sensitive to complaint rates. Historically, 0.3% inbox complaint rate has been the informal threshold for risk.
With Sender Insights, postmasters can now see when they’re approaching that boundary and a crucial early warning system. Engineers should automate alerts around deltas exceeding 0.25%, long before complaints hit enforcement-level visibility.
Yahoo’s throttling typically manifests as:
- Temporary 421 4.7.0 [TS01] deferrals
- Followed by hard rejections (554 5.7.9) if sustained over time
- Eventually, long-term domain-level reputation decay
Sender Insights transforms that opaque process into something observable — and manageable.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- Does Yahoo Sender Insights include IP-level reputation?
No. It’s DKIM-domain based only. IP insights are not exposed.
- Are spam-foldered messages counted?
No. Complaint rate is calculated only on inbox-delivered mail.
- Can I monitor multiple DKIM domains?
Yes. Each verified DKIM domain has its own dashboard.
- Does historical data appear retroactively?
No. Data starts accumulating post-verification.
- What if my ESP signs with their own DKIM domain?
Then Insights belongs to the ESP, not you. Use a dedicated DKIM domain.
- Is Yahoo Insights replacing the Feedback Loop?
Not entirely, it complements it with aggregated analytics.
- How often is data updated?
Typically every 24–48 hours.
- Can I export data programmatically?
Currently no API ,vmanual CSV export only.
- Does DMARC alignment matter for Yahoo Insights?
Yes. Only properly aligned mail is eligible for DKIM-domain attribution.
10. Are Yahoo subdomains (e.g., ymail.com, rocketmail.com) included?
Yes, all Yahoo-managed TLDs roll into the same dataset.
Conclusion: A New Era of DKIM-Driven Transparency
Yahoo Sender Insights finally bridges the gap between authenticated identity and deliverability observability. For the first time, senders can correlate user complaints, message acceptance, and domain-wide health using native Yahoo telemetry and no guesswork, no third-party proxies.
For deliverability engineers, this is an opportunity to reframe monitoring around authenticated sender identity, not arbitrary domain fragments or per-ESP reporting.
If Gmail set the standard for IP + domain insights, Yahoo just redefined what DKIM-level analytics should look like.
Expect other ESPs to follow this model , because visibility builds trust, and trust is the real currency of email deliverability.
by Anil Jalela | Oct 3, 2025 | Linux
The Ultimate Guide to Unsubscribe and List-Unsubscribe Best Practices.
Email deliverability is built on trust. One of the clearest ways to show respect for your subscribers is to give them a clear, simple, and standards-compliant unsubscribe option.
This isn’t just about compliance with laws like CAN-SPAM, GDPR, or CASL. A frictionless unsubscribe flow lowers spam complaints, improves sender reputation, and aligns you with strict requirements from mailbox providers like Gmail, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Apple.
In this guide, we’ll take a deep dive into:
– The RFC standards that define unsubscribe
– Provider and client support (mailto vs HTTP)
– Why RFC 8058 solved the infamous ‘bot problem’
– GET vs POST unsubscribe methods
– ESP and custom infrastructure requirements
– What the future looks like for unsubscribe management
1. What Is a List-Unsubscribe Header?
A List-Unsubscribe header is an email header that tells inbox providers how a
recipient can unsubscribe. Instead of hunting for a link buried at the bottom of an email, subscribers see a native ‘Unsubscribe’ button or banner inside their client.
Example: Gmail shows ‘Unsubscribe’ next to the sender’s name at the top of the message.
A simple header might look like:
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>,
<https://example.com/unsub?id=12345>
Modern one-click headers use RFC 8058:
List-Unsubscribe: <https://example.com/unsub?id=12345>
List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click
2. What Do the RFCs Say?
| RFC |
Focus |
Relevance |
| RFC 2369 (1998) |
List-* headers |
Introduced List-Unsubscribe, List-Help, List-Subscribe |
| RFC 2919 (2001) |
List-Id header |
Standardized identifiers for mailing lists |
| RFC 8058 (2017) |
One-Click Unsubscribe |
Defined List-Unsubscribe-Post for safe POST-based unsubscribes |
The big leap came with RFC 8058, which fixed the ‘bot problem.’
3. RFC 8058: Solving the Bot Problem
Before RFC 8058, unsubscribe URLs often used GET. Security scanners, spam filters, and anti-virus bots routinely pre-clicked every link in incoming mail. This meant users could be unsubscribed without ever choosing to opt out.
RFC 8058 defined One-Click Unsubscribe via POST:
1. Sender includes two headers:
List-Unsubscribe: <https://example.com/unsub/opaque-id>
List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click
2. The recipient’s mail client performs an HTTPS POST to the unsubscribe endpoint with a body of:
List-Unsubscribe=One-Click
3. The sender’s server unsubscribes only on valid POST requests.
Why it works:
– GET requests from bots are ignored.
– Only POST requests with the specific body trigger unsubscribes.
– No cookies, redirects, or extra parameters are allowed.
– DKIM signatures must cover the unsubscribe headers for authenticity.
4. Who Supports List-Unsubscribe?
| Provider / Client |
Mailto |
HTTP/HTTPS |
One-Click POST (RFC 8058) |
| Gmail |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes (mandatory since June 2024) |
| Yahoo / AOL |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes (mandatory since June 2024) |
| Outlook.com / Office 365 |
Yes |
Yes |
Partial |
| Apple Mail (macOS, iOS) |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Thunderbird |
Yes |
No |
No |
| ProtonMail |
No |
No |
No |
| Zoho Mail |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| GMX / Web.de |
Yes |
Yes |
No (GET-based) |
| Mail.ru |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Fastmail |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| Hey.com |
No |
No |
No |
5. Mailto vs HTTP Unsubscribe
| Method |
How It Works |
Strengths |
Weaknesses |
| Mailto |
Generates an email to [email protected] |
Simple, universal, legacy-friendly |
Requires inbound parsing, slower, harder to automate |
| HTTP/HTTPS |
Uses a web endpoint |
Fast, supports APIs, enables POST |
Dangerous if GET-only (bot triggers) |
6. GET vs POST Unsubscribe
GET: Quick but unsafe. Bots trigger unsubscribes accidentally.
POST: Requires explicit user action. Safer and compliant with RFC 8058.
Example GET:
GET /unsub?id=12345
Example POST:
POST /unsub/opaque-id
Body: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click
Gmail and Yahoo now enforce POST only.
7. ESP and Custom Infrastructure Requirements
Major ESPs like Mailchimp, SendGrid, HubSpot, and Amazon SES automatically insert unsubscribe headers, manage suppression lists, process feedback loop complaints, and offer preference centers.
If you self-host using Postfix, PowerMTA, or KumoMTA, you must:
– Generate List-Unsubscribe and List-Unsubscribe-Post headers
– Maintain a suppression database
– Accept POST-only unsubscribe endpoints
– Reject or safely handle GET requests
8. The Future of Unsubscribe
Gmail – Moving toward centralized ‘Manage Subscriptions’ dashboard.
Yahoo – Testing an ‘Unsubscribe Folder’ for bulk opt-outs.
Microsoft – Uses unsubscribe signals to sort Focused vs Other vs Junk.
Apple – Prominent unsubscribe banners in Mail, privacy-first focus.
ESPs – Blocking campaigns without headers, expanding preference centers.
9. Best Practices Checklist
– Include both mailto and HTTP unsubscribe
– Implement RFC 8058 one-click POST
– Sign headers with DKIM
– Ignore GET requests for unsubscribes
– Maintain a suppression list with reason codes
– Offer preference centers when possible
– Monitor Gmail Postmaster and Yahoo rules closely
Final Word
Unsubscribe is not the end of a relationship. It is part of a healthy one. By making it easy to leave, you strengthen engagement with those who stay. RFC 8058 gave the industry the tools to separate real human intent from bot noise. Gmail and Yahoo made it a requirement, and the rest of the ecosystem is following.
For any sender serious about inbox placement in 2025 and beyond, unsubscribe is no longer optional. It is mission-critical.
by Anil Jalela | Sep 26, 2025 | Linux
Google is retiring the original Gmail Postmaster Tools (v1) and replacing it fully with Postmaster Tools v2. Starting September 30, 2025, the v1 interface will no longer be available, and all users will be redirected to the v2 dashboards. At the same time, the existing v1 API—still in use by most deliverability platforms—will also be retired once Google launches the new v2 API, expected before the end of 2025.
Google Support Announcement
v1 vs v2 Interface: What’s Changing
| Feature / Dashboard |
v1 (Old Interface) |
v2 (New Interface) |
Notes / Impact |
| Access |
Legacy UI available until Sept 30, 2025 |
Only v2 available after that date |
v1 dashboards shut down, auto-redirect to v2 |
| Domain Reputation |
Present (reputation tile) |
Removed in v2 |
Google retired domain rep dashboards |
| IP Reputation |
Present (tile view) |
Removed in v2 |
IP reputation dashboards also retired |
| Spam Rate |
User-reported spam rate chart |
Enhanced with threshold guidance |
v2 emphasizes compliance thresholds (e.g., ~0.10% safe, >0.30% violation) |
| Compliance Status |
Not available |
New dashboard |
Shows if sender meets Gmail’s bulk sender rules (e.g., authentication, unsub headers) |
| Authentication (SPF/DKIM/DMARC) |
Dedicated dashboard |
Still available |
Now more tightly linked with compliance checks |
| Delivery Errors |
Shows rejected/failed mail |
Still available |
Remains key to diagnosing blocks |
| Encryption (TLS) |
Shows % encrypted mail |
Still available |
Carried over without major change |
| Feedback Loop / Spam Reports |
Separate dashboard |
Integrated with Spam/Compliance views |
Gmail still exposes complaint trends |
Google Dashboards Overview
v1 vs v2 API: What to Expect
| Capability |
v1 API (Current) |
v2 API (Planned, 2025) |
Notes |
| Status |
Active until v2 release |
Expected by end of 2025 |
Old API retired after new launch |
| Data Model |
Matches v1 dashboards (but aligned to v2 now) |
New schema with distinct endpoints |
Client code updates required |
| Domain/IP Reputation |
Available |
Not included |
Reputation dashboards retired |
| Compliance Metrics |
Limited |
New endpoints for compliance checks |
Covers unsubscribe, authentication, policy adherence |
| Domain Management |
Manual/limited |
Domain Management APIs |
Add/remove/manage domains programmatically |
| Batch Operations |
Basic bulk retrieval |
Batch APIs |
Streamlined data pulls at scale |
| Migration Difficulty |
Widely adopted, stable |
Requires schema refactor |
Google warns: “client code updates needed” |
Google Postmaster API Docs
Why Google Is Making This Change
Google’s bulk sender requirements, introduced in 2024, emphasized authentication, one-click unsubscribe, and low spam complaint rates. The v2 dashboards align tightly with these rules. Rather than showing vague “reputation” tiles, v2 focuses on actionable compliance signals:
- Are you passing SPF, DKIM, DMARC consistently?
- Are unsubscribe headers present and honored?
- Are spam complaints within Gmail’s published thresholds?
By removing reputation tiles, Gmail is steering senders toward fixing concrete issues, not chasing a single color badge.
Pros and Cons of the Shift
Pros
-
Policy alignment: v2 dashboards map directly to Gmail’s compliance rules.
-
Clear thresholds: Spam rate guidance is visualized, giving practical benchmarks.
-
Future investment: Google is actively evolving v2, with API improvements on the way.
Cons
-
Loss of simplicity: No more easy green/yellow/red reputation view.
-
API gap: Until the v2 API launches, integrations can’t access all new compliance data.
-
Migration overhead: Dashboards, alerts, and reports built around v1 reputation tiles must be rebuilt.
Impact on Deliverability Tools and Marketers
-
Vendors must refactor: Tools that relied on reputation metrics will need to use spam rate, compliance checks, and authentication data.
-
Alerts must change: Instead of “reputation dropped,” alerts should fire when spam rates exceed thresholds, or authentication/compliance fails.
-
Reporting disruption: Marketing teams that reported “domain reputation = high” will need to educate stakeholders and reframe KPIs.
-
Attribution becomes harder: Without a reputation badge, teams must correlate spikes in spam rate with campaigns, list sources, or creative changes.
How to Judge Reputation Without Reputation Tiles
- Spam Rate Trends – Low spam complaints = good standing; spikes indicate issues.
- Authentication Health – SPF, DKIM, DMARC pass rates near 100% are essential.
- Compliance Dashboard – Watch one-click unsubscribe and policy adherence.
- Delivery Errors – Rising 4xx/5xx rates suggest throttling or blocks.
- Engagement Data (your side) – Low opens/high deletes often predict future spam issues.
- External Tools – Use SNDS, Talos, and inbox placement tests to cross-check Gmail trends.
What Marketers Should Do Next:-
- Inventory dependencies – List where reputation tiles or v1 API are used.
- Refactor dashboards – Replace reputation metrics with spam rate, compliance, and authentication.
- Prepare migration path – Abstract API calls so v2 API can be swapped in easily.
- Educate stakeholders – Create a one-pager explaining the retirement of reputation dashboards.
- Parallel test – Run both old and new KPIs together until v1 disappears.
- Monitor announcements – Track Google Workspace updates for v2 API release details.
- Supplement with external signals – Seed tests and placement monitoring fill in Gmail’s gaps.
Conclusion
The retirement of Gmail Postmaster Tools v1 is a fundamental shift. What looks like a loss—the removal of Domain and IP Reputation tiles—actually reflects Gmail’s evolution toward policy-based sender management.
For deliverability teams, the challenge is clear:
Stop chasing “reputation colors.”
Start building dashboards and alerts around spam rate, compliance, and authentication stability.
Prepare for the v2 API by modularizing integrations now.
Handled proactively, this migration can leave your monitoring stronger than before, and more closely aligned with what Gmail actually enforces in practice.
by Anil Jalela | Sep 11, 2025 | Linux
Google Deal Cards Post-Open – What Marketers Need to Know
Google is reshaping the email marketing landscape with Deal Cards Post-Open, a feature that highlights promotional offers directly inside opened emails. Unlike inbox-level previews, this feature lives inside the email itself and gives brands a new opportunity to capture attention once a user decides to open.
What Are Deal Cards Post-Open?
When a recipient opens a promotional email in Gmail, a deal card may appear at the top of the message. These cards summarize the offer in a visually distinct way, often highlighting discounts, limited-time promotions, or seasonal sales.
This is not an AI-generated preview. It is a marketing-driven enhancement that allows brands to surface their key offers immediately after the email is opened.
When Do Deal Cards Appear?
Deal Cards are shown only in specific situations. Gmail may display them when:
The email is categorized under the Promotions tab
A user opens the email and Gmail detects a clear promotional offer
The offer is well-structured and easy for Gmail to parse, such as a percentage discount, coupon code, or sale event
The sender has a good reputation and meets Gmail’s technical requirements
They are not guaranteed to appear for every email. Gmail decides when to display them based on the content, structure, and trustworthiness of the sender.
Requirements for Deal Cards
Marketers must follow certain requirements to increase the likelihood that Gmail will generate Deal Cards for their promotions.
-
Use Promotional Schema Markup
Implement Gmail’s supported email markup, either JSON-LD or microdata, with the PromotionCard schema. Key fields include discount amount, discount code, valid dates, and a short description of the offer.
-
Present Clear Offer Content
Ensure the offer is visible and explicit in the email body. For example, “20% off until August 15” is more effective than vague wording like “great deals inside.”
-
Maintain Strong Sender Reputation
Only senders with a good reputation are likely to see enhanced features. If a domain has frequent spam complaints, Gmail may avoid showing Deal Cards.
-
Authenticate Emails
Gmail requires proper authentication through SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. These signals confirm sender legitimacy and are essential for schema-based features.
-
Target the Promotions Tab
Deal Cards appear inside the Promotions tab, not in the Primary or Social tabs.
Why Deal Cards Matter for Marketers
Enhanced Visibility.
Important deals no longer risk being buried in long templates. The card ensures the most attractive offer is seen first.
Improved Engagement.
Highlighting key promotions can increase click-through rates and conversions, especially during competitive retail periods.
Design Adjustments
Since Gmail is surfacing structured offers directly, marketers must ensure their markup and promotional details are properly implemented.
Greater Competition
Because Gmail controls what is displayed, brands must compete on clarity, value, and compliance with Google’s promotional requirements.
How Marketers Should Prepare
-
Add promotional schema markup correctly so Google can identify and display deals
-
Keep offers simple, specific, and compelling to improve visibility
-
Test and optimize wording for clarity, since short and precise descriptions work best
-
Track engagement metrics to understand how Deal Cards influence click behavior
Final Thoughts
Deal Cards Post-Open create an additional layer of marketing visibility inside the Gmail experience. They reward marketers who provide clear, valuable, and well-structured offers while penalizing vague or poorly formatted promotions. By implementing schema markup, maintaining good sender reputation, and focusing on transparent promotions, brands can take advantage of this feature to strengthen engagement and drive conversions