Mailbox providers and ESPs across the Tranco top-1M — snapshot of 2026-07-14.
What you're looking at. Headline numbers for the analysed Tranco
snapshot: how many domains publish each kind of email-related DNS record, and what share
of DMARC publishers actually enforce their policy (quarantine/reject).
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.
Each statement is recomputed daily from the full dataset — cite freely, a link to this page is appreciated. Machine-readable version: api/latest.json · llms.txt. Looking for one domain? Domain lookup — mailbox provider, ESPs and DMARC policy of any top-10k website.
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.
Note: Cloudflare Email Routing also appears in the ESP table below — that is the
same service observed through two different record types (MX here, SPF there), not a
double count of domains.
| # | Mailbox provider | Domains | Share of MX-having domains |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Self-Hosted → | 147 739 | 22.41% |
| 2 | Google Workspace → | 143 598 | 21.79% |
| 3 | Microsoft 365 → | 110 415 | 16.75% |
| 4 | Unknown / Other → | 49 678 | 7.54% |
| 5 | Generic / unmatched (mx*.*) → | 16 973 | 2.58% |
| 6 | Proofpoint → | 12 517 | 1.9% |
| 7 | Generic / unmatched (mail.*) → | 11 540 | 1.75% |
| 8 | Yandex 360 → | 10 799 | 1.64% |
| 9 | Cloudflare Email Routing → | 10 535 | 1.6% |
| 10 | Mimecast → | 10 006 | 1.52% |
| # | Mailbox provider | Domains | Share of MX-having domains |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Hostinger → | 7 920 | 1.2% |
| 12 | Namecheap Email Forwarding → | 6 938 | 1.05% |
| 13 | Zoho Mail → | 6 831 | 1.04% |
| 14 | QQ Mail (Tencent) → | 5 500 | 0.83% |
| 15 | GoDaddy → | 5 008 | 0.76% |
| 16 | OVH Mail → | 4 710 | 0.71% |
| 17 | Amazon WorkMail → | 4 665 | 0.71% |
| 18 | 1&1 IONOS → | 4 025 | 0.61% |
| 19 | Mail.ru for Business → | 3 515 | 0.53% |
| 20 | Barracuda → | 3 489 | 0.53% |
| 21 | Jellyfish (Namecheap) → | 2 909 | 0.44% |
| 22 | Proofpoint Essentials → | 2 843 | 0.43% |
| 23 | SpamExperts (SolarWinds) → | 2 650 | 0.4% |
| 24 | Cisco IronPort → | 2 618 | 0.4% |
| 25 | Beget (RU) → | 2 289 | 0.35% |
| 26 | Mailgun (inbound) → | 2 281 | 0.35% |
| 27 | Rackspace Email → | 2 213 | 0.34% |
| 28 | Alibaba Mail (China) → | 2 085 | 0.32% |
| 29 | Zoho Mail (EU) → | 1 813 | 0.28% |
| 30 | Hosted Email (Rackspace/IONOS) → | 1 753 | 0.27% |
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 → | 38 364 | 6.21% |
| 2 | SendGrid (Twilio) → | 29 390 | 4.75% |
| 3 | Mailgun → | 25 427 | 4.11% |
| 4 | Zendesk → | 23 866 | 3.86% |
| 5 | Mailchimp → | 22 796 | 3.69% |
| 6 | Mandrill → | 20 759 | 3.36% |
| 7 | HubSpot → | 19 600 | 3.17% |
| 8 | Salesforce → | 16 172 | 2.62% |
| 9 | Mailjet (Sinch) → | 13 158 | 2.13% |
| 10 | Cloudflare Email Routing → | 11 158 | 1.8% |
| # | ESP | Domains | Share of SPF-publishing domains |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Brevo (ex-Sendinblue) → | 8 853 | 1.43% |
| 12 | Mimecast → | 8 772 | 1.42% |
| 13 | MailerSend → | 7 928 | 1.28% |
| 14 | Namecheap Forwarding → | 7 199 | 1.16% |
| 15 | MailChannels → | 6 617 | 1.07% |
| 16 | Proofpoint → | 5 772 | 0.93% |
| 17 | Elastic Email → | 4 377 | 0.71% |
| 18 | Constant Contact → | 3 554 | 0.57% |
| 19 | Unisender (RU) → | 3 536 | 0.57% |
| 20 | Campaign Monitor → | 3 478 | 0.56% |
| 21 | Marketo (Adobe) → | 3 241 | 0.52% |
| 22 | Zoho Campaigns → | 3 202 | 0.52% |
| 23 | Emsd1 (transactional) → | 2 957 | 0.48% |
| 24 | Postmark → | 2 928 | 0.47% |
| 25 | SendPulse → | 2 878 | 0.47% |
| 26 | Exclaimer (signatures) → | 2 668 | 0.43% |
| 27 | Zoho ZeptoMail → | 2 631 | 0.43% |
| 28 | SparkPost → | 2 626 | 0.42% |
| 29 | Help Scout → | 2 303 | 0.37% |
| 30 | Salesforce Marketing Cloud → | 2 208 | 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 | Shopify → | 5 390 | 0.87% |
| 2 | Pardot (Salesforce) → | 4 855 | 0.79% |
| 3 | CodeTwo Email Signatures 365 → | 4 377 | 0.71% |
| 4 | KnowBe4 → | 3 447 | 0.56% |
| 5 | Statuspage (Atlassian) → | 2 088 | 0.34% |
| 6 | Trustpilot → | 1 842 | 0.3% |
| 7 | Firebase (Google) → | 1 820 | 0.29% |
| 8 | Atlassian (Jira/Confluence) → | 1 819 | 0.29% |
| 9 | BigCommerce → | 1 353 | 0.22% |
| 10 | Lark / Feishu → | 1 289 | 0.21% |
| # | SaaS app | Domains | Share of SPF-publishing domains |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | NetSuite (Oracle) → | 1 119 | 0.18% |
| 12 | Sage Intacct → | 1 117 | 0.18% |
| 13 | Qualtrics → | 1 088 | 0.18% |
| 14 | Oracle Cloud Email → | 1 055 | 0.17% |
| 15 | WordPress.com / WP Cloud → | 927 | 0.15% |
| 16 | Docebo (LMS) → | 908 | 0.15% |
| 17 | Oracle Cloud → | 823 | 0.13% |
| 18 | One.com (DK hosting) → | 788 | 0.13% |
| 19 | Zoho Books → | 701 | 0.11% |
| 20 | AFAS → | 655 | 0.11% |
| 21 | Greenhouse → | 611 | 0.1% |
| 22 | SAP SuccessFactors → | 583 | 0.09% |
| 23 | PayPal Braintree → | 572 | 0.09% |
| 24 | ClickDimensions → | 572 | 0.09% |
| 25 | UKG / UltiPro → | 544 | 0.09% |
| 26 | Autotask (ConnectWise) → | 482 | 0.08% |
| 27 | TOPdesk → | 451 | 0.07% |
| 28 | FormAssembly → | 449 | 0.07% |
| 29 | ConnectWise → | 436 | 0.07% |
| 30 | Freshservice (Freshworks) → | 431 | 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; | 57 762 |
| 2 | v=DMARC1; p=none | 32 624 |
| 3 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:rua@dmarc.brevo.com | 8 820 |
| 4 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; | 4 913 |
| 5 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine | 3 960 |
| 6 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; | 3 807 |
| 7 | v=DMARC1;p=none; | 3 686 |
| 8 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=r; aspf=r; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net; | 3 640 |
| 9 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; aspf=s | 3 125 |
| 10 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com | 3 072 |
| 11 | v=DMARC1; p=reject | 2 837 |
| 12 | v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=r; adkim=r; | 2 377 |
| 13 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100 | 2 328 |
| 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 | 2 087 |
| 15 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s; | 2 084 |
| 16 | v=DMARC1;p=none | 1 788 |
| 17 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc.report@axa.com; | 1 700 |
| 18 | v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=r; sp=none | 1 697 |
| 19 | v=DMARC1; p=none; adkim=r; aspf=r; | 1 523 |
| 20 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; | 1 448 |
| 21 | v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;pct=100;fo=1 | 1 266 |
| 22 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email | 1 240 |
| 23 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email | 1 228 |
| 24 | v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=86400 | 1 224 |
| 25 | v=DMARC1;p=reject; | 1 185 |
| # | DMARC record | Domains |
|---|---|---|
| 26 | v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none | 1 041 |
| 27 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=r; aspf=r; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net; | 1 030 |
| 28 | v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; | 984 |
| 29 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email; | 967 |
| 30 | v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com | 887 |
| 31 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:report@dmarc.amazon.com; ruf=mailto:report@dmarc.amazon.com | 878 |
| 32 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s | 819 |
| 33 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email | 750 |
| 34 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; ruf=mailto:dmarc@qiye.163.com; rua=mailto:dmarc_report@qiye.163.com | 718 |
| 35 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100 | 716 |
| 36 | v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100 | 714 |
| 37 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:ewai10d2@ag.eu.dmarcian.com; ruf=mailto:ewai10d2@fr.eu.dmarcian.com | 672 |
| 38 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net; adkim=r; aspf=r; | 671 |
| 39 | v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=86400 | 670 |
| 40 | v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; ruf=mailto:dmarc@qiye.163.com; rua=mailto:dmarc_report@qiye.163.com | 662 |
| 41 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@google.com | 617 |
| 42 | v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400 | 543 |
| 43 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; | 531 |
| 44 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@qq.com | 512 |
| 45 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email; | 512 |
| 46 | v=DMARC1;p=quarantine | 502 |
| 47 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; | 457 |
| 48 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email; | 434 |
| 49 | v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s | 416 |
| 50 | v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; adkim=r; aspf=r | 381 |
| 51 | v=DMARC1; p=none; adkim=r; aspf=r | 380 |
| 52 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s; | 372 |
| 53 | v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; | 348 |
| 54 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; fo=1 | 345 |
| 55 | v=DMARC1 | 324 |
| 56 | v=DMARC1;p=reject | 318 |
| 57 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400 | 318 |
| 58 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s | 312 |
| 59 | v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; | 306 |
| 60 | v=DMARC1;p=reject;fo=1;rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com | 306 |
| 61 | v=DMARC1;p=quarantine; | 304 |
| 62 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; pct=100; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:dmarcrecord@gmail.com; ruf=mailto:dmarcrecord@gmail.com; | 303 |
| 63 | v=DMARC1; p=none; fo=1 | 298 |
| 64 | v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=r; adkim=r | 291 |
| 65 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@smtp.mailtrap.live; ruf=mailto:dmarc@smtp.mailtrap.live; rf=afrf; pct=100 | 291 |
| 66 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:tnoff9hr@ag.eu.dmarcadvisor.com; aspf=s; adkim=s; | 281 |
| 67 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@google.com | 272 |
| 68 | v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;pct=50;adkim=r;aspf=r; | 271 |
| 69 | v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=86400 | 270 |
| 70 | v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100 | 265 |
| 71 | v=DMARC1;p=none;rua=mailto:dmarc_report@service.aliyun.com | 249 |
| 72 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com;fo=1 | 244 |
| 73 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:rua@dmarc.brevo.com | 240 |
| 74 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; aspf=s; | 234 |
| 75 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:rua-mpse@mpub.ne.jp | 223 |
| 76 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net; | 221 |
| 77 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=r; aspf=r | 212 |
| 78 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc.rua@edrone.app; ruf=mailto:dmarc.ruf@edrone.app | 212 |
| 79 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:zsrbf6su@ag.eu.dmarcadvisor.com; | 210 |
| 80 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:a@dmarcreports.facebook.com; | 208 |
| 81 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com | 201 |
| 82 | v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; rua=mailto:dmarc-raports@dhosting.pl | 200 |
| 83 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:zicaptxt@ag.dmarcian.com; | 199 |
| 84 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com | 198 |
| 85 | v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@reporting.unisender.com | 191 |
| 86 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject | 186 |
| 87 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; rua=mailto:61e7fc8674b33@ag.eu.dmarcly.com; ruf=mailto:61e7fc8674b33@fo.eu.dmarcly.com; sp=quarantine; fo=1; | 184 |
| 88 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; adkim=r; aspf=r | 183 |
| 89 | v=DMARC1;p=reject;pct=100; | 183 |
| 90 | v=DMARC1;p=none;rua=mailto:rua@dmarc.brevo.com | 180 |
| 91 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc_ruf@emaildefense.proofpoint.com; | 177 |
| 92 | v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc@fbl.optin.com; | 175 |
| 93 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; fo=1 | 171 |
| 94 | v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100 | 170 |
| 95 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; adkim=s; aspf=s | 167 |
| 96 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; sp=none; pct=100; ri=86400 | 166 |
| 97 | v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=r; aspf=r; | 164 |
| 98 | v=DMARC1;p=reject;pct=100 | 164 |
| 99 | v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100;aspf=r;adkim=r; | 163 |
| 100 | v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; | 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 | localhost | 525 |
| 2 | mx.services | 278 |
| 3 | 248 | |
| 4 | zonemx.eu | 191 |
| 5 | mail1.sbnation.com | 166 |
| 6 | ~ | 145 |
| 7 | alltheemails.com | 142 |
| 8 | mx.email-messaging.com | 141 |
| 9 | mail.parktons.com | 139 |
| 10 | mail.autoline.com.ua | 138 |
| 11 | mx2.z-ns.net | 137 |
| 12 | uk.mx1.mailanyone.net | 118 |
| 13 | uk.mx2.mx25.net | 118 |
| 14 | mxi.alpha-prm.jp | 116 |
| 15 | uk.mx3.mailanyone.net | 116 |
| 16 | lbmx.bcc.gov.bd | 114 |
| 17 | uk.mx4.mx25.net | 112 |
| 18 | s.mail.dcsaas.net | 111 |
| 19 | mx1d10.thinline.cz | 109 |
| 20 | mx1b20.thinline.cz | 109 |
| 21 | se.mx1.mailanyone.net | 103 |
| 22 | se.mx2.mx25.net | 103 |
| 23 | mx1.ticketsinbound.com | 102 |
| 24 | mailin.mx-hub.sk | 101 |
| 25 | mailin.mx-hub.cz | 100 |
| # | MX target | Domains |
|---|---|---|
| 26 | mx1.cleanmx.pt | 99 |
| 27 | se.mx3.mailanyone.net | 98 |
| 28 | mx2.cleanmx.pt | 98 |
| 29 | mx2.ticketsinbound.com | 98 |
| 30 | se.mx4.mx25.net | 97 |
| 31 | mailin.mx-hub.eu | 96 |
| 32 | cloudmail.auto-vision.ru | 95 |
| 33 | mx.maxns.net | 95 |
| 34 | smtp-fwd.wordpress.com | 90 |
| 35 | mail.vipmailservice.com | 89 |
| 36 | mailforward.dnsv.jp | 87 |
| 37 | amazon-smtp.amazon.com | 84 |
| 38 | mx1-dk.centerasecurity.dk | 83 |
| 39 | mx2-dk.centerasecurity.dk | 83 |
| 40 | mx-backup.serveriai.lt | 83 |
| 41 | mx01.1and1.fr | 78 |
| 42 | mx3-dk.centerasecurity.dk | 78 |
| 43 | mx00.1and1.fr | 77 |
| 44 | sitemail.everyone.net | 76 |
| 45 | mx.aams4.jp | 76 |
| 46 | mx-01.mail-forwarder.io | 76 |
| 47 | void.blackhole.mx | 74 |
| 48 | mail.global.frontbridge.com | 74 |
| 49 | mx-02.mail-forwarder.io | 74 |
| 50 | mx1.netim.net | 73 |
| 51 | mx2.netim.net | 73 |
| 52 | mx01.1and1.es | 73 |
| 53 | mx-0.aams4.jp | 73 |
| 54 | mx-1.aams4.jp | 73 |
| 55 | mx.vshosting.eu | 73 |
| 56 | mail.lakennetwork.com | 73 |
| 57 | mx.sendcloud.org | 72 |
| 58 | mx1.email-cluster.com | 72 |
| 59 | mx2.email-cluster.com | 72 |
| 60 | mail-fr.securemail.pro | 71 |
| 61 | failover1.email-cluster.com | 70 |
| 62 | q01es.mail.s-web.de | 70 |
| 63 | q02es.mail.s-web.de | 70 |
| 64 | r01es.mail.s-web.de | 70 |
| 65 | r02es.mail.s-web.de | 70 |
| 66 | smtp-avas.seeweb.it | 69 |
| 67 | smtp.faisco.cn | 67 |
| 68 | mx00.1and1.es | 67 |
| 69 | mxa.expediagroup.com | 67 |
| 70 | mxb.expediagroup.com | 67 |
| 71 | mx.emailarray.com | 66 |
| 72 | mx1.nepal.gov.np | 66 |
| 73 | mx.spamfilter.io | 65 |
| 74 | mail.mpcloud.net | 65 |
| 75 | antispam.korea.kr | 65 |
| 76 | mx2.emailarray.com | 65 |
| 77 | mx2.nepal.gov.np | 65 |
| 78 | email.webglobe.cz | 64 |
| 79 | email2.webglobe.cz | 64 |
| 80 | posta.mediacenter.hu | 62 |
| 81 | posta2.mediacenter.hu | 62 |
| 82 | posta4.mediacenter.hu | 62 |
| 83 | posta5.mediacenter.hu | 62 |
| 84 | email3.webglobe.cz | 62 |
| 85 | email4.webglobe.cz | 62 |
| 86 | mx6.kvnbw.de | 62 |
| 87 | mx7.kvnbw.de | 62 |
| 88 | mx8.kvnbw.de | 62 |
| 89 | mx9.kvnbw.de | 62 |
| 90 | posta3.mediacenter.hu | 61 |
| 91 | mx1.oderland.com | 61 |
| 92 | mx2.oderland.com | 61 |
| 93 | mx1.simplelogin.co | 61 |
| 94 | mx2.simplelogin.co | 61 |
| 95 | mx1.daouoffice.com | 61 |
| 96 | mx01.statens-it.dk | 60 |
| 97 | mx02.statens-it.dk | 60 |
| 98 | mx03.statens-it.dk | 60 |
| 99 | mx04.statens-it.dk | 60 |
| 100 | mx05.statens-it.dk | 60 |
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 | yunyou.top | 136 |
| 2 | _spf.edhost.eu | 122 |
| 3 | spf.mailii.org | 120 |
| 4 | _spf.mail-neoserv.si | 118 |
| 5 | mlrcloud.com | 116 |
| 6 | dospf.simplepart.com | 112 |
| 7 | spf.pitcom.net | 111 |
| 8 | _spf.armada.it | 110 |
| 9 | spf.greengeeks.net | 107 |
| 10 | spf.mijndomeinhosting.nl | 106 |
| 11 | spf.boldem.cz | 105 |
| 12 | _spf.localservices.com.br | 105 |
| 13 | spf.w4ymail.at | 104 |
| 14 | send.k-crm.jp | 104 |
| 15 | _spf.lh.pl | 103 |
| 16 | _spf.exsilia.net | 102 |
| 17 | outbound.smtp.wisestamp.net | 101 |
| 18 | spf.cesky-hosting.cz | 101 |
| 19 | spf-2248456.jmsend.com | 100 |
| 20 | spf.betrend.com | 100 |
| 21 | gateways.firstdata.com | 99 |
| 22 | relay.guzelhosting.com | 99 |
| 23 | spf.ssmx.net | 99 |
| 24 | _spf.wpopt.net | 99 |
| 25 | spf.aams4.jp | 99 |
| # | SPF include | Domains |
|---|---|---|
| 26 | _spf.octadesk.com | 99 |
| 27 | spf.mailcamp.nl | 97 |
| 28 | _spf.presscloud.com | 97 |
| 29 | mailii.org | 97 |
| 30 | amazon.com | 96 |
| 31 | _spf.abcp.ru | 96 |
| 32 | spf.v6send.net | 96 |
| 33 | fmx.etius.jp | 94 |
| 34 | mailing.eqs.com | 94 |
| 35 | _spf.simpleviewinc.com | 94 |
| 36 | spf.spcloud.jp | 94 |
| 37 | _spf.sendnode.com | 93 |
| 38 | spf.host-ww.net | 93 |
| 39 | _spf.academicworks.com | 93 |
| 40 | _spf.ogicom.pl | 92 |
| 41 | smtp-cluster.plusvps.com | 92 |
| 42 | _spf.tld-mx.com | 91 |
| 43 | _spf01.mykronos.com | 91 |
| 44 | spf.symplicity.com | 91 |
| 45 | _pmta2.antevenio.com | 91 |
| 46 | spf.emailfilter.io | 91 |
| 47 | verifymyfafsa.com | 91 |
| 48 | spf | 90 |
| 49 | spf.qb-feedback.com | 90 |
| 50 | senders.mailmasterplus.net | 90 |
| 51 | spf.satorimail.net | 90 |
| 52 | usermail.zohocreator.com | 89 |
| 53 | _spf.aid.no | 89 |
| 54 | ofsys.com | 88 |
| 55 | spf.shopserve.jp | 88 |
| 56 | eversrv.com | 87 |
| 57 | _spf-dc10.sapsf.com | 87 |
| 58 | spf.redpoints.com | 87 |
| 59 | spf.chinaemail.cn | 86 |
| 60 | _spf.sent2email.com | 86 |
| 61 | relay.thundermail.uk | 85 |
| 62 | _spf.eemsg.mail.mil | 85 |
| 63 | mfg.siteprotect.com | 85 |
| 64 | spf.protection.outlook | 85 |
| 65 | custmail.vdata.com | 85 |
| 66 | _spf.shared-server.net | 85 |
| 67 | spf.esvacloud.com | 84 |
| 68 | mailmailmail.net | 84 |
| 69 | spfref.jackhenry.com | 84 |
| 70 | ciphr247.com | 84 |
| 71 | spf.w2solution.com | 84 |
| 72 | mail.zohoanalytics.com | 83 |
| 73 | spf.sosafe.de | 83 |
| 74 | spf.form.run | 82 |
| 75 | no-ip.com | 82 |
| 76 | _spf.herodesk-mails.io | 82 |
| 77 | spf.qboxmail.com | 81 |
| 78 | spf.pantheon.io | 81 |
| 79 | spf2.nlk2.smtps.jp | 81 |
| 80 | relay.email-cluster.com | 80 |
| 81 | _spf.saashr.com | 80 |
| 82 | _spf.postaffiliatepro.com | 80 |
| 83 | _spf.firmstep.com | 80 |
| 84 | spf.gansend.com | 80 |
| 85 | universalspf.org | 80 |
| 86 | x.universalspf.org | 80 |
| 87 | sender.zcsend.jp | 80 |
| 88 | spf.sabre.com | 79 |
| 89 | spf.mlwrx.com | 79 |
| 90 | spf-us.appmail.granicusgovaccess.net | 79 |
| 91 | support.gov.sg | 79 |
| 92 | _spf.axa.com | 79 |
| 93 | spf.zoner.fi | 78 |
| 94 | _spf.yourfilter.nl | 78 |
| 95 | spf.am.arara.com | 78 |
| 96 | spf.rpost.net | 77 |
| 97 | spf.263xmail.com | 77 |
| 98 | spf.filteredmx.net | 77 |
| 99 | spfv.global-mail.cn | 77 |
| 100 | _spf.goskope.com | 77 |
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.