Who uses what for email DAILY

Mailbox providers and ESPs across the Tranco top-1M — snapshot of 2026-02-01.

688 114
Domains with MX
641 985
Domains with SPF
448 804
Domains with DMARC
688 114
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.

KPIs — Today 2026-04-27 vs 2026-04-26

Domains with MX
660 822
-12 450
vs 2026-04-26
Domains with SPF
624 507
-7 597
vs 2026-04-26
Domains with DMARC
452 092
-4 906
vs 2026-04-26

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 / Other178 78425.98%
2Google Workspace147 85821.49%
3Microsoft 365112 56916.36%
4Generic / unmatched (mail.*)96 29813.99%
5Generic / unmatched (mx*.*)62 6199.1%
6Yandex 36012 5281.82%
7Mimecast10 2891.5%
8Generic / unmatched (smtp.*)7 9811.16%
9Zoho Mail7 0811.03%
10Amazon WorkMail4 8680.71%
Show rows 11 – 30
#Mailbox providerDomainsShare of MX-having domains
11QQ Mail (Tencent)4 6900.68%
12OVH Mail4 6850.68%
13Mail.ru for Business4 1810.61%
141&1 IONOS3 1380.46%
15Cisco IronPort2 9820.43%
16Rackspace Email2 7400.4%
17Mailgun (inbound)2 2980.33%
18Beget (RU)2 2870.33%
19Hosted Email (Rackspace/IONOS)1 8830.27%
20Zoho Mail (EU)1 7680.26%
21Alibaba Mail (China)1 7660.26%
22FastMail1 6060.23%
23ProtonMail1 5440.22%
24Gandi Mail1 4880.22%
25NetEase Mail1 3210.19%
26Timeweb (RU)1 2940.19%
27Titan (Hostinger)1 2010.17%
28Zoho Mail (IN)1 0030.15%
29Reg.ru8160.12%
30CSC (corporate)7010.1%

Top mailbox providers (share of MX) — Today 2026-04-27 vs 2026-04-26

Unknown / Other
25.56%
-0.49%
vs 2026-04-26
Google Workspace
21.69%
+0.18%
vs 2026-04-26
Microsoft 365
16.78%
+0.17%
vs 2026-04-26
Generic / unmatched (mail.*)
13.49%
+0.08%
vs 2026-04-26
Generic / unmatched (mx*.*)
9.16%
-0.06%
vs 2026-04-26

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 SES37 3855.82%
2SendGrid (Twilio)29 7434.63%
3Mailgun25 7714.01%
4Zendesk24 5513.82%
5Mailchimp24 4343.81%
6Mandrill22 5233.51%
7Salesforce16 0322.5%
8Mailjet (Sinch)13 2222.06%
9Brevo (ex-Sendinblue)7 1031.11%
10Elastic Email4 5560.71%
Show rows 11 – 30
#ESPDomainsShare of SPF-publishing domains
11Unisender (RU)3 8770.6%
12Marketo (Adobe)3 5220.55%
13Postmark2 7710.43%
14SparkPost2 7120.42%
15Constant Contact1 9210.3%
16MailerSend1 8030.28%
17Salesforce Marketing Cloud1 7630.27%
18Freshdesk1 5510.24%
19SMTP.com1 2460.19%
20SMTP.BZ7160.11%
21Sailthru6490.1%
22GetResponse5860.09%
23Customer.io4870.08%
24Eloqua (Oracle)2850.04%
25HubSpot480.01%
26Intercom370.01%
27Klaviyo260.0%
28MailPoet60.0%
29Pipedrive50.0%
30Braze50.0%

Top ESPs (share of SPF) — Today 2026-04-27 vs 2026-04-26

Amazon SES
6.09%
+0.03%
vs 2026-04-26
SendGrid (Twilio)
4.78%
+0.03%
vs 2026-04-26
Mailgun
4.05%
+0.02%
vs 2026-04-26
Zendesk
3.85%
+0.03%
vs 2026-04-26
Mailchimp
3.74%
+0.03%
vs 2026-04-26

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
1Shopify5 4010.84%
2Pardot (Salesforce)5 3670.84%
3KnowBe43 5190.55%
4Trustpilot1 9490.3%
5Atlassian (Jira/Confluence)1 9280.3%
6Firebase (Google)1 7000.26%
7Lark / Feishu1 2520.2%
8BigCommerce1 2110.19%
9NetSuite (Oracle)1 1980.19%
10Qualtrics1 1420.18%
Show rows 11 – 30
#SaaS appDomainsShare of SPF-publishing domains
11Sage Intacct1 1070.17%
12Oracle Cloud Email1 0350.16%
13Docebo (LMS)9370.15%
14WordPress.com / WP Cloud9170.14%
15Oracle Cloud8240.13%
16Greenhouse6550.1%
17PayPal Braintree6460.1%
18ClickDimensions6260.1%
19ConnectWise6190.1%
20Autotask (ConnectWise)6100.1%
21UKG / UltiPro5430.08%
22Zendesk4550.07%
23HappyFox4430.07%
24Shoptet4330.07%
25FormAssembly4210.07%
26Odoo3750.06%
27Chargebee3320.05%
28Freshsales (Freshworks)2130.03%
29Gorgias1660.03%
30Squarespace1350.02%

Top SaaS senders (share of SPF) — Today 2026-04-27 vs 2026-04-26

Pardot (Salesforce)
0.82%
+0.01%
vs 2026-04-26
Shopify
0.80%
±0%
vs 2026-04-26
KnowBe4
0.56%
+0.01%
vs 2026-04-26
Trustpilot
0.31%
±0%
vs 2026-04-26
Atlassian (Jira/Confluence)
0.31%
+0.01%
vs 2026-04-26

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.

DMARC enforced — Today 2026-04-27 vs 2026-04-26

DMARC enforced %
47.01%
+0.23%
vs 2026-04-26

DMARC policies — Today 2026-04-27 vs 2026-04-26

p=invalid
198
-4
vs 2026-04-26
p=none
231 376
-3 659
vs 2026-04-26
p=quarantine
112 474
-874
vs 2026-04-26
p=reject
112 948
-475
vs 2026-04-26

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;53 431
2v=DMARC1; p=none33 809
3v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:rua@dmarc.brevo.com7 598
4v=DMARC1; p=quarantine;4 532
5v=DMARC1;p=none;4 070
6v=DMARC1; p=quarantine3 844
7v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; aspf=s3 560
8v=DMARC1; p=reject;3 483
9v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com3 399
10v=DMARC1; p=reject2 811
11v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=r; adkim=r;2 527
12v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@mailinblue.com!10m; ruf=mailto:dmarc@mailinblue.com!10m; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=864002 410
13v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=1002 265
14v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=r; aspf=r; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net;2 145
15v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=r; sp=none1 825
16v=DMARC1;p=none1 811
17v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s;1 733
18v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;pct=100;fo=11 448
19v=DMARC1; p=none; adkim=r; aspf=r;1 419
20v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email1 416
21v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=864001 385
22v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email1 227
23v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;1 221
24v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=r; aspf=r; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net;1 181
25v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email;1 173
Show rows 26 – 100
#DMARC recordDomains
26v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com1 118
27v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none;1 109
28v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none1 066
29v=DMARC1;p=reject;890
30v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s760
31v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email749
32v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100738
33v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100721
34v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=86400658
35v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400647
36v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; ruf=mailto:dmarc@qiye.163.com; rua=mailto:dmarc_report@qiye.163.com635
37v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; ruf=mailto:dmarc@qiye.163.com; rua=mailto:dmarc_report@qiye.163.com584
38v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@google.com580
39v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:report@dmarc.amazon.com; ruf=mailto:report@dmarc.amazon.com559
40v=DMARC1;p=quarantine515
41v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@qq.com491
42v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email;476
43v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100;454
44v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100;452
45v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s448
46v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email;445
47v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;406
48v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; fo=1383
49v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; adkim=r; aspf=r380
50v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100;362
51v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@smtp.mailtrap.live; ruf=mailto:dmarc@smtp.mailtrap.live; rf=afrf; pct=100353
52v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400350
53v=DMARC1;p=reject;fo=1;rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com348
54v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s;348
55v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1348
56v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:zsrbf6su@ag.eu.dmarcadvisor.com;347
57v=DMARC1;p=reject345
58v=DMARC1342
59v=DMARC1; p=none; adkim=r; aspf=r331
60v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; pct=100; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:dmarcrecord@gmail.com; ruf=mailto:dmarcrecord@gmail.com;315
61v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:2ynhg3yt@ag.dmarcian.com293
62v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=86400286
63v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net;274
64v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@google.com270
65v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;269
66v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;fo=1267
67v=DMARC1;p=none;rua=mailto:dmarc_report@service.aliyun.com263
68v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s256
69v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=r; adkim=r252
70v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com245
71v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:rua-mpse@mpub.ne.jp245
72v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com237
73v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100235
74v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;pct=50;adkim=r;aspf=r;231
75v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc@fbl.optin.com;230
76v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=r; aspf=r228
77v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; aspf=s;219
78v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:zicaptxt@ag.dmarcian.com;219
79v=DMARC1;""p=none;""rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email207
80v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100205
81v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; rua=mailto:dmarc-raports@dhosting.pl199
82v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100;aspf=r;adkim=r;195
83v=DMARC1;p=none;rua=mailto:rua@dmarc.brevo.com193
84v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject184
85v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@reporting.unisender.com174
86v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; rua=mailto:61e7fc8674b33@ag.eu.dmarcly.com; ruf=mailto:61e7fc8674b33@fo.eu.dmarcly.com; sp=quarantine; fo=1;174
87v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc.rua@edrone.app; ruf=mailto:dmarc.ruf@edrone.app174
88v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400173
89v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=50;171
90v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; sp=none; pct=100; ri=86400170
91v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;169
92v=DMARC1;p=reject;pct=100;169
93v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1163
94v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:a@dmarcreports.facebook.com;161
95v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=0;rua=mailto:dmarc@vercom.pl155
96v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:abuse@mailbiz.com.br; ruf=mailto:abuse@mailbiz.com.br155
97v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; adkim=s; aspf=s154
98v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:1dd3f5c7@inbox.ondmarc.com; ruf=mailto:1dd3f5c7@inbox.ondmarc.com;154
99v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; adkim=r; aspf=r153
100v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=86400151

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
1route1.mx.cloudflare.net8 384
2route3.mx.cloudflare.net8 382
3route2.mx.cloudflare.net8 382
4eforward5.registrar-servers.com7 055
5eforward1.registrar-servers.com7 048
6eforward4.registrar-servers.com7 046
7eforward2.registrar-servers.com7 044
8eforward3.registrar-servers.com7 038
9mx1.hostinger.com5 700
10mx2.hostinger.com5 675
11mailstore1.secureserver.net5 348
12smtp.secureserver.net5 347
13nan2 772
14mx3-hosting.jellyfish.systems2 480
15mx2-hosting.jellyfish.systems2 398
16mx1-hosting.jellyfish.systems2 346
17mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com2 258
18mx2-us1.ppe-hosted.com2 240
19mx1.privateemail.com1 768
20mx2.privateemail.com1 752
21mx10.antispam.mailspamprotection.com1 714
22mx20.antispam.mailspamprotection.com1 712
23mx30.antispam.mailspamprotection.com1 707
24mx156.hostedmxserver.com1 436
25mx.stackmail.com1 059
Show rows 26 – 100
#MX targetDomains
26mx1.mailchannels.net1 053
27mx2.mailchannels.net1 048
28mx01.hornetsecurity.com1 006
29mx02.hornetsecurity.com1 004
30park-mx.above.com990
31mx03.hornetsecurity.com983
32mx04.hornetsecurity.com977
33isaac.mx.cloudflare.net934
34amir.mx.cloudflare.net933
35linda.mx.cloudflare.net933
36mx.a.locaweb.com.br895
37mx.b.locaweb.com.br883
38mx.jk.locaweb.com.br882
39mx1.qiye.aliyun.com870
40mx2.qiye.aliyun.com852
41mx3.qiye.aliyun.com835
42mx1.hostinger.in806
43mx2.hostinger.in798
44mx.core.locaweb.com.br794
45mx.spamexperts.com752
46fallbackmx.spamexperts.eu741
47mx2.feishu.cn734
48mx1.feishu.cn730
49mx3.feishu.cn730
50lastmx.spamexperts.net730
51us2.mx1.mailhostbox.com725
52us2.mx3.mailhostbox.com725
53us2.mx2.mailhostbox.com723
54mx1.csof.net691
55mx2.csof.net691
56mta-gw.infomaniak.ch660
57smtpin.rzone.de648
58dmail.kagoya.net627
59mx.securemx.jp589
60mx.plingest.com583
61mx20.mailspamprotection.com571
62mx10.mailspamprotection.com569
63mx30.mailspamprotection.com561
64za-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.co.za545
65za-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.co.za544
66mx20.ukraine.com.ua539
67mx15.ukraine.com.ua534
68mx1.forwardemail.net532
69mx2.forwardemail.net529
70mxlb.ispgateway.de522
71mx01.nicmail.ru513
72mx02.nicmail.ru499
73mx03.nicmail.ru499
74mail.register.it475
75mailstream-east.mxrecord.io448
76mx.ukraine.com.ua446
77mailstream-west.mxrecord.io446
78mailstream-central.mxrecord.mx431
79mx01.lolipop.jp407
80mx001.netsol.xion.oxcs.net407
81mx002.netsol.xion.oxcs.net407
82mx1-eu1.ppe-hosted.com386
83mx.serviciodecorreo.es386
84mx1.larksuite.com383
85mx2.larksuite.com383
86mx2-eu1.ppe-hosted.com383
87mx3.larksuite.com381
88localhost365
89mx-biz.mail.am0.yahoodns.net353
90mxext1.mailbox.org322
91mxext2.mailbox.org320
92mxext3.mailbox.org311
93mx.mgovcloud.in307
94in.arubabusiness.it306
95mx2.mgovcloud.in306
96mx3.mgovcloud.in305
97kr1-aspmx1.worksmobile.com303
98asapsemi1.mail.protection.office365.us302
99mailstream-eu1.mxrecord.io299
100mx01.udag.de296

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
1_spf.mx.cloudflare.net9 696
2secureserver.net8 927
3_spf.mail.hostinger.com7 250
4spf.efwd.registrar-servers.com7 236
5relay.mailchannels.net7 159
6_spf.mlsend.com6 324
7zoho.com5 542
8mx.ovh.com5 185
9websitewelcome.com4 489
10us._netblocks.mimecast.com3 824
11emsd1.com3 226
12emailsrvr.com3 133
13spf.mail.qq.com2 968
14spf.web-hosting.com2 931
15_spf.createsend.com2 837
16helpscoutemail.com2 507
17beget.com2 500
18_spf-eu.ionos.com2 463
19mxsspf.sendpulse.com2 458
20zcsend.net2 414
21spf.sender.xserver.jp2 282
22stspg-customer.com2 209
23spf.ess.barracudanetworks.com2 188
24eu._netblocks.mimecast.com2 156
25zohomail.com1 995
Show rows 26 – 100
#SPF includeDomains
26transmail.net1 831
27spf.brevo.com1 784
28_spf.rdstation.com.br1 735
29spf.messagingengine.com1 656
30spf.emailsignatures365.com1 596
31spf.mxhichina.com1 513
32musvc.com1 478
33spf.163.com1 476
34_incspfcheck.mailspike.net1 469
35spf.crsend.com1 461
36spf.antispamcloud.com1 410
37_spf.timeweb.ru1 374
38_netblocks.mimecast.com1 371
39relay.mailbaby.net1 370
40_spf.hostedemail.com1 359
41spf.titan.email1 338
42_mailcust.gandi.net1 325
43aspmx.googlemail.com1 273
44spf.mysecurecloudhost.com1 260
45netblocks.dreamhost.com1 253
46spf.hornetsecurity.com1 224
47spf.exclaimer.net1 222
48one.zoho.com1 207
49spf.tmes.trendmicro.com1 193
50spfa.cpmails.com1 182
51_spf.kundenserver.de1 114
52spf.messagelabs.com1 107
53spf.smtp2go.com1 095
54spf2.esputnik.com1 076
55spf.stackmail.com1 067
56_spf.locaweb.com.br1 059
57outboundmail.blackbaud.net1 056
58spf.securedserverspace.com1 054
59_spf.aruba.it1 049
60spf.qiye.aliyun.com1 042
61_spf.jupiter.salesmanago.pl1 040
62_spf.perfora.net1 030
63authsmtp.com1 029
64_spf.ukraine.com.ua976
65_spf.hosting.reg.ru967
66spf.dynect.net924
67spf.ipzmarketing.com923
68spf-bma.mpme.jp914
69spfa.mailendo.com880
70spf-de.emailsignatures365.com870
71zoho.in869
72_spf.emaillabs.net.pl863
73_spf.mailhostbox.com858
74_spf.mailspamprotection.com831
75ispgateway.de816
76spf.infomaniak.ch793
77spf.eu.exclaimer.net781
78mxsmtp.sendpulse.com778
79kagoya.net773
80de._netblocks.mimecast.com752
81usb._netblocks.mimecast.com741
82_spf.kmitd.com718
83eu.zcsend.net708
84_spf.dashasender.ru705
85spf.improvmx.com700
86cmail1.com699
87agenturserver.de690
88sendersrv.com688
89_auxspf.axspace.com676
90spf.afas.online674
91_spf-us.ionos.com664
92spf.webapps.net659
93zohomail.eu658
94spf.bmv.jp658
95spf.flowmailer.net649
96eu.transmail.net642
97spf.unisender.ru641
98spf.sendsay.ru638
99spf.mindbox.ru636
100turbo-smtp.com634

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 2026-02-01. Aggregates only — raw OpenINTEL data is deleted after analysis per their data agreement.
Last build: 2026-04-28T11:08:05Z.