Your email was sent. What decides whether it reaches the inbox?
Email deliverability depends on whether receiving systems accept and place your messages appropriately, not simply whether your sending platform reports them as sent. Check the sending route and authentication first, then address list quality, complaints, relevance and message behaviour. Diagnose the actual failure before changing DNS records, moving platforms or sending more email.
Put the advice into practice
Give the first enquiry a useful follow-up
Plan campaigns, nurture and customer emails with clear triggers and review.
Plan your email programmeSeparate sent, delivered and read
A platform can record a message as sent after handing it to its sending infrastructure. Delivery reporting usually concerns acceptance by the receiving system, while inbox placement concerns where an accepted message ends up. A message can also be delayed, rejected or routed to junk. These are different situations and need different checks.
Start with a specific example. Which sending system was used, which recipient provider was involved and what result was recorded? Look for bounce or rejection details in the authorised platform logs. Confirm whether the issue affects a single address, one provider or a broader group. Do not assume that a missed message proves the whole domain is blocked.
A reader’s open signal is another distinct measure. Privacy features and image-loading behaviour limit what it can establish about a person’s attention. Mailchimp documents the effect of Apple Mail Privacy Protection on open measurement. Use a controlled test and actual message headers where appropriate, alongside platform reporting, rather than infer inbox placement from an open-rate change alone.
Check authentication across every legitimate sender
The organisation may send through an email platform, its normal mailbox provider, a website and other approved systems. Each route needs to be considered. Fixing a newsletter platform does not automatically resolve a separate website-form delivery problem.
Google’s Gmail sender guidelines distinguish authentication requirements for all senders and bulk senders, and recommend SPF, DKIM and DMARC. The exact configuration must match the organisation’s legitimate sending services. Review existing records and dependencies with the responsible administrator before making changes.
Authentication supports trust in the sending identity; it does not guarantee inbox placement. Keep the From identity consistent with the real organisation and review how replies are handled. If the domain’s policy is tightened without accounting for an approved sender, legitimate mail can be affected. A controlled configuration review is more useful than copying a generic DNS example.
Use a diagnostic sequence with an owner
| Check | Evidence to inspect | Practical next action |
|---|---|---|
| Actual sending route | Platform, From domain and message headers from an authorised test | Identify the administrator responsible for that route |
| Authentication | Provider-specific verification and receiver authentication results | Resolve the identified configuration issue without disrupting other senders |
| Rejections and bounces | Reason codes and affected recipient patterns | Correct invalid addresses or investigate the specific provider response |
| List and complaints | Signup provenance, recent imports and complaint trends | Stop inappropriate sends and review the affected audience |
| Content and relevance | Expected message purpose, links and audience fit | Revise the message or frequency based on the identified issue |
Do not change several variables at once unless an incident requires it. Keep a record of the original settings, the specific adjustment and the test result. That makes it possible to distinguish a useful correction from an unrelated change in sending behaviour.
Treat list quality and expectations as part of delivery
A technically authenticated message can still be unwanted. Review how people joined, what they were told to expect and whether the current content matches that expectation. A large import or an old contact database deserves particular scrutiny before it becomes an active campaign audience.
For Australian commercial marketing, consent, sender identification and unsubscribe requirements apply. ACMA’s current guidance sets out those responsibilities. Keep evidence and operational controls in the actual sending process rather than rely on a general assurance that the list is acceptable.
Consider a hypothetical organisation with normal mailbox delivery but recurring newsletter complaints after a new import. Moving to another platform would leave the audience problem unresolved. The appropriate investigation starts with the import’s provenance, permissions and intended message, alongside authentication checks. This is a teaching example, not a diagnosis of a real client.
After a repair, test the affected route and monitor the specific signals that prompted the investigation. Keep website-form notifications separate from campaign delivery; our guide to form emails that do not reach the inbox covers that related path. An ongoing email programme benefits from clear technical ownership and an audience strategy that recipients recognise.
Collect one affected message example, its sending route and the platform’s recorded result before changing settings. A scoped email marketing and automation review can then address the relevant technical and audience issues.