Email Provider comparison - Test 2


Following on from the previous post, I’m going to attack the technical tests now (part 2).

mailchimp

The company is based in USA.

Result:

Received-SPF: pass
    (mail254.sea71.mcsv.net: 148.105.11.254 is authorized to use 'bounce-mc.us1_153792874.10349873-453e17e46c@mail254.sea71.mcsv.net' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'ip4:148.105.11.254' matched))
    receiver=mx5.messagingengine.com;
    identity=mailfrom;
    envelope-from="bounce-mc.us1_153792874.10349873-453e17e46c@mail254.sea71.mcsv.net";
    helo=mail254.sea71.mcsv.net;
    client-ip=148.105.11.254
Received: from mail254.sea71.mcsv.net (mail254.sea71.mcsv.net [148.105.11.254])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mx5.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS
	for <test@superindependant.com>; Tue,  9 May 2023 14:00:47 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=eN9HlYTvnIz691wmH6CNsK400HOaN6Geop3UA5aR64s=;
 c=relaxed/relaxed; d=superindependant.com;
 h=to:cc:from:reply-to:subject:date:mime-version:content-type:list-id:list-unsubscribe:x-csa-complaints:list-unsubscribe-post:message-id:sender:x-sib-id:x-mailin-client:x-mailin-campaign:feedback-id;
 q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1713535329; v=1;
 b=VZN+YjLmMT48+QFFjFUZbHJJWwIHRMFNc3V0MfB+p86O7lvoDZtlvJx1ZQBomddPQJPm/jRm
 Ct1us3OOluLXS+KhoigoFmsK4uDheqChgirWfPTEOKfZqDzeRDIAAcQfe7Mmoz/PB8AdKngG6vz
 kojIfH3Y/WHlvRHTtruZpjCE=

The alignment isn’t respected 👎.
Just goes to show that the best-known and most expensive aren’t the best…

fastmail

The company is based in Australia.

Result:

Received-SPF: pass
    (superindependant.com: Sender is authorized to use 'test@superindependant.com' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'include:spf.messagingengine.com' matched))
    receiver=wmx2.messagingengine.com;
    identity=mailfrom;
    envelope-from="test@superindependant.com";
    helo=wfhigh1-smtp.messagingengine.com;
    client-ip=64.147.123.152
Received: from mailfhigh.west.internal (woutbound1.west.internal [10.209.2.73])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mailmx.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F89E122009B;
	Wed, 17 Apr 2024 04:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=superindependant.com;
	 h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date
	:date:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:reply-to
	:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1716019203; x=1716105603; bh=eM
	zvOS0so6vjqHjFdnAfWC/hkoxwqSdejXL/f8TbtGo=; b=hu+jQpp1aMZtcrUe3o
	aDa4seANpOSbwZ0OVAv9VRy4sP17o+NeBrweWQ6dAJW0JAHLh9u+4ZYCGh/rlMeK
	PjbsMI8bngBKkQLUdLV+JAcWbiIJGTATutpwpGjoWADv0ZpPqw1atKro1bgoHL5K
	IWNAXcf5zu0d4CNMiFNIXH4O79BEdAYHtV8pmGSYiAUaGJpwLA2d2ELLcNwOBAdg
	838Th2vMo9WqGGees2w1ysU8oTU7jNxy859XJFdShNtAleddsP4cZSemjty1AXOk
	aLkvQnY3cbOOLlFa2wTXaeC9f+YstBvWG2aF0bYjSAdgQ9o2VEBygO7kH59m4y/l
	73/g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
	messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
	:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from
	:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:subject:to
	:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=
	fm1; t=1716019203; x=1716105603; bh=eMzvOS0so6vjqHjFdnAfWC/hkoxw
	qSdejXL/f8TbtGo=; b=g8ZmnLysvfSGcvxA0oPHTqo9R7670JiEhA6B5wYTbKP/
	vS4x9cvREVNrhOn+WZvcpN0ucSA3iwJ/iw+rD1UMovatAOA0RKub5pf9o/kZ1Eor
	OP3HemODTcbo2+dpOF+pG7q//MXBK51G3FZfl8Q2wmBjgByv8tO2gAP0PLL1rq5A
	ItD3kagYnkdPsdkFwyXF40GNEiGwbwOWmMxudUOyAi52436hl/4PLxA31vfOVZ/b
	h2SOJiuK3Qt2WqxgRgI+vox0s6i0RRuVCe59Qaerboo4uetIiFIvlm2Sg/3rw2P3
	m0EBv8sekLN1DIUFsVyuTAOJ38shdw/0PBCyA1DE6A==

The alignment is well respected 👍.
Nevertheless, it’s not a service provider for sending lots of e-mails.
In particular, there is no bounce management.

However, they have a bug on the automatic response:

Received-SPF: none
    (fout1-smtp.messagingengine.com: No applicable sender policy available)
    receiver=mx2.messagingengine.com;
    identity=helo;
    helo=fout1-smtp.messagingengine.com;
    client-ip=103.168.172.144
Received: from mailfout.nyi.internal (outbound1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.181])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mailmx.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CDCA6A0078
	for <test@superindependant.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:36:35 -0400 (EDT)

scaleway

The company is based in France.

Result:

Received-SPF: pass
    (superindependant.com: Sender is authorized to use 'test@superindependant.com' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'include:_spf.scw-tem.cloud' matched))
    receiver=mx1.messagingengine.com;
    identity=mailfrom;
    envelope-from="test@superindependant.com";
    helo=s01.scw-tem.cloud;
    client-ip=62.210.3.128
Received: from s01.scw-tem.cloud (s01.scw-tem.cloud [62.210.3.128])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mx1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDBF623C0149
	for <test@superindependant.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 01:00:41 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=4eeuqQsYeGDTLSTGD8JbwpSynobLDM/K3iYkedluNNc=;
 c=relaxed/relaxed; d=superindependant.com; h=Date:From:Subject:To;
 s=85f7bec6-1106-43dd-86d3-13a6e189d32b; t=1716005173; v=1;
 b=rKMlXdXzAq77Niwc6M+mrreOwPPd+lWuCddaYoJnVOTN/soy0iB3jE5thRD3l1zD1ykicIRC
 jR42XDSI3fRnSgQj/4qBvW0aHL4uzwPjCaK7aV/V1iUNa/RlUlcNXHfO6TeXEn4sse7KZftElcT
 pfCWJcK2IKxncnmnzqraJ2EYKb6jXswIZJGC4NYu60gZ3n0hGo2SiQZB6s5xF1uLHUcTRyNmqst
 j+a5NMR0mNfs96rh97RvKkUl9Ewo0LbsN24ZwgypyEzMVMO24A3YLRVaTVdUlz6a2vxRGxDjwuc
 PSS+tFaEWOGDuaYgyFlSExlwEtj4N/rGWoDUY+OMHJysw==

The alignment is well respected 👍.
Nevertheless, there is no bounce management. It’s a recent solution.

sarbacane

The company is based in France.

Result:

Received-SPF: pass
    (superindependant.com: Sender is authorized to use 'lKxmH9aD5LC6k5m-i8HArGYf03LksJLpMgDwvMA@superindependant.com' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'include:spf.tipimail.com' matched))
    receiver=mx2.messagingengine.com;
    identity=mailfrom;
    envelope-from="lKxmH9aD5LC6k5m-i8HArGYf03LksJLpMgDwvMA@superindependant.com";
    helo=ip2.tpm02.net;
    client-ip=109.197.246.196
Received: from ip2.tpm02.net (ip2.tpm02.net [109.197.246.196])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mx2.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7DC96A0475
	for <test@superindependant.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:02:47 -0400 (EDT)

The alignment is well respected 👍.
However, configuration is complicated. This is the most complicated solution. Their solution is split into several products, with very little synergy between them.
So you have to configure these parameters in each product.
This increases maintenance costs.

It’s over!