Who uses what for email DAILY

Mailbox providers and ESPs across the Tranco top-1M — snapshot of 2025-06-01.

699 879
Domains with MX
648 954
Domains with SPF
433 268
Domains with DMARC
699 879
Total scanned

What you're looking at. Four headline counts for the analysed Tranco snapshot: how many domains publish each kind of email-related DNS record. Higher MX vs SPF gap = more domains receive mail than authorise sending; higher SPF vs DMARC gap = SPF adopted but no policy/feedback enforcement yet.

Trend — last 8 day(s) · KPIs

Top mailbox providers

What this block shows. Where each domain hosts incoming mail — derived from its primary MX record (lowest mx_preference). This is the receiving side of email: Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Zoho, on-prem Exchange, etc. "Generic / unmatched" buckets are common mail.* / mx*.* hostnames we couldn't attribute to a specific provider; "Unknown / Other" is everything else.

#Mailbox providerDomainsShare of MX-having domains
1Unknown / Other182 30526.05%
2Google Workspace152 93521.85%
3Microsoft 365115 20416.46%
4Generic / unmatched (mail.*)93 62413.38%
5Generic / unmatched (mx*.*)62 1298.88%
6Yandex 36013 9962.0%
7Mimecast11 4311.63%
8Generic / unmatched (smtp.*)8 5221.22%
9Zoho Mail6 8950.99%
10Amazon WorkMail5 1360.73%
Show rows 11 – 30
#Mailbox providerDomainsShare of MX-having domains
11Mail.ru for Business4 6740.67%
12QQ Mail (Tencent)4 6570.67%
13OVH Mail4 5670.65%
14Cisco IronPort3 2610.47%
151&1 IONOS3 1220.45%
16Rackspace Email3 0780.44%
17Mailgun (inbound)2 5090.36%
18Beget (RU)2 3550.34%
19Hosted Email (Rackspace/IONOS)1 7740.25%
20Alibaba Mail (China)1 7200.25%
21Zoho Mail (EU)1 6790.24%
22Gandi Mail1 6640.24%
23FastMail1 6240.23%
24ProtonMail1 3760.2%
25Timeweb (RU)1 2580.18%
26Titan (Hostinger)1 1950.17%
27NetEase Mail1 1920.17%
28ImprovMX (forwarding)8220.12%
29Zoho Mail (IN)8200.12%
30Reg.ru7570.11%

Trend — last 8 day(s) · Top mailbox providers

Long-tail / Unknown MX — the rest of the internet

What this block shows. The slice of domains whose mailbox cannot be attributed to a named provider — regional hosters, self-built Postfix/Exim, corporate gateways, niche ESPs. Researchers ask for this specifically because it captures the deliverability reality outside the Google / Microsoft monoculture. The detailed report drills down into Top-1000 most common unmatched hosts, 100 hand-picked curiosities (longest one-off names) and a TLD breakdown.

Unknown / Generic share
49.52%
346 580 domains
Unique unmatched MX hosts
210 001
individual hostnames in the long tail
Self-hosted
23.57%
164 979 domains running their own MX
📋 Open detailed long-tail report →·⬇ Download top-1000 unmatched MX (CSV)·⬇ Download 100 curiosities (CSV)

Top ESPs / mass-mailing services

What this block shows. Outbound mass-mailing platforms each domain authorises in its SPF record — the marketing-automation, transactional-email and customer-engagement layer (SendGrid, Mailchimp, Mailgun, Klaviyo, HubSpot, Salesforce Marketing Cloud, etc.). One domain can use several ESPs, so percentages sum to more than 100% of SPF-publishing domains.

#ESPDomainsShare of SPF-publishing domains
1Amazon SES36 4045.61%
2SendGrid (Twilio)31 0664.79%
3Mailchimp26 9904.16%
4Mailgun26 2284.04%
5Zendesk25 7133.96%
6Mandrill25 1463.87%
7Salesforce16 6012.56%
8Mailjet (Sinch)13 2732.05%
9Brevo (ex-Sendinblue)7 7831.2%
10Elastic Email4 6410.72%
Show rows 11 – 30
#ESPDomainsShare of SPF-publishing domains
11Unisender (RU)4 0060.62%
12Marketo (Adobe)3 8940.6%
13SparkPost2 9790.46%
14Postmark2 8330.44%
15Salesforce Marketing Cloud2 2750.35%
16Constant Contact2 2620.35%
17Freshdesk1 6700.26%
18MailerSend1 6450.25%
19SMTP.com1 3650.21%
20SMTP.BZ7600.12%
21Sailthru7440.11%
22Customer.io5550.09%
23GetResponse4990.08%
24Eloqua (Oracle)3340.05%
25HubSpot390.01%
26Intercom320.0%
27Klaviyo110.0%
28Dotdigital40.0%
29AWeber30.0%
30Pipedrive20.0%

Trend — last 8 day(s) · Top ESPs

SaaS senders (Notion, Slack, Zendesk, Atlassian, Stripe…)

What this block shows. SaaS apps that send mail FROM a customer's domain on the customer's behalf — productivity, support, payments, HR, e-commerce and other business apps appearing as include: targets in the customer's SPF. Distinct from ESPs (mass-mailing platforms) and mailbox providers (where the inbox lives).

#SaaS appDomainsShare of SPF-publishing domains
1Pardot (Salesforce)6 2370.96%
2Shopify5 1590.79%
3KnowBe43 6770.57%
4Atlassian (Jira/Confluence)2 1220.33%
5Trustpilot2 0290.31%
6Firebase (Google)1 7080.26%
7BigCommerce1 2300.19%
8Qualtrics1 2090.19%
9NetSuite (Oracle)1 1880.18%
10Lark / Feishu1 0470.16%
Show rows 11 – 30
#SaaS appDomainsShare of SPF-publishing domains
11Docebo (LMS)9830.15%
12Sage Intacct9690.15%
13Oracle Cloud Email9170.14%
14WordPress.com / WP Cloud9130.14%
15Oracle Cloud8170.13%
16ClickDimensions7290.11%
17PayPal Braintree7020.11%
18ConnectWise6880.11%
19Greenhouse6780.1%
20Autotask (ConnectWise)6180.1%
21UKG / UltiPro5470.08%
22Zendesk4990.08%
23HappyFox4960.08%
24FormAssembly4690.07%
25Shoptet3740.06%
26Chargebee3560.05%
27Odoo3160.05%
28Freshsales (Freshworks)2270.03%
29Gorgias1870.03%
30Squarespace1470.02%

Trend — last 8 day(s) · Top SaaS senders

DMARC adoption

What this block shows. The policy each DMARC-publishing domain advertises at _dmarc.<domain>: none = monitor only, quarantine = mark as spam on fail, reject = drop on fail, invalid = a syntactically broken record. "Enforced %" treats only quarantine / reject with pct=100 as actually enforcing.

Trend — last 8 day(s) · DMARC enforced %

7d ago▲ +0.23%90d ago▲ +1.86%

Trend — last 8 day(s) · DMARC policies

Top 100 most-used DMARC records (verbatim)

The literal record string copied verbatim from DNS — useful to spot copy-pasted "starter" policies and identify reporting endpoints (the rua= / ruf= tags) shared across many domains.

#DMARC recordDomains
1v=DMARC1; p=none;47 740
2v=DMARC1; p=none33 171
3v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:rua@dmarc.brevo.com5 949
4v=DMARC1;p=none;4 443
5v=DMARC1; p=quarantine;4 177
6v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com3 885
7v=DMARC1; p=quarantine3 415
8v=DMARC1; p=reject;3 215
9v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@mailinblue.com!10m; ruf=mailto:dmarc@mailinblue.com!10m; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=864002 920
10v=DMARC1; p=reject2 652
11v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=r; adkim=r;2 630
12v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; aspf=s2 332
13v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=1002 087
14v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=r; sp=none1 879
15v=DMARC1;p=none1 815
16v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s;1 797
17v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email1 538
18v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com1 518
19v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;pct=100;fo=11 516
20v=DMARC1; p=none; adkim=r; aspf=r;1 423
21v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email;1 382
22v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=864001 358
23v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email1 233
24v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none;1 150
25v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none1 038
Show rows 26 – 100
#DMARC recordDomains
26v=DMARC1;p=reject;979
27v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;927
28v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100817
29v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100732
30v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=r; aspf=r; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net;714
31v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email709
32v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s689
33v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400638
34v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100;596
35v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@google.com583
36v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; ruf=mailto:dmarc@qiye.163.com; rua=mailto:dmarc_report@qiye.163.com575
37v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=86400512
38v=DMARC1;p=quarantine494
39v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email;494
40v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; ruf=mailto:dmarc@qiye.163.com; rua=mailto:dmarc_report@qiye.163.com489
41v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@qq.com480
42v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email;471
43v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100;446
44v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@bounces.amazon.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc-reports@bounces.amazon.com439
45v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100;420
46v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;417
47v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:report@dmarc.amazon.com; ruf=mailto:report@dmarc.amazon.com405
48v=DMARC1;p=reject;fo=1;rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com395
49v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:a@dmarcreports.facebook.com;392
50v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s387
51v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1365
52v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; adkim=r; aspf=r364
53v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s;356
54v=DMARC1;p=reject342
55v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@smtp.mailtrap.live; ruf=mailto:dmarc@smtp.mailtrap.live; rf=afrf; pct=100335
56v=DMARC1; p=none; adkim=r; aspf=r326
57v=DMARC1319
58v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400318
59v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;fo=1297
60v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; pct=100; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:dmarcrecord@gmail.com; ruf=mailto:dmarcrecord@gmail.com;296
61v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; fo=1281
62v=DMARC1; p=reject; aspf=s;278
63v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@google.com263
64v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com258
65v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:rua-mpse@mpub.ne.jp257
66v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc@fbl.optin.com;256
67v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100240
68v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com237
69v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=86400225
70v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;225
71v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:zicaptxt@ag.dmarcian.com;225
72v=DMARC1;p=none;rua=mailto:rua@dmarc.brevo.com221
73v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;pct=50;adkim=r;aspf=r;218
74v=DMARC1;p=none;rua=mailto:dmarc_report@service.aliyun.com211
75v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:zsrbf6su@ag.eu.dmarcadvisor.com;205
76v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s204
77v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100;aspf=r;adkim=r;204
78v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; aspf=s;198
79v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=r; adkim=r194
80v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100190
81v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; rua=mailto:dmarc-raports@dhosting.pl187
82v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400181
83v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100;rua=mailto:dmarc@smtpeter.com171
84v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@dmarc.everest.email; ruf=mailto:dmarc_fr@dmarc.everest.email; fo=1; pct=100; rf=afrf171
85v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:abuse@mailbiz.com.br; ruf=mailto:abuse@mailbiz.com.br170
86v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:procter-gamble@rua.dmp.cisco.com; ruf=mailto:procter-gamble@ruf.dmp.cisco.com168
87v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; sp=none; pct=100; ri=86400167
88v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=50;166
89v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=r; aspf=r; pct=100;165
90v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; adkim=r; aspf=r163
91v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1;162
92v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1160
93v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=0;rua=mailto:dmarc@vercom.pl159
94v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc.rua@edrone.app; ruf=mailto:dmarc.ruf@edrone.app157
95v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;pct=100155
96v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:61e7fc8674b33@ag.eu.dmarcly.com; ruf=mailto:61e7fc8674b33@fo.eu.dmarcly.com; sp=none;155
97v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject153
98v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc-rua@report.securemx.jp151
99v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;149
100v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:1dd3f5c7@inbox.ondmarc.com; ruf=mailto:1dd3f5c7@inbox.ondmarc.com;149

Unmatched MX targets — top 100

What this block shows. The most popular MX hostnames our dictionary does not yet attribute to a named mailbox provider. Public list — these feed back into dictionaries/mx_providers.py for the next iteration so coverage keeps improving.

#MX targetDomains
1eforward4.registrar-servers.com8 852
2eforward5.registrar-servers.com8 852
3eforward1.registrar-servers.com8 845
4eforward2.registrar-servers.com8 839
5eforward3.registrar-servers.com8 818
6route1.mx.cloudflare.net7 380
7route3.mx.cloudflare.net7 377
8route2.mx.cloudflare.net7 377
9mailstore1.secureserver.net5 753
10smtp.secureserver.net5 724
11mx1.hostinger.com4 405
12mx2.hostinger.com4 381
13mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com2 605
14mx2-us1.ppe-hosted.com2 584
15mx2-hosting.jellyfish.systems2 245
16mx1-hosting.jellyfish.systems2 243
17mx3-hosting.jellyfish.systems2 240
18nan2 207
19mx1.privateemail.com1 828
20mx2.privateemail.com1 815
21mx30.antispam.mailspamprotection.com1 688
22mx10.antispam.mailspamprotection.com1 687
23mx20.antispam.mailspamprotection.com1 686
24mx1.mailchannels.net1 131
25mx2.mailchannels.net1 125
Show rows 26 – 100
#MX targetDomains
26mx156.hostedmxserver.com1 112
27mx.a.locaweb.com.br1 059
28mx.b.locaweb.com.br1 050
29mx.jk.locaweb.com.br1 046
30mx1.hostinger.in1 025
31mx2.hostinger.in1 017
32isaac.mx.cloudflare.net994
33amir.mx.cloudflare.net992
34linda.mx.cloudflare.net992
35mx01.hornetsecurity.com990
36mx02.hornetsecurity.com986
37mx03.hornetsecurity.com963
38mx04.hornetsecurity.com955
39mx.stackmail.com939
40mx.core.locaweb.com.br937
41park-mx.above.com926
42us2.mx3.mailhostbox.com805
43us2.mx1.mailhostbox.com802
44us2.mx2.mailhostbox.com801
45mx.spamexperts.com763
46mx20.mailspamprotection.com721
47mx10.mailspamprotection.com720
48mx30.mailspamprotection.com712
49mxlb.ispgateway.de710
50fallbackmx.spamexperts.eu709
51smtpin.rzone.de709
52lastmx.spamexperts.net695
53mx1.qiye.aliyun.com659
54mx1.csof.net654
55mx2.csof.net654
56mx2.qiye.aliyun.com641
57mx3.qiye.aliyun.com631
58mx.securemx.jp611
59mx20.ukraine.com.ua610
60mx1.forwardemail.net610
61mx2.forwardemail.net609
62mx15.ukraine.com.ua605
63mx1.feishu.cn602
64mx2.feishu.cn600
65mx3.feishu.cn599
66dmail.kagoya.net591
67mx01.nicmail.ru586
68mx02.nicmail.ru573
69mx03.nicmail.ru567
70za-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.co.za565
71za-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.co.za564
72localhost556
73mta-gw.infomaniak.ch547
74mail.register.it533
75mailstream-east.mxrecord.io497
76mailstream-west.mxrecord.io494
77mx.ukraine.com.ua489
78mx001.netsol.xion.oxcs.net478
79mx002.netsol.xion.oxcs.net478
80mailstream-central.mxrecord.mx445
81mx-biz.mail.am0.yahoodns.net406
82mx1-eu1.ppe-hosted.com399
83mx2-eu1.ppe-hosted.com399
84mx01.lolipop.jp353
85mx.serviciodecorreo.es335
86mx1.spaceweb.ru333
87mail.mailerhost.net332
88mx2.spaceweb.ru330
89mx1.dreamhost.com317
90mx2.dreamhost.com312
91mx-01-eu-central-1.prod.hydra.sophos.com301
92mx-02-eu-central-1.prod.hydra.sophos.com295
93mx01.udag.de294
94mx1.larksuite.com292
95mx2.larksuite.com292
96mx00.udag.de292
97mx3.larksuite.com291
98kr1-aspmx1.worksmobile.com291
99mx-01-us-west-2.prod.hydra.sophos.com290
100mx004.netsol.xion.oxcs.net285

Unmatched SPF includes — top 100

What this block shows. The most popular SPF include: targets that don't match any known ESP, mailbox-as-sender, or SaaS pattern yet. Same feedback loop: top hits get added to dictionaries/esps.py or dictionaries/saas_senders.py.

#SPF includeDomains
1spf.efwd.registrar-servers.com9 046
2_spf.mx.cloudflare.net8 830
3secureserver.net8 578
4relay.mailchannels.net6 815
5_spf.mail.hostinger.com6 289
6_spf.mlsend.com6 071
7zoho.com5 918
8mx.ovh.com4 955
9us._netblocks.mimecast.com4 263
10websitewelcome.com4 117
11emsd1.com3 760
12emailsrvr.com3 406
13_spf.createsend.com2 998
14spf.mail.qq.com2 899
15helpscoutemail.com2 857
16spf.web-hosting.com2 791
17beget.com2 627
18spf.ess.barracudanetworks.com2 529
19mxsspf.sendpulse.com2 518
20zcsend.net2 453
21_spf-eu.ionos.com2 396
22stspg-customer.com2 351
23eu._netblocks.mimecast.com2 346
24spf.sender.xserver.jp2 052
25transmail.net1 957
Show rows 26 – 100
#SPF includeDomains
26_spf.rdstation.com.br1 855
27spf.emailsignatures365.com1 843
28_netblocks.mimecast.com1 754
29spf.messagingengine.com1 668
30spf.crsend.com1 532
31musvc.com1 514
32spf.mxhichina.com1 480
33spf.exclaimer.net1 422
34aspmx.googlemail.com1 409
35_mailcust.gandi.net1 390
36_incspfcheck.mailspike.net1 387
37spf.tmes.trendmicro.com1 381
38spf.antispamcloud.com1 368
39spf.titan.email1 365
40zohomail.com1 347
41_spf.timeweb.ru1 336
42spf.163.com1 324
43netblocks.dreamhost.com1 322
44spf.brevo.com1 316
45spf.messagelabs.com1 303
46_spf.locaweb.com.br1 241
47spf.securedserverspace.com1 238
48spf.hornetsecurity.com1 178
49outboundmail.blackbaud.net1 165
50_spf.kundenserver.de1 153
51relay.mailbaby.net1 125
52spf.smtp2go.com1 123
53spf.dynect.net1 116
54one.zoho.com1 087
55spf2.esputnik.com1 075
56authsmtp.com1 073
57_spf.perfora.net1 064
58_spf.ukraine.com.ua1 018
59_spf.jupiter.salesmanago.pl1 014
60_spf.aruba.it1 009
61_spf.mailspamprotection.com986
62spfa.cpmails.com974
63_spf.hostedemail.com968
64spf.stackmail.com952
65_spf.mailhostbox.com916
66_spf.hosting.reg.ru910
67mxsmtp.sendpulse.com891
68spf-bma.mpme.jp886
69ispgateway.de881
70spfa.mailendo.com870
71spf.ipzmarketing.com862
72spf.qiye.aliyun.com826
73spf.mysecurecloudhost.com819
74spf.eu.exclaimer.net799
75_spf.emaillabs.net.pl799
76cmail1.com782
77spf.improvmx.com778
78spf-de.emailsignatures365.com764
79kagoya.net752
80agenturserver.de741
81usb._netblocks.mimecast.com735
82spf.afas.online724
83zoho.in714
84_spf.kmitd.com712
85turbo-smtp.com706
86_spf.dashasender.ru705
87spf.retailcrm.pro704
88eu.zcsend.net689
89au._netblocks.mimecast.com684
90spf.webapps.net684
91_spf-us.ionos.com680
92mailcontrol.com680
93spf.us.exclaimer.net679
94spf.infomaniak.ch663
95de._netblocks.mimecast.com656
96spf.flowmailer.net654
97bluehost.com653
98spf.mindbox.ru651
99spf.bmv.jp643
100eu.transmail.net641

Methodology — how the numbers were produced

1. Data source

The dataset is the daily OpenINTEL forward-DNS Tranco snapshot, produced by the OpenINTEL project (University of Twente / SURFnet / SIDN Labs). OpenINTEL queries the entire Tranco top-1M domain list (https://tranco-list.eu/) daily for MX, TXT, NS, A, AAAA, SOA, CAA, DNSSEC and other records, publishing the results as Apache Parquet.

Cite: Roland van Rijswijk-Deij et al., "A High-Performance, Scalable Infrastructure for Large-Scale Active DNS Measurements", IEEE JSAC 2016.

2. Sample

We process the snapshot for a single date (the latest available, typically <24h delay) covering the entire Tranco top-1M list. No sub-sampling; every domain queried by OpenINTEL is included.

3. Mailbox provider classification

For each domain we read its MX RRset and pick the record with the lowest mx_preference as the primary mailbox host. The hostname of that primary MX is matched against an open regex dictionary (dictionaries/mx_providers.py). Specific patterns (e.g. .mail.protection.outlook.com) are tried first; generic fallbacks (mail.*, mx*.*) only after. Domains whose MX matches no rule are kept as "Unknown / Other" — never dropped — and exported in Unmatched MX targets below for dictionary improvement.

4. ESP (mass-mailing service) classification

For each domain's apex SPF record (TXT starting with v=spf1) we extract every include: and redirect= target and resolve them against an open dictionary (dictionaries/esps.py). One domain may use several ESPs simultaneously (e.g. SendGrid + Mailchimp), so ESP shares sum to more than 100% of SPF-publishing domains.

Note: this method does not count "flattened" SPF (where include chains were replaced with raw IPs to fit the 10-lookup limit) — those domains will appear as ESP-less even when an ESP is in fact used. This is a known limitation of any DNS-only methodology and is consistent across competitive surveys.

5. DMARC

For each domain we query the _dmarc.<domain> TXT record. Records starting with v=DMARC1 are parsed for p= (policy) and pct= (percentage covered). A domain is counted as enforced if p=quarantine or p=reject with pct=100 (or pct absent, which defaults to 100).

6. Tier breakdown

Each domain is assigned a tier from its Tranco rank: top-1k, top-10k, top-100k, top-1M, or unranked if absent from the list at scan time.

7. Reproducibility

Every published report includes the exact OpenINTEL date, dictionary hashes, and counts of unmatched MX hosts and SPF includes — so any reader can verify or reproduce the figures. Raw OpenINTEL parquet is downloaded into a temporary cache and deleted after analysis; only aggregated, non-redistributable counts are kept here (per OpenINTEL data agreement).

8. Limitations to be aware of

  • Tranco bias. Top-1M skews toward US/EU and global SaaS; ccTLD-only domains with low traffic may be under-represented.
  • SPF flattening hides ESP identity (see §4).
  • CNAME chains on MX (e.g. mail.example.com → mail.example.protection.outlook.com) are not unrolled — only the first MX target is matched. This biases a small share of domains toward "Unknown" when their MX is a CNAME to a known provider.
  • Vanity MX with white-label provider (e.g. some Mimecast/Proofpoint customers use their own brand) is not detectable from DNS alone.

Comments & corrections

Spotted a mis-classified MX target, missed ESP, or want to discuss a finding? We publish corrections in the next daily snapshot.

Send feedback to support@live-direct-marketing.online

Inline comments coming soon. For now, email is the fastest path — you'll see your fix reflected in tomorrow's run.

Historical reports

Daily snapshots — last 90 days kept fully, older ones thinned to monthly.

Data source: https://openintel.nl/data/forward-dns/top-lists/
Generated automatically from OpenINTEL Tranco snapshot 2025-06-01. Aggregates only — raw OpenINTEL data is deleted after analysis per their data agreement.
Last build: 2026-04-28T12:09:57Z.