Litmus uses Salesforce MC for marketing email and Postmark for transactional/notifications. They rank #24,095 in the Tranco list of most-popular domains. We've also observed sends via Customer.io. Email goes out from 2 different subdomains. Their email authentication setup is solid (score 95/100).
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 Mailhardener. Policy
p=quarantine means receivers actively block or quarantine spoofed mail.
SPF alignment: 11% of observed emails use an aligned return-path (pm.users.litmus.com, cio106671.users.litmus.com); the rest use third-party paths (bounce.e.validity.com) where DMARC has to rely on DKIM alignment.
DKIM alignment: all 16 observed emails sign with a domain aligned with litmus.com (e.litmus.com, cio106671.users.litmus.com). DKIM authenticates the visible From — supports DMARC directly.
Brands often use multiple ESPs (e.g. one for marketing, another for transactional/notifications).
Customer.io 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: litmus.com, bounce.e.validity.com, pm.users.litmus.com, cio106671.users.litmus.com, e.litmus.com, users.litmus.com
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 | 14 | 87.5% |
| promotions | 2 | 12.5% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salesforce MC | 13 | 84.6% | 15.4% | 0.0% | |
| Customer.io | 1 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| Postmark | 1 | 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 litmus.com has been observed sending from, and where their mail landed in Gmail.
| Domain | ESPs detected | Delivery (7d) |
|---|---|---|
e.litmus.com | Salesforce MC 17 | |
users.litmus.com | Postmark 1 Customer.io 1 |