Mailbox providers and ESPs across the Tranco top-1M — snapshot of 2026-05-02.
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.
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 provider | Domains | Share of MX-having domains |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Self-Hosted → | 153 666 | 23.07% |
| 2 | Google Workspace → | 143 685 | 21.57% |
| 3 | Microsoft 365 → | 111 168 | 16.69% |
| 4 | Unknown / Other → | 51 680 | 7.76% |
| 5 | Generic / unmatched (mx*.*) → | 18 473 | 2.77% |
| 6 | Proofpoint → | 13 008 | 1.95% |
| 7 | Yandex 360 → | 12 020 | 1.8% |
| 8 | Generic / unmatched (mail.*) → | 11 537 | 1.73% |
| 9 | Mimecast → | 10 656 | 1.6% |
| 10 | Cloudflare Email Routing → | 10 045 | 1.51% |
| # | Mailbox provider | Domains | Share of MX-having domains |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Hostinger → | 7 016 | 1.05% |
| 12 | Zoho Mail → | 6 671 | 1.0% |
| 13 | Namecheap Email Forwarding → | 6 519 | 0.98% |
| 14 | GoDaddy → | 4 945 | 0.74% |
| 15 | Amazon WorkMail → | 4 846 | 0.73% |
| 16 | QQ Mail (Tencent) → | 4 845 | 0.73% |
| 17 | OVH Mail → | 4 519 | 0.68% |
| 18 | Mail.ru for Business → | 4 000 | 0.6% |
| 19 | Barracuda → | 3 709 | 0.56% |
| 20 | 1&1 IONOS → | 3 324 | 0.5% |
| 21 | Cisco IronPort → | 2 871 | 0.43% |
| 22 | Proofpoint Essentials → | 2 843 | 0.43% |
| 23 | Jellyfish (Namecheap) → | 2 405 | 0.36% |
| 24 | Mailgun (inbound) → | 2 390 | 0.36% |
| 25 | Rackspace Email → | 2 369 | 0.36% |
| 26 | SpamExperts (SolarWinds) → | 2 336 | 0.35% |
| 27 | Beget (RU) → | 2 279 | 0.34% |
| 28 | Alibaba Mail (China) → | 1 799 | 0.27% |
| 29 | Zoho Mail (EU) → | 1 705 | 0.26% |
| 30 | Hosted Email (Rackspace/IONOS) → | 1 650 | 0.25% |
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.
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.
| # | ESP | Domains | Share of SPF-publishing domains |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amazon SES → | 38 208 | 6.11% |
| 2 | SendGrid (Twilio) → | 29 909 | 4.78% |
| 3 | Mailgun → | 25 427 | 4.07% |
| 4 | Zendesk → | 24 360 | 3.9% |
| 5 | Mailchimp → | 23 416 | 3.75% |
| 6 | Mandrill → | 21 458 | 3.43% |
| 7 | HubSpot → | 19 771 | 3.16% |
| 8 | Salesforce → | 16 522 | 2.64% |
| 9 | Mailjet (Sinch) → | 13 356 | 2.14% |
| 10 | Cloudflare Email Routing → | 10 611 | 1.7% |
| # | ESP | Domains | Share of SPF-publishing domains |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Mimecast → | 9 289 | 1.49% |
| 12 | Brevo (ex-Sendinblue) → | 8 710 | 1.39% |
| 13 | MailerSend → | 7 790 | 1.25% |
| 14 | Namecheap Forwarding → | 6 765 | 1.08% |
| 15 | MailChannels → | 6 627 | 1.06% |
| 16 | Elastic Email → | 4 454 | 0.71% |
| 17 | Unisender (RU) → | 3 934 | 0.63% |
| 18 | Constant Contact → | 3 728 | 0.6% |
| 19 | Campaign Monitor → | 3 434 | 0.55% |
| 20 | Marketo (Adobe) → | 3 366 | 0.54% |
| 21 | Zoho Campaigns → | 3 225 | 0.52% |
| 22 | Emsd1 (transactional) → | 3 082 | 0.49% |
| 23 | SendPulse → | 2 983 | 0.48% |
| 24 | Postmark → | 2 953 | 0.47% |
| 25 | SparkPost → | 2 741 | 0.44% |
| 26 | Exclaimer (signatures) → | 2 732 | 0.44% |
| 27 | Zoho ZeptoMail → | 2 704 | 0.43% |
| 28 | Help Scout → | 2 402 | 0.38% |
| 29 | Barracuda Essentials → | 2 273 | 0.36% |
| 30 | Salesforce Marketing Cloud → | 2 235 | 0.36% |
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 app | Domains | Share of SPF-publishing domains |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pardot (Salesforce) → | 5 117 | 0.82% |
| 2 | Shopify → | 5 070 | 0.81% |
| 3 | CodeTwo Email Signatures 365 → | 4 532 | 0.72% |
| 4 | KnowBe4 → | 3 512 | 0.56% |
| 5 | Statuspage (Atlassian) → | 2 170 | 0.35% |
| 6 | Atlassian (Jira/Confluence) → | 1 908 | 0.31% |
| 7 | Trustpilot → | 1 900 | 0.3% |
| 8 | Firebase (Google) → | 1 734 | 0.28% |
| 9 | BigCommerce → | 1 257 | 0.2% |
| 10 | Lark / Feishu → | 1 230 | 0.2% |
| # | SaaS app | Domains | Share of SPF-publishing domains |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | NetSuite (Oracle) → | 1 160 | 0.19% |
| 12 | Qualtrics → | 1 124 | 0.18% |
| 13 | Sage Intacct → | 1 115 | 0.18% |
| 14 | Oracle Cloud Email → | 1 045 | 0.17% |
| 15 | Docebo (LMS) → | 942 | 0.15% |
| 16 | WordPress.com / WP Cloud → | 903 | 0.14% |
| 17 | Oracle Cloud → | 848 | 0.14% |
| 18 | One.com (DK hosting) → | 785 | 0.13% |
| 19 | Zoho Books → | 737 | 0.12% |
| 20 | AFAS → | 665 | 0.11% |
| 21 | Greenhouse → | 645 | 0.1% |
| 22 | SAP SuccessFactors → | 615 | 0.1% |
| 23 | PayPal Braintree → | 601 | 0.1% |
| 24 | ClickDimensions → | 595 | 0.1% |
| 25 | UKG / UltiPro → | 563 | 0.09% |
| 26 | Autotask (ConnectWise) → | 536 | 0.09% |
| 27 | ConnectWise → | 516 | 0.08% |
| 28 | TOPdesk → | 489 | 0.08% |
| 29 | Freshservice (Freshworks) → | 454 | 0.07% |
| 30 | FormAssembly → | 440 | 0.07% |
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.
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 record | Domains |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | v=DMARC1; p=none; | 54 199 |
| 2 | v=DMARC1; p=none | 31 828 |
| 3 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:rua@dmarc.brevo.com | 8 101 |
| 4 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; | 4 801 |
| 5 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine | 3 921 |
| 6 | v=DMARC1;p=none; | 3 771 |
| 7 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; | 3 712 |
| 8 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com | 3 287 |
| 9 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; aspf=s | 3 165 |
| 10 | v=DMARC1; p=reject | 2 894 |
| 11 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=r; aspf=r; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net; | 2 756 |
| 12 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100 | 2 335 |
| 13 | v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=r; adkim=r; | 2 319 |
| 14 | v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@mailinblue.com!10m; ruf=mailto:dmarc@mailinblue.com!10m; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400 | 2 117 |
| 15 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s; | 1 836 |
| 16 | v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=r; sp=none | 1 748 |
| 17 | v=DMARC1;p=none | 1 727 |
| 18 | v=DMARC1; p=none; adkim=r; aspf=r; | 1 461 |
| 19 | v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;pct=100;fo=1 | 1 374 |
| 20 | v=DMARC1;p=reject; | 1 333 |
| 21 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; | 1 315 |
| 22 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email | 1 299 |
| 23 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email | 1 223 |
| 24 | v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=86400 | 1 220 |
| 25 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=r; aspf=r; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net; | 1 070 |
| # | DMARC record | Domains |
|---|---|---|
| 26 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc.report@axa.com; | 1 069 |
| 27 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email; | 1 056 |
| 28 | v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none | 1 055 |
| 29 | v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; | 1 026 |
| 30 | v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com | 1 002 |
| 31 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc.report@axa.com; | 923 |
| 32 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s | 907 |
| 33 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:report@dmarc.amazon.com; ruf=mailto:report@dmarc.amazon.com | 887 |
| 34 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email | 795 |
| 35 | v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100 | 710 |
| 36 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100 | 691 |
| 37 | v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=86400 | 657 |
| 38 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:ewai10d2@ag.eu.dmarcian.com; ruf=mailto:ewai10d2@fr.eu.dmarcian.com | 613 |
| 39 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@google.com | 609 |
| 40 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; ruf=mailto:dmarc@qiye.163.com; rua=mailto:dmarc_report@qiye.163.com | 609 |
| 41 | v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; ruf=mailto:dmarc@qiye.163.com; rua=mailto:dmarc_report@qiye.163.com | 577 |
| 42 | v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400 | 570 |
| 43 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email; | 512 |
| 44 | v=DMARC1;p=quarantine | 504 |
| 45 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@qq.com | 480 |
| 46 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; | 478 |
| 47 | v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s | 468 |
| 48 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; | 448 |
| 49 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net; adkim=r; aspf=r; | 448 |
| 50 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email; | 435 |
| 51 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; fo=1 | 390 |
| 52 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s; | 379 |
| 53 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s | 373 |
| 54 | v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; adkim=r; aspf=r | 372 |
| 55 | v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; | 355 |
| 56 | v=DMARC1; p=none; adkim=r; aspf=r | 355 |
| 57 | v=DMARC1;p=reject;fo=1;rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com | 352 |
| 58 | v=DMARC1;p=reject | 344 |
| 59 | v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; | 338 |
| 60 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@smtp.mailtrap.live; ruf=mailto:dmarc@smtp.mailtrap.live; rf=afrf; pct=100 | 330 |
| 61 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400 | 325 |
| 62 | v=DMARC1 | 324 |
| 63 | v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1 | 322 |
| 64 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:tnoff9hr@ag.eu.dmarcadvisor.com; aspf=s; adkim=s; | 319 |
| 65 | v=DMARC1;p=quarantine; | 311 |
| 66 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; pct=100; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:dmarcrecord@gmail.com; ruf=mailto:dmarcrecord@gmail.com; | 284 |
| 67 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:zsrbf6su@ag.eu.dmarcadvisor.com; | 281 |
| 68 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;fo=1 | 275 |
| 69 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@google.com | 274 |
| 70 | v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=86400 | 268 |
| 71 | v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;pct=50;adkim=r;aspf=r; | 262 |
| 72 | v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=r; adkim=r | 252 |
| 73 | v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100 | 249 |
| 74 | v=DMARC1;p=none;rua=mailto:dmarc_report@service.aliyun.com | 243 |
| 75 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com | 238 |
| 76 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; aspf=s; | 231 |
| 77 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net; | 226 |
| 78 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:rua-mpse@mpub.ne.jp | 224 |
| 79 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com | 222 |
| 80 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:rua@dmarc.brevo.com | 217 |
| 81 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:zicaptxt@ag.dmarcian.com; | 211 |
| 82 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject | 196 |
| 83 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=r; aspf=r | 195 |
| 84 | v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; rua=mailto:dmarc-raports@dhosting.pl | 192 |
| 85 | v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100 | 188 |
| 86 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; rua=mailto:61e7fc8674b33@ag.eu.dmarcly.com; ruf=mailto:61e7fc8674b33@fo.eu.dmarcly.com; sp=quarantine; fo=1; | 186 |
| 87 | v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc@fbl.optin.com; | 185 |
| 88 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:lufthansa@rua.agari.com; | 184 |
| 89 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@reporting.unisender.com | 183 |
| 90 | v=DMARC1;""p=none;""rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email | 183 |
| 91 | v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100;aspf=r;adkim=r; | 181 |
| 92 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; | 180 |
| 93 | v=DMARC1;p=none;rua=mailto:rua@dmarc.brevo.com | 177 |
| 94 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc.rua@edrone.app; ruf=mailto:dmarc.ruf@edrone.app | 177 |
| 95 | v=DMARC1;p=reject;pct=100; | 174 |
| 96 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; sp=none; pct=100; ri=86400 | 170 |
| 97 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; adkim=s; aspf=s | 168 |
| 98 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1 | 163 |
| 99 | v=DMARC1;p=reject;pct=100 | 162 |
| 100 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400 | 159 |
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 target | Domains |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | nan | 4 687 |
| 2 | localhost | 367 |
| 3 | mx-biz.mail.am0.yahoodns.net | 307 |
| 4 | asapsemi1.mail.protection.office365.us | 303 |
| 5 | 277 | |
| 6 | mx.services | 242 |
| 7 | ~ | 195 |
| 8 | mx01.1and1.com | 192 |
| 9 | mx00.1and1.com | 186 |
| 10 | mail.autoline.com.ua | 173 |
| 11 | mail1.sbnation.com | 172 |
| 12 | mx2.z-ns.net | 171 |
| 13 | zonemx.eu | 164 |
| 14 | mx1.emailsendhub.com | 160 |
| 15 | alltheemails.com | 141 |
| 16 | mx.email-messaging.com | 140 |
| 17 | offline.iserv.eu | 133 |
| 18 | uk.mx1.mailanyone.net | 120 |
| 19 | uk.mx2.mx25.net | 120 |
| 20 | relay1.netnames.net | 119 |
| 21 | relay2.netnames.net | 119 |
| 22 | uk.mx3.mailanyone.net | 118 |
| 23 | mx1.ticketsinbound.com | 118 |
| 24 | se.mx1.mailanyone.net | 117 |
| 25 | se.mx2.mx25.net | 117 |
| # | MX target | Domains |
|---|---|---|
| 26 | mx2.ticketsinbound.com | 116 |
| 27 | uk.mx4.mx25.net | 113 |
| 28 | mxi.alpha-prm.jp | 113 |
| 29 | mx.simply.com | 112 |
| 30 | se.mx3.mailanyone.net | 112 |
| 31 | se.mx4.mx25.net | 111 |
| 32 | mx240.umbler.co.uk | 108 |
| 33 | mx364.umbler.com | 107 |
| 34 | mx00.1and1.co.uk | 105 |
| 35 | mwpremgw1.ocn.ad.jp | 104 |
| 36 | mx1.cleanmx.pt | 103 |
| 37 | mwpremgw2.ocn.ad.jp | 103 |
| 38 | cloudmail.auto-vision.ru | 102 |
| 39 | mx01.1and1.co.uk | 102 |
| 40 | mx2.cleanmx.pt | 102 |
| 41 | s.mail.dcsaas.net | 102 |
| 42 | mailin.mx-hub.cz | 102 |
| 43 | mailin.mx-hub.sk | 102 |
| 44 | mx01.lancloud.ru | 101 |
| 45 | mx02.lancloud.ru | 101 |
| 46 | mx04.lancloud.ru | 101 |
| 47 | void.blackhole.mx | 99 |
| 48 | mx1d10.thinline.cz | 99 |
| 49 | mx10.websupport.sk | 99 |
| 50 | mx20.websupport.sk | 99 |
| 51 | mx03.lancloud.ru | 99 |
| 52 | mx1b20.thinline.cz | 98 |
| 53 | mailin.mx-hub.eu | 98 |
| 54 | mx01.mailplug.com | 92 |
| 55 | mx.zoho.com.au | 92 |
| 56 | mx2.zoho.com.au | 92 |
| 57 | mx02.mailplug.com | 91 |
| 58 | mx3.zoho.com.au | 91 |
| 59 | mx.zoho.com.cn | 89 |
| 60 | mx2.zoho.com.cn | 88 |
| 61 | mx.hetemail.jp | 88 |
| 62 | amazon-smtp.amazon.com | 88 |
| 63 | smtp-fwd.wordpress.com | 86 |
| 64 | mx1.email-cluster.com | 83 |
| 65 | mx2.email-cluster.com | 83 |
| 66 | mx4.name.com | 82 |
| 67 | mx3.name.com | 82 |
| 68 | mx6.name.com | 81 |
| 69 | mx5.name.com | 81 |
| 70 | mx8.name.com | 81 |
| 71 | mailforward.dnsv.jp | 81 |
| 72 | mx1.atmosphere.facct.ru | 81 |
| 73 | mail.global.frontbridge.com | 81 |
| 74 | mx7.name.com | 80 |
| 75 | mx2.atmosphere.facct.ru | 80 |
| 76 | failover1.email-cluster.com | 80 |
| 77 | antispam1.ihs.com.tr | 78 |
| 78 | antispam2.ihs.com.tr | 78 |
| 79 | gmail22.gadmail.de | 78 |
| 80 | gmail23.gadmail.de | 78 |
| 81 | wmail22.gadmail.de | 78 |
| 82 | mx.maxns.net | 77 |
| 83 | mx-01.mail-forwarder.io | 77 |
| 84 | mx-backup.serveriai.lt | 77 |
| 85 | wmail23.gadmail.de | 77 |
| 86 | mx-proxy501.heteml.jp | 76 |
| 87 | mxint01.1and1.com | 75 |
| 88 | mxint02.1and1.com | 75 |
| 89 | sitemail.everyone.net | 74 |
| 90 | mx-proxy502.heteml.jp | 74 |
| 91 | mx-02.mail-forwarder.io | 74 |
| 92 | mx6.kvnbw.de | 74 |
| 93 | mx7.kvnbw.de | 74 |
| 94 | mx8.kvnbw.de | 74 |
| 95 | mx9.kvnbw.de | 74 |
| 96 | mx1-dk.centerasecurity.dk | 73 |
| 97 | mx2-dk.centerasecurity.dk | 73 |
| 98 | smtp.faisco.cn | 73 |
| 99 | mx.vshosting.eu | 73 |
| 100 | rmail22.gadmail.de | 72 |
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 include | Domains |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | amazon.com | 107 |
| 2 | _spf.mail-neoserv.si | 106 |
| 3 | _spf.exsilia.net | 105 |
| 4 | spf.boldem.cz | 104 |
| 5 | spf.kirim.email | 103 |
| 6 | spf.pitcom.net | 103 |
| 7 | qcloudmail.com | 103 |
| 8 | _spf.octadesk.com | 103 |
| 9 | spf.splio.com | 102 |
| 10 | spf-2248456.jmsend.com | 102 |
| 11 | _pmta2.antevenio.com | 101 |
| 12 | _spf.localservices.com.br | 100 |
| 13 | _spf.armada.it | 100 |
| 14 | gateways.firstdata.com | 99 |
| 15 | spf.betrend.com | 99 |
| 16 | _spf.wpopt.net | 98 |
| 17 | outbound.smtp.wisestamp.net | 98 |
| 18 | spf.v6send.net | 98 |
| 19 | spf-00181c02.pphosted.com | 98 |
| 20 | spf.ssmx.net | 97 |
| 21 | _spf01.mykronos.com | 97 |
| 22 | mlrcloud.com | 97 |
| 23 | ofsys.com | 96 |
| 24 | spf.mailcamp.nl | 96 |
| 25 | spf.satorimail.net | 96 |
| # | SPF include | Domains |
|---|---|---|
| 26 | eversrv.com | 95 |
| 27 | mailing.eqs.com | 95 |
| 28 | spf.squalomail.com | 95 |
| 29 | _spf.ogicom.pl | 95 |
| 30 | spf.spcloud.jp | 95 |
| 31 | relay.thundermail.uk | 94 |
| 32 | spf.emailfilter.io | 94 |
| 33 | _spf.maileroo.com | 94 |
| 34 | spf.sosafe.de | 94 |
| 35 | mailmailmail.net | 94 |
| 36 | usermail.zohocreator.com | 93 |
| 37 | spf.cyberimpact.com | 93 |
| 38 | spf-002fa101.pphosted.com | 93 |
| 39 | spf.host-ww.net | 93 |
| 40 | _spf.presscloud.com | 93 |
| 41 | _spf.academicworks.com | 93 |
| 42 | spfref.jackhenry.com | 93 |
| 43 | _spf.simpleviewinc.com | 93 |
| 44 | mfg.siteprotect.com | 93 |
| 45 | senders.mailmasterplus.net | 93 |
| 46 | _spf.sendnode.com | 92 |
| 47 | spf.w4ymail.at | 92 |
| 48 | _spf.sent2email.com | 91 |
| 49 | spf.cesky-hosting.cz | 91 |
| 50 | send.k-crm.jp | 91 |
| 51 | spf.aams4.jp | 91 |
| 52 | smtp-cluster.plusvps.com | 91 |
| 53 | spf.greengeeks.net | 90 |
| 54 | spf.qb-feedback.com | 90 |
| 55 | _spf.edhost.eu | 90 |
| 56 | _spf-dc10.sapsf.com | 90 |
| 57 | spf.redpoints.com | 90 |
| 58 | _spf.aid.no | 90 |
| 59 | _spf.abcp.ru | 90 |
| 60 | relay.email-cluster.com | 89 |
| 61 | spf.263.net | 89 |
| 62 | fmx.etius.jp | 89 |
| 63 | spf.symplicity.com | 88 |
| 64 | spf.shared.spaceship.host | 88 |
| 65 | _spf.lh.pl | 88 |
| 66 | spf.oximailing.com | 88 |
| 67 | verifymyfafsa.com | 88 |
| 68 | ciphr247.com | 87 |
| 69 | no-ip.com | 86 |
| 70 | _spf.webglobe.cz | 86 |
| 71 | spf | 85 |
| 72 | spf.remarkety.com | 85 |
| 73 | sendgrid.com | 85 |
| 74 | spf.icontroller.eu | 85 |
| 75 | spf.esvacloud.com | 85 |
| 76 | mail.dms.unileverservices.com | 85 |
| 77 | _spf.eemsg.mail.mil | 85 |
| 78 | spf.protect.kvnbw.de | 84 |
| 79 | _spf.yourfilter.nl | 84 |
| 80 | spf.w2solution.com | 84 |
| 81 | relay.guzelhosting.com | 84 |
| 82 | spf.sabre.com | 83 |
| 83 | _spf.tld-mx.com | 83 |
| 84 | custmail.vdata.com | 83 |
| 85 | mail.zohoanalytics.com | 83 |
| 86 | spf.qboxmail.com | 83 |
| 87 | spf.pantheon.io | 82 |
| 88 | universalspf.org | 82 |
| 89 | x.universalspf.org | 82 |
| 90 | _spf.ungapped.io | 82 |
| 91 | spf.mail-komplet.cz | 82 |
| 92 | spf.protection.outlook | 82 |
| 93 | _spf.zorgmail.nl | 82 |
| 94 | spf2.nlk2.smtps.jp | 82 |
| 95 | spf.sendios.io | 82 |
| 96 | spf-00596a01.pphosted.com | 81 |
| 97 | _spf.paytsoftware.com | 81 |
| 98 | euromsg.net | 81 |
| 99 | _spf.we.wedos.net | 81 |
| 100 | _spf.explore-blue.com | 80 |
The dataset is the daily OpenINTEL forward-DNS Tranco snapshot
(University of Twente / SURFnet / SIDN Labs). OpenINTEL queries the entire
Tranco top-1M domain list
daily for MX, TXT, NS, A, AAAA, SOA, CAA, DNSSEC and other records, publishing the
results as Apache Parquet. For pre-2022 history we additionally use OpenINTEL's
alexa source (the legacy Alexa top-1M list, retired 2023).
Cite: Roland van Rijswijk-Deij et al., "A High-Performance, Scalable Infrastructure for Large-Scale Active DNS Measurements", IEEE JSAC 2016.
Each report covers a single date — the latest OpenINTEL snapshot with <24h delay, typically ~700 k domains with MX records and ~620 k with SPF. The pipeline runs daily at 23:00 Europe/Moscow; each daily run produces an HTML report, a JSON summary, an updated time-series, and incremental updates to the domain registry (§ 12). No sub-sampling.
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,
currently ~310 patterns). 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 for dictionary improvement.
For each domain's apex SPF record (TXT starting with v=spf1) we extract every
include: and redirect= target and resolve them against open classification dictionaries (ESPs, mailbox-as-sender, anti-spam gateways, forwarders, SaaS senders, DMARC vendors, NS providers, verification tokens).
Resolution order: PURE_ESP → MAILBOX_AS_SENDER → GATEWAYS → FORWARDERS → bare-apex
substring fallback → SAAS_SENDERS substring iteration. Bare-apex derivation strips
leading _spf., _spf-eu., spf., mail.
prefixes from dict keys to catch subdomain variants
(e.g. _spf.m1.websupport.sk → matches websupport.sk).
Malformed includes (no dot, <4 chars) are filtered.
One domain may use several ESPs simultaneously, so ESP shares sum to more than 100% of SPF-publishing domains. Current SPF-include classification coverage: ~81.5% (up from ~38.5% baseline).
Limitation: "flattened" SPF (where include chains were replaced with raw IP ranges to fit the 10-lookup limit) is not detectable from DNS alone — those domains appear ESP-less even when an ESP is in fact used.
For each domain we query the _dmarc.<domain> TXT record. Records
starting with v=DMARC1 are parsed for:
p= (apex policy): none / quarantine / reject / invalidsp= (subdomain policy)pct= (rollout percentage)rua= aggregate-report destinations → classified into vendor buckets
(Postmark DMARC, Valimail, dmarcian, URIports, EasyDMARC, Red Sift,
Proofpoint EFD, Agari/Fortra, …) using dictionaries/dmarc_vendors.pyA domain is counted as enforced if p=quarantine or
p=reject with pct=100 (or pct absent — defaults to
100).
For every SPF record we additionally extract:
all mechanism:
-all (hard fail), ~all (soft fail), ?all
(neutral), +all (pass-everything — broken / dangerous), or missinginclude:, redirect=,
a:, mx:, exists:, ptr:) — each
mechanism counts as 1 against the spec limit of 10. Records exceeding the limit
return PermErr at recipientsAdoption of modern mail-security TXT records, parsed from the same OpenINTEL parquet:
_mta-sts.<domain> with
v=STSv1 — domain advertises required-TLS to its MXdefault._bimi.<domain> with
v=BIMI1 — brand publishes a verified logo (requires
p=reject)_smtp._tls.<domain>
with v=TLSRPTv1 — domain monitors TLS-failure reports*._domainkey.<domain> queries, well-known selectors
(google, selector1/2, s1/s2, k1/k2/k3,
mailo, mte1, …) are mapped to issuing ESPsFor each domain's NS RRset, every NS hostname is matched against a suffix dictionary
(dictionaries/ns_providers.py) with patterns for Cloudflare, AWS Route 53,
Azure DNS, Google Cloud DNS, GoDaddy, Akamai, NS1, UltraDNS, Yandex, DNSPod,
Aliyun, OVH, Hetzner, Gandi, registrars, and others. A domain is assigned to its
dominant NS provider; ties resolve to whichever pattern was matched first.
Many SaaS apps a domain is connected to never appear in SPF (because the SaaS doesn't
send mail FROM the customer domain). To recover this signal we parse apex TXT records for
verification tokens — google-site-verification=…, MS=…,
atlassian-domain-verification=…, stripe-verification=…, plus
~70 other patterns in dictionaries/verification_tokens.py. This produces a
complementary "SaaS density" metric and surfaces apps that the SPF-only view misses.
Three additional TLS / IPv6 metrics:
_25._tcp.<mx_host>
(where the parquet includes TLSA queries)0 issue … / 0 issuewild … record
at apex; CAs aggregated into a market-share view (Let's Encrypt, DigiCert,
Sectigo, …)Every domain ever observed across snapshots is assigned a stable integer ID
in /var/openintel-cache/registry/domains.sqlite3 (currently
~1.2 M domains). Reports reference domains by ID rather than embedding
strings; clients resolve names from a single gzipped registry dump
(/email-stats/domains.csv.gz, ~13 MB). This keeps per-report payloads
compact, enables fast set-operation diffs across snapshots, and gives every domain a
first-seen / last-seen timestamp.
Each daily run computes a domain-level diff vs the previous scan and emits a
change-feed at /email-stats/alerts.html (also as JSON + Atom). Detected
events: ESP added/removed in SPF, DMARC policy upgrade/downgrade, primary-mailbox-provider
change, SPF strict→soft regression, MTA-STS / BIMI first publication. Severity tag is
good / bad / info.
The top-100 ESPs, top-100 SaaS senders and top-80 mailbox providers each have a dedicated
detail page at /email-stats/detail/<kind>/<slug>.html showing KPI
cards, a Chart.js sparkline (from history.json), TLD distribution and a
sample of customer domains.
Each domain is assigned a tier from its Tranco rank: top-1k / top-10k / top-100k / top-1M / unranked.
Every published report includes the exact OpenINTEL date, dictionary file 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 long-term (per OpenINTEL data agreement). The domain registry stores names but no record-level content.
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.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.onlineInline comments coming soon. For now, email is the fastest path — you'll see your fix reflected in tomorrow's run.
Daily snapshots — last 90 days kept fully, older ones thinned to monthly.