Email Deliverability Tips

Your inbox warm-up is training providers to distrust you. (I'm talking about warming up new sending domains / inboxes for cold or outbound email — not newsletters.) Agency owners tell me this weekly: → "We warmed it up for 3 weeks" → "Open rates still tanked" → "Outlook keeps flagging us" Their warm-up did exactly what it was designed to do. The problem? It was designed without real deliverability infrastructure. This is where tools like Warmy.io - Email channel. Reliable. come in — not as a growth hack, but as the control layer between your domains and inbox providers. Reality #1: Volume ramp ≠ reputation engineering → Day 1: Send 10 → Day 7: Send 25 → Day 14: Send 50 → Day 21: Still flagged That's not warm-up. That's guessing with your domain. Reality #2: Generic warm-up creates generic signals Most inbox warm-up fails because it produces: → Shallow engagement patterns providers learn to discount → Repetitive behavior that looks automated at scale → No provider-specific logic (Gmail ≠ Outlook ≠ Yahoo) → No monitoring. No alerts. No guardrails. Inbox providers don't reward activity. They reward believable, consistent behavior over time. Reality #3: Authentication ≠ inbox placement I've audited sending domains with: → SPF / DKIM / DMARC valid ✓ → Domain health marked "high" ✓ → Inbox placement above 90% ✓ Still landing in spam. The difference between inboxes that recover and inboxes that burn? Controls. Monitoring. Observability. Not copy. Not timing. Not subject lines. What real inbox warm-up infrastructure looks like (how I use Warmy): → Provider-weighted logic (Gmail tolerance ≠ Outlook tolerance) → Continuous domain + inbox reputation monitoring (catches drift before damage) → Inbox placement testing by provider (not averages) → Dynamic warm-up control (auto slow-down when signals dip) → Real-time alerts (before domains get burned) → Seed lists designed for realistic engagement Cold email doesn't fail at send time. It fails weeks earlier — during warm-up. The fix isn't "write better emails." The fix is treating deliverability like infrastructure. 🔗 Try it yourself 👉 Explore Warmy here: https://lnkd.in/gGZzMhv6 Free 7-day trial — see inbox placement by provider before you scale outbound.

Myth: “Your deliverability is a one-time setup.” I learned that late. It cost us pipeline. We had SPF, DKIM, and DMARC in place. The copy was solid. The leads were qualified. But replies were silent. We tweaked subject lines.  Rewrote the CTA. Changed the offer.  Still nothing. The real issue? The emails were landing in Promotions. Some went to Spam. And we had no visibility. That’s when we realized deliverability isn't a checkbox. It's something you monitor consistently. Inbox placement changes. Domain reputation shifts. Even one bad step can tank performance. That’s why we now use Inbox Radar by Saleshandy. → Recurring Tests  Automatically track inbox placement over time. → Manual Tests  Run quick checks before sending a sequence. → External Tests  Check emails sent from Gmail or Outlook with a test ID. It shows where your emails land: Primary, Promotions, or Spam. And what needs fixing if they don’t land right. We don’t guess anymore. We check. We fix. Then we send. If you're running cold outreach, test before you launch. It’s one small habit that protects your entire pipeline. Using anything to monitor your deliverability yet?

Case Study. Must read. Fixing Gmail deliverability isn’t as simple as changing your IP or switching platforms. In one real case: A brand moved to a dedicated IP on their ESP’s advice, hoping it would fix domain reputation issues. Warm-up was done correctly. SPF, DKIM, and DMARC were all passing. But Gmail Postmaster reputation dropped to "bad" and stayed there Gmail inbox placement went to 0%. CTRs were around 0.2%, and nothing improved. The core issue wasn't technical. It was behavioral. Their student emails were opt-in. But corporate emails came from purchased ZoomInfo lists. Gmail picked up on this and punished the entire domain. Changing IPs just exposed the issue faster. Their suppression logic also made things worse: 1. Users were suppressed only after 10 sends with no clicks 2. That means 10 chances to hurt domain reputation 3. Engagement-based filtering is strict 4. If people don’t interact, Gmail assumes your content is unwanted Technical setup wasn't perfect either: 1. Their signup API lacked rate limits 2. Bots were likely abusing the form 3. This led to emails being sent to fake or unverified addresses More bad signals sent to Gmail A "0% spam complaint rate" looked good on paper, but it was misleading. If no one sees your email in the inbox, they can’t complain. That’s a sign your emails are already deep in spam. Should you ever change IPs? Yes, if recommended by an experienced deliverability expert because the IPs are burnt and beyond recovery anytime soon. But only after identifying and fixing the root cause. Changing IPs without fixing your behavior is just a temporary patch What can actually help? Along with all other best practices, 1. Stop mailing Gmail users for a while. 2. Start fresh with small, high-quality segments. 3. Promote your email content on your website or social media to drive awareness. Good deliverability doesn’t come from tools or IPs. It comes from permission, relevance, and engagement. I have seen a lot of marketers with no optin lists but with content relevance and positive engagement they are doing great. If Gmail doesn’t see real interest in your emails, nothing else will matter. Happy to chat if you're navigating a similar situation. #email #emailmarketing

Here is everything we do before running a first cold email campaign. Day 1 — Domain and mailbox setup Purchase sending domains. Never use the main domain. Set up mailboxes. 3 mailboxes per domain. Configure SPF, DKIM, and DMARC on every single one. Start warm-up immediately. Day 2 — ICP audit I sit with the founder and go deep. Who is the exact buyer? What title? What company size? What industry? What buying signals do they show before they are ready to buy? Most founders think they know their ICP. Most are wrong. Day 3 — Lead list building Pull from Apollo or Instanly based on the ICP we defined. Run it through Clay for enrichment. Filter by buying signals — hiring, funding, tech stack, and recent news. Clean the list. Verify emails. Remove junk. Day 4 — Offer and copy Write the sequence only after the list is clean. Hook. Problem. Proof. CTA. Short. Relevant. Day 5 — Inbox placement test Test every mailbox before launching. If it is not landing in primary, we fix it before anything goes out. Most founders start sending on day 1. That is why most campaigns fail in week 2. Infrastructure first. Always. P.S. How long does your current setup take before the first email goes out? P.S.S. We help B2B SaaS founders get 30–60 qualified appointments in 90 days, guaranteed. Send me a DM, and I will share more details with you.

I thought great copy was the secret to cold email. Then I realized 80% of my emails were landing in spam. Here’s what we found: 1️⃣ Domain protection is the #1 lever for deliverability → Most teams burn their main domain without realising it. Once a domain is flagged, everything gets filtered (even normal emails). We run 100+ secondary domains to protect our brand and reduce risk. Tool stack: Google Workspace, Namecheap, Warmup tools Next step: Move every outbound sequence off your primary domain. 2️⃣ Safe volume beats high volume → Sending 500 emails/day from one domain is the fastest path to spam. Deliverability collapses instantly. We spread volume across hundreds of mailboxes and stay under 40/day for each. Impact: Fewer red flags, higher trust, better inbox placement. Next step: Audit how many sends each domain is doing right now. 3️⃣ Authentication is non-negotiable → SPF, DKIM, and DMARC are the foundation ESPs check before letting anything through. Without proper authentication, you look suspicious by default. Tools: dmarcian, Google Admin, Cloudflare Next step: Run a deliverability test and fix whatever shows up in red. 4️⃣ Warm-up → Most domains get burned because people start sending too early. ESPs need time to trust you. We warm each domain for two full weeks before sending anything. Why it works: Slow ramp-up = better deliverability. If you just bought a domain, don’t touch it for 14 days. 5️⃣ Natural variation reduces spam triggers → Sending the same message repeatedly creates patterns that ESPs flag. You need micro-variation to look human. We use subtle spintax + a few message versions per campaign. Tools: Instantly.ai, Smartlead Next step: Add small variations to your first lines and CTAs. 6️⃣ Clean tracking protects your domain reputation → Tracking links are an instant red flag. Most agencies don’t realize this. We use custom tracking domains or disable tracking entirely for key campaigns. Next step: Replace all generic tracking links. The results: → 500,000+ emails/month reaching real decision-makers → Higher inbox placement across every ESP → Predictable revenue for ColdIQ clients → Stable domain health across all mailboxes Deliverability isn’t the flashy part of outbound, but it’s the part everything else depends on. If you want our 7-day GTM deliverability setup (domains, warm-up, templates, monitoring tools)... drop me a message, happy to help.

I tested every major email validator with the same 2,451-email list. The results? Most validators are leaving 30-50% of your B2B prospects on the table. Here's what I found... The Catch-All Problem: ~30% of B2B email addresses are catch-alls (domains that accept mail to any address). Most validators can't verify them, so they mark them "risky" or "unverifiable." You're stuck with two bad options: → Send to them anyway and risk hard bounces (destroys sender reputation) → Skip them entirely and lose 30% of your reach Head-to-Head Comparison: I ran the same list through MillionVerifier, ZeroBounce, NeverBounce, and OrbiSearch. MillionVerifier: 4% validated (102 emails) 95% marked "Risky" (2,336 unverified) ZeroBounce: 30.72% validated (753 emails) 58.51% catch-alls they couldn't verify (1,434) NeverBounce: 26.3% validated (646 emails) 56.9% marked unverifiable (1,395) OrbiSearch: 53.8% validated (1,319 emails) 46.2% risky (1,132) That's 11.5× more catch-alls validated than MillionVerifier. Why This Matters... On a 10,000-email list with 30% catch-alls (3,000 prospects): MillionVerifier validates ~120, you lose 2,880 ZeroBounce/NeverBounce validate ~900, you lose 2,100 OrbiSearch validates ~1,600, you lose 1,400 That's not a rounding error. That's the difference between hitting your pipeline goals and leaving qualified prospects on the table. How It Works: Most validators check if a domain is catch-all, then give up. OrbiSearch uses dual-layer verification: Standard SMTP validation identifies catch-alls Proprietary detection verifies if the specific mailbox exists Result: Instant validation (under 10 minutes for 10K emails) with zero false positives. No waiting 48-72 hours like email-sending validators. Get results immediately while your leads are hot. The Bottom Line: If you're running cold email and want to maximize reach without destroying sender reputation, catch-all resolution is the game. I built OrbiSearch because I needed this for my own agency campaigns. Now I'm using it exclusively. You can test it yourself—100 free credits (500 validations) when you sign up. No credit card required. Run your own comparison. See the difference.

Important Email Update! New requirements from Gmail and Yahoo Mail effective February 2024. 𝐄𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬: As part of their ongoing commitment to enhance email security and protect user inboxes, Gmail and Yahoo Mail have announced a set of new requirements for email senders, effective February 2024. The new requirements include long-standing best practices that all email senders should follow in order to achieve good deliverability with mailbox providers. What's new is that Gmail, Yahoo Mail, and other mailbox providers will require alignment with these best practices for those who send bulk messages over 5000 per day or if a significant number of recipients indicate the mail as spam. 𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬: - SPF (Sender Policy Framework) is a domain-based way to determine what IPs are allowed to send email on somebody's behalf. - DKIM (Domain Keys Identified Mail) is a message-based signature that uses asymmetric cryptography to sign email and verify that a message was not altered in transit. - DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance) builds on top of SPF and DKIM and instructs receivers to approve, quarantine, or reject email messages. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬: For senders of bulk messages, meeting these requirements is crucial to maintaining good deliverability and ensuring that your emails reach the intended recipients' inboxes. Failure to comply may result in emails being marked as spam or rejected by mailbox providers. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐝𝐨: Review your current email sending practices to ensure alignment with SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. If necessary, update your SPF, DKIM, and DMARC configurations to comply with the new requirements. Check the diagram showing how SPF and DKIM work together with your DMARC policy. #EmailSecurity #GmailUpdate #YahooMail #SPF #DKIM #DMARC #Authentication #CyberSecurity #EmailBestPractices

Most ecommerce brands think their email health is fine because their Klaviyo score looks good. But here’s the truth: A high Klaviyo score doesn’t mean your emails are reaching customers. We audited a brand that bragged about their 30% open rates. What they didn’t realize? Half of their emails were landing in spam or promotions, meaning only a fraction of their audience was actually seeing their emails. Klaviyo measures engagement. Deliverability measures whether your emails even make it to the inbox. If your revenue isn’t where it should be, it might not be your campaigns—it might be your inbox placement. How confident are you that your emails are being seen?

Nonprofits are making a big mistake with their email sending volume. It's a significant reason why revenue via email is down 10% year over year, according to the fine folks at M&R. Their 2024 Benchmarks Survey is out and chock full of nuggets (link in comments). Non-profits are averaging less than 5 emails/mo in months other than December, when their volume spikes up to 12. 5 emails/mo is barely more than one a week. Email service providers like Google/Yahoo care a ton about recency of interaction to decide about inbox placement. They need lots of signals that people care about your content to get it into their inbox, not the spam box. You have to send frequently enough to know which of your list members are active or not, or else you'll risk sending to too many people and then seeing a lower overall open rate. You need to send frequently enough to have a solid recent actives screen. Sending less frequently will result in something of a doom spiral. You get a poor result, so you don't try again for a bit. Then you know even less about your list and send it to the wrong people and then get an even worse result. Usually, I shoot for a 90-day actives targeting (90-day NTL, 90-day action takers, 90-day openers, and 6-mo donors) for most lists. Not infrequently, you'll need to drop that down to 30-days or less when deliverability hits a snag. High volume political lists can look something like 14-day openers, 60-day clickers, 6-mo donors, 21-day subscribers, 60-day action takers. Nonprofits are capable of scaling up volume, and their lists will tolerate it in December. 40% of all digital revenue comes in that month as their send volume spikes. If organizations sent to their lists more frequently, they likely could level out that imbalance. There are folks out there who will recommend sending no fewer than 4x/week to maximize deliverability. That's a big leap for a lot of programs. I'd recommend getting to 2-3/week. You also should scale up your sending in advance of a spike in activity, ie, your sending in November should scale up so by the time you are really cranking it up in December, ESPs aren't surprised and reactive. I'm currently designing a new email program for a new nonprofit. I am concerned about having things to say at a high volume, and I know how much time goes into creating quality content. However, I know if my email volume is too low, I am going to have huge problems with deliverability when I scale up sends during rapid response moments. Honestly, one of the biggest problems orgs have with their email programs is their lengthy approvals process. As a former consultant in this space, the amount of revisions/handwringing over every little thing meant that I would need to charge significantly more money to manage nonprofit email programs than a political one doing similar volume. Make it easier to get newsy content out the door at a higher volume and you'll see overall performance (including fundraising) improve.

📩 If you have a lot of dormant email subscribers… it might not be an engagement problem. It could be a deliverability problem. And here’s why that matters: If your emails are landing in spam, even the best re-engagement campaign won’t work... because no one will see your emails. Before you try to “wake up” your list, make sure you’re actually reaching the inbox. Start by diagnosing the root cause... your domain health, authentication setup, and reputation signals. That’s exactly what EasySender at EasyDMARC helps you do. It gives you visibility into where things are breaking, so you can fix the real issue before wasting effort on campaigns no one sees (or receives). Re-engagement starts with your emails actually being seen.