Hikeseo uses Postmark as their primary email service provider. Their email authentication setup is good (score 73/100). Missing: DMARC enforcement.
Authentication signals observed in this brand's emails. SPF, DKIM and DMARC are the standard sender-authentication stack — see the DMARC policy below for whether spoofing is actually blocked or just monitored. One-click unsubscribe meets Google & Yahoo's bulk-sender requirements.
SPF / DKIM / DMARC above reflect the last 2 emails we've observed. DMARC policy is read live from DNS.
DMARC reports sent to Postmark DMARC. Policy
p=none is monitor-only — receivers won't act on spoofing yet.
SPF alignment: 94% of observed emails use an aligned return-path (pm-bounces.hikeseo.co, outbound.intercom.hikeseo.co); the rest use third-party paths (kocruj.shared.klaviyomail.com) where DMARC has to rely on DKIM alignment.
DKIM alignment: 94% of observed emails sign with an aligned DKIM key (hikeseo.co); the rest sign with third-party keys (shared.klaviyomail.com) where DMARC has to rely on SPF alignment.
TLS: modern — 100% TLS 1.3 (across 6 sends).
Brands often use multiple ESPs (e.g. one for marketing, another for transactional/notifications).
Intercom 1ESPs we've seen sending email for this brand. Green = confirmed by SPF, sender IP rDNS, or known infra pairing (label shows the source). Grey = observed but not yet confirmed by SPF or PTR.
ESPs this brand has authorized in their SPF record. We confirm them with a green ✓ only after seeing recurring use (3+ emails across 2+ days). Until then they stay here — either we haven't observed any email yet, or we've seen a handful but not enough to call them a regular sender for the brand.
Probed: hikeseo.co, kocruj.shared.klaviyomail.com, pm-bounces.hikeseo.co, outbound.intercom.hikeseo.co
Folder distribution across all emails from this brand observed in Gmail inboxes. High inbox % = good deliverability; spam appearances are the headline signal.
| Folder | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| inbox | 16 | 100.0% |
Which ESP's emails are landing where. Sorted by spam % so problem senders surface first. Brands using one ESP for marketing and another for transactional often see very different placement profiles per ESP. Per-ESP folder data only started being captured recently — counts here may be smaller than the total above until backfill catches up.
| ESP | Emails | Placement | Inbox % | Tabs % | Spam % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercom | 1 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| Postmark | 15 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Daily observations per ESP. Brands often run multiple ESPs concurrently — marketing on one, transactional on another — so this chart shows usage rather than switches.
IP addresses hikeseo.co has been observed sending from, and where their mail landed in Gmail.
| IP | Hostname | Obs | Placement | Reputation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50.31.156.113 | sc-ord-mta113.mtasv.net |
4 | — | Check → |
| 50.31.156.117 | sc-ord-mta117.mtasv.net |
4 | 1 | Check → |
| 50.31.156.118 | sc-ord-mta118.mtasv.net |
3 | — | Check → |
| 50.31.156.121 | sc-ord-mta121.mtasv.net |
3 | — | Check → |
| 50.31.156.116 | sc-ord-mta116.mtasv.net |
1 | — | Check → |
| 192.174.84.149 | mta-174-84-149.intercom.com.sparkpostmail.com |
1 | — | Check → |
| 50.31.156.120 | sc-ord-mta120.mtasv.net |
1 | — | Check → |