Back to Details

cold-email-deliverability

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Email Deliverability Review

邮件投递性审查

Review a cold email draft and the setup that sends it - authentication, domain architecture, reputation signals, body structure, legal compliance; return a placement-risk report ordered by what actually decides inbox placement.
Label every claim's provenance:
  • provider-verified - mailbox-provider or standards-body documentation.
  • vendor - tool-vendor marketing, no independent methodology.
  • contested - credible sources disagree.
  • practitioner - expert consensus, uncontrolled.
Never present a vendor number as a law. Where evidence does not exist, say so.
审查冷邮件草稿及其发送配置——身份验证、域名架构、声誉信号、正文结构、法律合规性；按照实际决定收件箱放置顺序的因素，返回一份放置风险报告。
为每个论断标注来源：
  • provider-verified（提供商已验证）——邮箱提供商或标准机构的文档。
  • vendor（供应商）——工具供应商营销，无独立方法论。
  • contested（有争议）——可信来源存在分歧。
  • practitioner（从业者）——专家共识，非受控研究。
切勿将供应商数据当作铁律。如果没有证据，就明确说明。

The placement hierarchy

放置层级

Encode this order in every review. It is what most advice in this space gets backwards. Effort below is setup and monitoring time and reversibility, never a price.
  • value (placement bought): authentication > reputation and complaint control > content structure > word choice
  • effort (setup, monitoring, reversibility): reputation and complaint control > authentication == content structure > word choice
  • efficiency (do first): authentication > content structure > reputation and complaint control > word choice
Authentication and content structure tie on effort because each is a single one-time hour and each is fully reversible. They differ only in who executes them - DNS access versus the draft's author; this is a re-ranking condition, not an effort difference.
  1. Authentication is a hard gate. An hour of DNS work, and nothing downstream works without it. SPF/DKIM/DMARC alignment, valid PTR, TLS. Provider-verified: failures now mean rejection (Microsoft 
    550 5.7.515
    since May 5, 2025) or Gmail 4.7.x/5.7.x codes. No copy edit compensates.
  2. Sender reputation and recipient engagement/complaint signals dominate placement. The largest lever over placement once mail is accepted at all, and the only one of the four that is a standing job rather than a fix. Gmail filters at the mailstream level, not the message level; spam-button complaints are the single largest negative signal (provider-verified mechanics, practitioner-documented).
  3. Content structure is a distant tiebreaker, cheap enough to stay ahead of reputation work on ratio alone: image-only mail, low text-to-image ratio, HTML with no plain-text part, link-domain reputation - not vocabulary.
  4. "Spam trigger word" lists are largely folklore. The weakest lever, and last for that reason. No independent controlled study ties word choice, word count, or link count to spam placement (as opposed to reply rate). A clean-reputation domain inboxes "FREE!!! Act now"; a burned domain does not inbox a haiku. Check content anyway - but tell the user plainly, and never hand back a banned-word list as the primary fix.
What this order starves: reputation and complaint control, which ranks second on value yet loses to a cheap tiebreaker on every efficiency round, because it is a standing job with no finish line. Promote it to first whenever the sender intends to keep sending past this campaign, or whenever the Gmail spam rate is already above 0.10% - past that point no authentication or content fix reaches a stream already flagged.
A review that returns a word-list score while the sending domain has no DMARC record is malpractice. The workflow runs preconditions first and content last for this reason - that is the review order, and it differs from the efficiency order on purpose. Reputation is assessed early because a burned stream cancels the copy review entirely; it is repaired late because the repair is a standing job that outlives the campaign.
在每次审查中都包含这个顺序。这一领域的多数建议都把它搞反了。下面的“effort”指设置、监控时间和可逆性，绝不是价格。
  • 价值（获得的放置）：身份验证 > 声誉与投诉控制 > 内容结构 > 用词选择
  • 努力（设置、监控、可逆性）：声誉与投诉控制 > 身份验证 == 内容结构 > 用词选择
  • 效率（优先执行）：身份验证 > 内容结构 > 声誉与投诉控制 > 用词选择
身份验证和内容结构在努力上持平，因为两者都是一次性的一小时工作，且完全可逆。它们仅在执行者上不同——DNS访问权限与草稿作者；这是一个重新排序的条件，而非努力差异。
  1. 身份验证是硬性门槛。 一小时的DNS工作，没有它下游一切皆不可行。需要SPF/DKIM/DMARC对齐、有效的PTR、TLS。提供商已验证：失败现在意味着拒绝（Microsoft自2025年5月5日起返回
    550 5.7.515
    ）或Gmail的4.7.x/5.7.x错误码。任何文案修改都无法弥补。
  2. 发件人声誉和收件人参与/投诉信号主导放置。 一旦邮件被接受，这是对放置影响最大的杠杆，也是四项中唯一一项是需要持续维护而非一次性修复的工作。Gmail在邮件流（mailstream）层面而非单条消息层面进行过滤；垃圾邮件按钮投诉是单一最大的负面信号（机制经提供商验证，从业者记录在案）。
  3. 内容结构是一个次要的决胜因素，仅凭比率就足够廉价，可以领先于声誉工作：纯图片邮件、文本与图片比例低、没有纯文本部分的HTML、链接域名声誉——而非词汇。
  4. “垃圾邮件触发词”列表在很大程度上是民间传说。 最弱的杠杆，因此排在最后。没有独立的受控研究将用词选择、词数或链接数关联到垃圾邮件放置（与回复率不同）。一个声誉干净的域名可以让“FREE!!! Act now”进入收件箱；一个被烧毁的域名连一首俳句都进不了收件箱。还是检查内容——但要如实告诉用户，绝不要把禁用词列表作为主要修复方案。
这个顺序所“饿死”的：声誉与投诉控制，它在价值上排名第二，但在每一轮效率上却输给一个廉价的决胜因素，因为它是一项没有终点线的持久工作。只要发件人打算在该活动之后继续发送，或者Gmail垃圾邮件率已经高于0.10%，就将其提升到第一位——超过这一点，任何身份验证或内容修复都无法触及已被标记的邮件流。
如果发送域名没有DMARC记录，而审查却返回一个词表评分，那是不当行为。因此工作流先运行前置条件，最后处理内容——这是审查顺序，它故意不同于效率顺序。声誉评估放在早期，因为被烧毁的邮件流会完全取消文案审查；修复则放在后期，因为修复是一项比活动更持久的持久工作。

Ethics boundary

道德边界

M3AAWG's November 2025 Position on Cold Email states that "using deceptive and misleading delivery methods to send unsolicited email (including Cold Email) is an abusive practice." It also states that "any attempts to bypass mail volume limits, avoid spam filters, mask sending domains, artificially simulate subscriber engagement, or use other tools or services that exploit loopholes in mailbox providers or cloud platforms are particularly egregious and are not acceptable in any manner."
This skill is deliverability hygiene and compliance - never filter evasion. Refuse, explicitly, to help with:
  • Masking or falsifying sender identity.
  • Lookalike or deceptive domains.
  • Fake 
    Re:
    /
    Fwd:
    threading.
  • Artificial engagement or reply-bot warmup networks.
  • Evading provider volume limits.
  • Hiding, breaking, or discouraging an opt-out.
Draw the real tension for the user instead of hiding it: practitioners recommend spreading volume across several owned, warmed, honestly-identified sending domains, while M3AAWG condemns "masking sending domains" to evade limits. The line is identity, never count:
  • Hygiene - transparently owned, correctly authenticated domains that identify the real sender.
  • Abuse - domains chosen to disguise who is sending, defeat a volume limit, or restart a burned reputation under a new name.
Decline the abusive part of a request and continue with the rest. Abuse is not a low-ranked option on the menu below - it is off the menu, and no volume target, deadline, or effort ceiling ranks it back on.
M3AAWG 2025年11月的《冷邮件立场声明》指出，“使用欺骗性和误导性的投递方式发送未经请求的电子邮件（包括冷邮件）是一种滥用行为。”它还指出，“任何试图绕过邮件量限制、逃避垃圾邮件过滤器、隐藏发送域名、人为模拟订阅者参与，或使用其他利用邮箱提供商或云平台漏洞的工具或服务，都是特别恶劣的，绝不能接受。”
本技能关注投递性卫生和合规性——绝非逃避过滤器。明确拒绝协助以下内容：
  • 掩盖或伪造发件人身份。
  • 相似或欺骗性域名。
  • 伪造 
    Re:
    /
    Fwd:
    线程。
  • 人工参与或回复机器人预热网络。
  • 逃避提供商量限制。
  • 隐藏、破坏或劝阻退订。
向用户展示真正的张力而不是隐藏它：从业者建议将量分散到多个自有、已预热、诚实标识的发送域名上，而M3AAWG谴责“隐藏发送域名”以规避限制。界限在于身份，而非数量：
  • 卫生——透明持有、正确认证、识别真实发件人的域名。
  • 滥用——选择域名以伪装发件人、规避量限制或以新名称重启被烧毁的声誉。
拒绝请求中的滥用部分，继续处理其余部分。滥用不是下面菜单中的低优先级选项——它不在菜单上，任何量目标、截止日期或努力上限都不能让它重新上榜。

Domain architecture - ranking the legitimate options

域名架构——对合法选项进行排序

Legitimacy is the gate; this ranking runs only over what passes it. Effort here is provisioning and warming time, ongoing monitoring, and reversibility - a burned domain is the least reversible outcome in this skill, so reversibility carries most of the weight.
  • value (blast radius contained plus placement earned): domain fleet > one dedicated sending domain > corporate subdomain
  • effort (provisioning, warming, monitoring, reversibility): domain fleet > corporate subdomain > one dedicated sending domain
  • compliance cost (sender identification and suppression surface per region): domain fleet > one dedicated sending domain == corporate subdomain
  • efficiency (start here): one dedicated sending domain > corporate subdomain > domain fleet
The dedicated domain and the subdomain tie on compliance cost because both are one sender identity behind one suppression list, and a recipient's region attaches its rules to that identity, not to the DNS label. The subdomain still costs more effort than the dedicated domain despite the cheaper setup; a burn there reaches the organizational domain and cannot be parked.
  1. One dedicated sending domain, brand-adjacent and honestly identifying the same sender; this is the default rung. An hour to provision, a week or more to warm, and the only architecture whose recovery move (park it, replace it) is near-zero.
  2. A subdomain of the corporate domain - brand recognition and DNS you already control, but containment is partial; reputation bleeds toward the organizational domain, and Gmail counts bulk volume across the primary domain including subdomains, so it never resets the 5,000/day clock.
  3. A fleet of dedicated domains and mailboxes - what this order starves - is highest value of the three, and it loses every efficiency round because each domain owes its own authentication, warming, postmaster enrollment, and monitoring, permanently. Promote it when the volume target exceeds what one warmed domain's mailboxes carry against the sender's own postmaster data, or when a genuine second brand exists. Its compliance cost is real: one suppression list must span every domain, since an opt-out binds the sender and not the domain - a fleet suppressing per-domain has a broken opt-out and files a BLOCKER.
Deleted from this menu rather than demoted: cold outbound at volume on the primary corporate domain. It is the one asset that cannot be parked and replaced, and it carries the transactional and corporate mail a single complaint wave would take down with it.
Both rankings on this page are defaults, not laws - they shift with context and with who executes them. Re-rank against what you already know about this sender:
  • An established domain with years of real reputation makes the subdomain competitive and makes park-and-replace the wrong recovery.
  • A brand-new company has no reputation to protect and no brand to inherit, which flattens the gap between the top two rungs.
  • A team whose IT controls DNS and will not delegate a new domain has the subdomain as its only fast option; a team that provisions its own domains reaches the top rung at near-zero friction.
合法性是门槛；此排序仅针对通过门槛的选项。这里的effort指配置和预热时间、持续监控以及可逆性——被烧毁的域名是本技能中最不可逆的结果，因此可逆性占最大权重。
  • 价值（控制影响范围加上获得放置）：域名群组 > 一个专用发送域名 > 企业子域名
  • 努力（配置、预热、监控、可逆性）：域名群组 > 企业子域名 > 一个专用发送域名
  • 合规成本（各区域的发件人识别和抑制表面）：域名群组 > 一个专用发送域名 == 企业子域名
  • 效率（从这里开始）：一个专用发送域名 > 企业子域名 > 域名群组
专用域名和子域名在合规成本上持平，因为两者都是一个发送者身份对应一个抑制列表，收件人所在地区将规则附加到该身份，而非DNS标签。尽管设置更便宜，子域名仍比专用域名花费更多努力；子域名被烧毁会影响到组织域名，且无法搁置。
  1. 一个专用发送域名，与品牌相邻并诚实标识同一发件人；这是默认层级。配置需一小时，预热需一周或更久，也是唯一恢复动作（搁置、替换）几乎为零成本的架构。
  2. 企业域名的子域名——品牌认知和已控制的DNS，但遏制是部分的；声誉向组织域名渗透，且Gmail将主域名（包括子域名）的批量量一并计算，因此它永远不会重置5,000/天的计时器。
  3. 专用域名和邮箱群组——本顺序所“饿死”的——是三者中价值最高的，但它在每一轮效率中落败，因为每个域名永久需要自己的身份验证、预热、postmaster注册和监控。当量目标超过一个已预热域名的邮箱基于发件人自身postmaster数据所能承载的容量，或者存在真正的第二品牌时，将其提升。其合规成本是真实的：一个抑制列表必须跨越每个域名，因为退订约束的是发件人而非域名——按域名各自抑制的群组会出现破碎的退订，并提交BLOCKER。
从菜单中删除而非降级的是：在主企业域名上进行大批量冷外展。这是唯一无法搁置和替换的资产，它承载着交易邮件和企业邮件，一波投诉就会将其一并击倒。
本页面的两个排序都是默认值，而非铁律——它们会随上下文和执行者而改变。根据你已知的该发件人信息重新排序：
  • 一个拥有多年真实声誉的成熟域名会使子域名变得有竞争力，并使“搁置并替换”成为错误的恢复方式。
  • 一家全新公司没有需保护的声誉也没有可继承的品牌，这拉平了前两个层级之间的差距。
  • 一个IT控制DNS且不愿委派新域名的团队，其唯一快速选项是子域名；一个自己配置域名的团队以接近零摩擦达到顶级。

Interview

访谈

  • Ask one question per message.
  • Offer multiple-choice options.
  • Skip anything context already answers.
  • If your harness has persistent memory and a prior run stored this sender's setup, confirm it instead of re-asking.
  1. Regime: B2B cold outbound (unsolicited) or B2C bulk/lifecycle (opt-in)? Ask first - consent basis, unsubscribe rules, warmup unit, and feedback loops all diverge.
  2. Date this has to land by: sending this week, this month, or no fixed date?
  3. One-off win or compounding asset: one campaign to one list, or an outbound channel meant to keep running?
  4. Effort ceiling: who executes, how many hours do they have, do they control DNS, and how much of this has to stay reversible?
  5. Daily volume and volume approaching 5,000/day to any one provider? (Provider-verified bulk-sender threshold at Gmail and Microsoft; permanent once reached at Gmail.)
  6. Sending domain: primary corporate domain, dedicated sending domain/subdomain, or several? Does each honestly identify the real sender?
  7. Do SPF, DKIM, and DMARC records exist, and is alignment known? "Don't know" is a valid answer - step 3 of the workflow verifies.
  8. Recipient provider mix: mostly Gmail, Microsoft, Yahoo, corporate gateways, or mixed?
  9. Recipient regions: US, EU (which member states), UK, Canada, Australia, mixed? The legal answer changes completely by region.
  10. Postmaster dashboards enrolled - Google Postmaster Tools, Microsoft SNDS/JMRP, Yahoo CFL? Current Gmail spam rate, if known?
  11. Is the draft genuine 1:1 mail or templated at volume? Changes bulk-requirement applicability and the opt-out recommendation.
  12. Symptoms so far: bounce codes (
    550 5.7.515
    , 4.7.x/5.7.x, 
    550 5.4.5
    ), spam-folder reports, sudden reply drop?
Re-rank both orderings against answers 2-4, and tell the user which answer moved which option:
  • A deadline inside a week promotes authentication (an hour, unblocks everything) and demotes every architecture needing a warming period - a domain provisioned today does not carry volume this week. Say that rather than shipping a plan that misses the date.
  • A compounding mandate promotes reputation and complaint control from third to first, and promotes the domain fleet once the volume target proves one domain cannot carry it.
  • A one-off win keeps the efficiency order as written and rules the fleet out entirely.
  • No DNS control caps the sender at a corporate subdomain and puts the authentication fixes in someone else's queue - sequence around that hand-off instead of assuming an hour.
  • A low tolerance for irreversible outcomes promotes the dedicated sending domain over the subdomain whatever the other answers say.
  • 每条消息只问一个问题。
  • 提供多选选项。
  • 跳过上下文已回答的内容。
  • 如果你的平台有持久化记忆，且之前的运行存储了该发件人的配置，请确认而不是重新询问。
  1. 模式：B2B冷外展（未经请求）还是B2C批量/生命周期（选择加入）？先问这个——同意基础、退订规则、预热单元和反馈循环都会不同。
  2. 必须送达的日期：本周、本月发送，还是没有固定日期？
  3. 一次性胜利还是复利资产：一个活动针对一个列表，还是一个旨在持续运转的外展渠道？
  4. 努力上限：由谁执行，有多少小时，是否控制DNS，以及其中多少必须保持可逆？
  5. 每日量以及是否接近任何单一提供商的5,000/天上限？（Gmail和Microsoft的提供商已验证批量发件人阈值；在Gmail达到后是永久的。）
  6. 发送域名：主企业域名、专用发送域名/子域名，还是多个？每个都诚实标识真实发件人吗？
  7. SPF、DKIM和DMARC记录是否存在，且对齐情况已知？“不知道”是有效答案——工作流的第3步会验证。
  8. 收件人提供商组合：主要是Gmail、Microsoft、Yahoo、企业网关，还是混合？
  9. 收件人地区：美国、欧盟（哪些成员国）、英国、加拿大、澳大利亚，还是混合？法律答案完全因地区而异。
  10. 是否注册了Postmaster仪表板——Google Postmaster Tools、Microsoft SNDS/JMRP、Yahoo CFL？如果知道，当前的Gmail垃圾邮件率是多少？
  11. 草稿是真正的1:1邮件还是批量模板？这会改变批量要求的适用性和退订建议。
  12. 迄今为止的症状：退信代码（
    550 5.7.515
    、4.7.x/5.7.x、
    550 5.4.5
    ）、垃圾邮件文件夹报告、回复突然下降？
根据回答2-4重新排序两个顺序，并告诉用户哪个回答移动了哪个选项：
  • 一周内的截止日期会提升身份验证（一小时，解锁一切），并降级所有需要预热期的架构——今天配置的域名本周无法承载量。要明确说出这一点，而不是交付一个错过日期的计划。
  • 复利任务将声誉与投诉控制从第三提升到第一，并且一旦量目标证明单个域名无法承载，就提升域名群组。
  • 一次性胜利保持原样的效率顺序，并完全排除域名群组。
  • 没有DNS控制将发件人限制在企业子域名，并将身份验证修复置于他人的队列中——围绕该交接进行排序，而不是假设一小时内完成。
  • 对不可逆结果的低容忍度会使专用发送域名优先于子域名，无论其他回答如何。

Workflow

工作流

  1. Run the Interview.
  2. Screen the request against the Ethics boundary. Decline evasion asks explicitly before doing anything else.
  3. Audit preconditions with references/authentication-and-setup.md: SPF/DKIM/DMARC presence and alignment, PTR, TLS, unsubscribe headers where required, and domain architecture against the ranking above. If you can run DNS lookups or browse the web, verify records yourself; otherwise ask the user to paste lookup output. Any failure is a BLOCKER: report it, state that no copy edit compensates, and hold the content review until fixed.
  4. Assess reputation and measurement with references/reputation-and-measurement.md: spam rate against thresholds, bounces, blocklists, dashboard enrollment, volume and warmup sanity. A burned domain routes to the remediation path, not a copy review.
  5. Review body structure with references/content-review.md - structure and link-domain quality first, vocabulary last, honestly framed as the weakest lever.
  6. Flag the subject line only for deception or placement-damaging structure (fake 
    Re:
    /
    Fwd:
    , ALL CAPS, excess punctuation). Never score it for open rate or draft variants - route that to 
    mbfinotti/sales-skills@cold-email-subject-line-tester
    .
  7. Check legal compliance for every recipient region with references/compliance-by-region.md.
  8. Assemble the report (shape and worked pass/fail examples in references/review-examples.md), run the Quality gate, and iterate with the user until it passes.
  9. Run any rewritten copy proposed for a flagged section through your preferred humanizer skill before delivering - raw first-draft model output is never shipped.
  10. If your harness has persistent memory, store the setup answers (domains, auth status, volume, regions, dashboards) so later reviews skip straight to the draft.
  1. 运行访谈。
  2. 根据道德边界筛选请求。在做其他任何事情之前明确拒绝规避请求。
  3. 使用 references/authentication-and-setup.md 审计前置条件：SPF/DKIM/DMARC存在与对齐、PTR、TLS、需要时的退订头部，以及与上述排序对照的域名架构。如果你能运行DNS查询或浏览网页，请自行验证记录；否则请用户粘贴查询输出。任何失败都是BLOCKER：报告它，声明没有文案修改可以弥补，并暂停内容审查直到修复。
  4. 使用 references/reputation-and-measurement.md 评估声誉和测量：与阈值对照的垃圾邮件率、退信、黑名单、仪表板注册、量和预热合理性。被烧毁的域名进入补救路径，而非文案审查。
  5. 使用 references/content-review.md 审查正文结构——先检查结构和链接域名质量，最后检查词汇，并诚实地将其框定为最弱的杠杆。
  6. 仅当主题行存在欺骗性或损害放置的结构（伪造 
    Re:
    /
    Fwd:
    、全大写、过多标点）时标记。绝不为打开率或草稿变体打分——将其路由到 
    mbfinotti/sales-skills@cold-email-subject-line-tester
    。
  7. 使用 references/compliance-by-region.md 检查每个收件人地区的法律合规性。
  8. 组装报告（结构和通过/失败示例见 references/review-examples.md），运行质量门，并与用户迭代直至通过。
  9. 在交付之前，对为标记部分提出的任何重写文案运行你偏好的人工化技能——原始初稿模型输出永远不会被发送。
  10. 如果你的平台有持久化记忆，存储设置回答（域名、认证状态、量、地区、仪表板），以便后续审查直接跳到草稿。

B2B cold vs B2C bulk

B2B冷邮件与B2C批量

Identical for both:
  • The authentication stack and alignment rules.
  • Reputation mechanics and complaint math.
  • The structural content checks.
Diverges - split it every time:
  • Consent basis: B2C is opt-in by definition; cold B2B is unsolicited and legality varies by region (compliance reference).
  • One-click 
    List-Unsubscribe
    (RFC 8058): a bulk/marketing requirement; genuine 1:1 cold mail below bulk thresholds is not covered - the plain-text opt-out line question is contested (content reference).
  • Warmup unit: B2C ESP senders warm dedicated IPs on published ramps; cold B2B warms mailboxes and domains (reputation reference).
  • Feedback loops: B2C ESPs suppress individual complainers via Yahoo CFL / Microsoft JMRP; Gmail offers no per-message loop to anyone.
  • List hygiene: sunset policies, re-engagement, and double opt-in are B2C bulk practice; B2B equivalents are bounce pruning and verification before send.
两者相同：
  • 身份验证堆栈和对齐规则。
  • 声誉机制和投诉数学。
  • 结构性内容检查。
分歧——每次都区分：
  • 同意基础：B2C按定义是选择加入；冷B2B是未经请求，合法性因地区而异（合规参考）。
  • 一键 
    List-Unsubscribe
    （RFC 8058）：批量/营销要求；低于批量阈值的真正1:1冷邮件不受覆盖——纯文本退订行的问题有争议（内容参考）。
  • 预热单元：B2C ESP发件人按照公布的爬坡计划预热专用IP；冷B2B预热邮箱和域名（声誉参考）。
  • 反馈循环：B2C ESP通过Yahoo CFL / Microsoft JMRP抑制个别投诉者；Gmail不向任何人提供逐条消息循环。
  • 列表卫生：日落政策、重新参与和双重选择加入是B2C批量实践；B2B对应的是发送前退信清理和验证。

Invocation examples and expected output

调用示例和预期输出

Typical requests: "why are my cold emails going to spam", "review this cold email for deliverability", "check my email for spam trigger words" (answer honestly - see hierarchy point 4), "am I going to get my domain blacklisted", "we start sending 2,000/day next month - is our setup ready".
Expected output - the review report, in order:
  1. Verdict: CLEARED, AT RISK, or BLOCKED.
  2. Findings grouped by layer (authentication → reputation → content → compliance), each with severity (BLOCKER / RISK / ADVISORY) and provenance label.
  3. Fix list in the efficiency order of the placement hierarchy, not in the finding-group order above - DNS and setup fixes before content edits, always.
  4. Measurement plan: which dashboards to enroll, which metrics to watch, thresholds that trigger action.
Full template plus one failing and one passing worked example: references/review-examples.md.
典型请求：“为什么我的冷邮件进了垃圾邮件”“审查这封冷邮件的投递性”“检查我的邮件是否有垃圾邮件触发词”（诚实回答——见层级第4点），“我的域名会被列入黑名单吗”“我们下个月开始每天发送2,000封——我们的配置准备好了吗”。
预期输出——审查报告，按顺序：
  1. 结论：CLEARED（通过）、AT RISK（有风险）或BLOCKED（阻断）。
  2. 按层分组的结果（身份验证 → 声誉 → 内容 → 合规），每项带有严重性（BLOCKER / RISK / ADVISORY）和来源标签。
  3. 修复列表按照放置层级的效率顺序，而非上述结果分组顺序——总是先DNS和配置修复，再内容编辑。
  4. 测量计划：注册哪些仪表板、关注哪些指标、触发行动的阈值。
完整模板外加一个失败和一个通过的工作示例：references/review-examples.md。

Quality gate

质量门

Every finding carries a severity. The gate is measurable: count of unresolved BLOCKERs and RISKs.
  • Hard gates - any one unresolved keeps the verdict BLOCKED:
    • Authentication present and aligned for the sender's tier: SPF or DKIM minimum for any sender; SPF + DKIM + aligned DMARC for bulk.
    • No deceptive framing anywhere (sender identity, subject, domains).
    • The recipient region's consent/opt-out/disclosure requirement met.
    • Gmail spam rate below 0.30% where known.
  • Scored content review: run all ten structural checks in the content reference; each failed check files a RISK or ADVISORY per that file's severity map.
  • Pass threshold: zero BLOCKERs and zero unresolved RISKs. ADVISORY findings may ship if the user acknowledges them in the report.
  • Iterate: re-run the failed layer after each fix until the gate passes. Never soften a BLOCKER to RISK to get a pass.
每个结果都带有严重性。该门是可测量的：未解决的BLOCKER和RISK的数量。
  • 硬性门槛——任何一个未解决都会保持结论为BLOCKED：
    • 身份验证存在并与发件人层级对齐：任何发件人至少需要SPF或DKIM；批量发件人需要SPF + DKIM + 对齐的DMARC。
    • 任何地方都没有欺骗性框架（发件人身份、主题、域名）。
    • 满足收件人地区的同意/退订/披露要求。
    • 已知情况下，Gmail垃圾邮件率低于0.30%。
  • 计分内容审查：运行内容参考中的所有十项结构检查；每次失败的检查根据该文件的严重性映射提交RISK或ADVISORY。
  • 通过阈值：零BLOCKER和零未解决的RISK。如果用户在报告中确认ADVISORY发现，则可以发送。
  • 迭代：每次修复后重新运行失败的层，直到通过门禁。绝不要为了通过而将BLOCKER软化为RISK。

KPIs and measurement

KPI和测量

  • Gmail spam rate: below 0.10% target, never at or above 0.30% (provider-verified; measured daily in the postmaster dashboard). Approaching 0.10% → audit list and targeting; at 0.30% → stop the stream (mitigation eligibility returns only after 7 consecutive clean days).
  • Bounce rate: action thresholds around 2-5% circulate but are vendor conventions; trend and hard-bounce pruning matter more than the exact number.
  • Reply rate (B2B) / click and conversion (B2C): the engagement signals worth trusting.
  • Discount open rate explicitly: Apple Mail Privacy Protection pre-fetches tracking pixels (~55-60% of opens affected per Litmus 2026 - vendor measurement), and Google states it does not track open rates (provider-verified). Opens are directional at best; never a placement KPI.
  • Gmail垃圾邮件率：目标低于0.10%，绝不低于0.30%或以上（提供商已验证；在postmaster仪表板每日测量）。接近0.10% → 审计列表和定位；达到0.30% → 停止邮件流（缓解资格仅在连续7天干净后恢复）。
  • 退信率：2-5%的行动阈值流传，但属于供应商惯例；趋势和硬退信清理比确切数字更重要。
  • 回复率（B2B）/点击和转化（B2C）：值得信任的参与信号。
  • 明确打折打开率：Apple Mail隐私保护会预取跟踪像素（根据Litmus 2026，约55-60%的打开受影响——供应商测量），且Google声明其不跟踪打开率（提供商已验证）。打开率最多是方向性的；绝不是放置KPI。

Failure modes

失败模式

  • Editing copy while authentication is broken. Fix: hierarchy order - DNS first, always; hold the content review behind the BLOCKER.
  • Treating a seed-list "inbox" result as proof. Seed inboxes have no engagement history and placement is personalized per recipient - directional, not definitive.
  • Confusing Google Workspace's 2,000 messages/day account cap (outbound hard limit, rolling 24h) with the 5,000/day Gmail bulk-sender reputation threshold (inbound classification); different mechanisms, different consequences.
  • Assuming one universal compliance deadline. Gmail and Yahoo enforced bulk authentication from February 1, 2024; Microsoft's equivalent took effect May 5, 2025 - 15 months later.
  • Assuming Gmail lets you suppress individual complainers. It has no per-message feedback loop; prevention is structurally the only option, unlike Yahoo (CFL) and Microsoft (JMRP).
  • Relying on automated warmup networks. They manufacture artificial engagement; this is the exact practice M3AAWG names as egregious - and no independent evidence shows they improve real-recipient placement.
  • Chasing a burned domain instead of retiring it. Practitioner norm: a domain on a domain-blocklist or with collapsed reputation is often cheaper to park and replace (with an honestly-identified domain) than to rehabilitate; "85% delisting success" figures are vendor and unverified. The exception that flips it is the domain carrying corporate and transactional mail - that one cannot be parked, so it has to be rehabilitated (reputation reference).
  • Handing back a word-list score as the primary fix. Folklore - see hierarchy point 4; report content findings last and labeled.
  • Applying B2B cold rules to B2C bulk or vice versa. Warmup unit, unsubscribe requirements, and consent basis all differ - see the split above.
  • 在身份验证损坏时编辑文案。修复：层级顺序——始终DNS优先；将内容审查挡在BLOCKER之后。
  • 将种子列表的“收件箱”结果视为证明。种子收件箱没有参与历史，放置是针对每个收件人个性化的——方向性，而非决定性。
  • 将Google Workspace的每账户每天2,000条消息上限（出站硬限制，滚动24小时）与5,000/天的Gmail批量发件人声誉阈值（入站分类）混淆；不同机制，不同后果。
  • 假设有一个普遍的合规截止日期。Gmail和Yahoo从2024年2月1日起执行批量身份验证；Microsoft的等效措施于2025年5月5日生效——晚了15个月。
  • 假设Gmail允许你抑制个别投诉者。它没有逐条消息反馈循环；预防在结构上是唯一选择，不像Yahoo（CFL）和Microsoft（JMRP）。
  • 依赖自动化预热网络。它们制造人工参与；这正是M3AAWG称之为恶劣的做法——且没有独立证据表明它们能改善真实收件人的放置。
  • 追逐被烧毁的域名而不是让其退役。从业者规范：一个在黑名单上或声誉崩溃的域名，通常搁置和替换（用诚实标识的域名）比重建更便宜；“85%除名成功率”的数字是供应商且未经证实。翻转这一点的例外是承载企业邮件和交易邮件的域名——它不能搁置，因此必须重建（声誉参考）。
  • 将词表评分作为主要修复方案。民间传说——见层级第4点；最后报告内容发现并标注。
  • 将B2B冷邮件规则应用于B2C批量，反之亦然。预热单元、退订要求和同意基础都不同——见上面的分叉。

References

参考

  • mbfinotti/sales-skills@sales-outbound-sequence
    - touch-by-touch cadence and timing; out of scope here.
  • references/authentication-and-setup.md - provider requirements and dates, alignment, error codes, unsubscribe headers, DNS gotchas, domain architecture, hard account caps.
  • references/reputation-and-measurement.md - mailstream filtering, complaint math, thresholds, dashboards, seed-test validity, warmup conventions, remediation and blocklists.
  • references/content-review.md - the ten structural checks with severity map, tracking and link guidance, opt-out debate, folklore explainer.
  • references/compliance-by-region.md - US, EU and member states, UK, Canada, Australia; B2B vs B2C consent bases and penalties.
  • references/review-examples.md - report template, one failing worked example, one passing worked example.
  • mbfinotti/sales-skills@sales-outbound-sequence
    - 逐触点节奏和时机；此处范围之外。
  • references/authentication-and-setup.md - 提供商要求和日期、对齐、错误代码、退订头部、DNS陷阱、域名架构、硬性账户上限。
  • references/reputation-and-measurement.md - 邮件流过滤、投诉数学、阈值、仪表板、种子测试有效性、预热惯例、补救和黑名单。
  • references/content-review.md - 十项结构检查及严重性映射、跟踪和链接指南、退订辩论、民间传说解释。
  • references/compliance-by-region.md - 美国、欧盟及成员国、英国、加拿大、澳大利亚；B2B与B2C同意基础和处罚。
  • references/review-examples.md - 报告模板、一个失败的工作示例、一个通过的工作示例。