Lwf uses Marketo as their primary email service provider. They rank #322,020 in the Tranco list of most-popular domains. Their email authentication setup is good (score 73/100). Missing: DMARC enforcement.
Non-ESP tools detected in this brand's emails. Independent of who sends — a brand can use any combination.
| HTML builder |
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 3 emails we've observed. DMARC policy is read live from DNS.
DMARC published as p=none with no rua= reporting — monitor-only, and the sender isn't collecting reports either.
SPF alignment: observed emails use a third-party return-path (potomac1050.mktomail.com) — SPF passes there but doesn't align with lwf.org, so DMARC has to rely on DKIM alignment.
DKIM alignment: all 5 observed emails sign with a domain aligned with lwf.org (lwf.org). DKIM authenticates the visible From — supports DMARC directly.
TLS: 0% TLS 1.3, 100% TLS 1.2 (across 5 sends).
Delivery: fast — 100% of emails in the last 7 days arrive in under 10 seconds (across 3 sends).
Brands often use multiple ESPs (e.g. one for marketing, another for transactional/notifications).
None — only the primary ESP(s) shown aboveESPs 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: lwf.org, potomac1050.mktomail.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 |
|---|---|---|
| promotions | 5 | 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 % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marketo | 5 | 0.0% | 100.0% | 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 lwf.org has been observed sending from, and where their mail landed in Gmail.
| Domain | ESPs detected | Delivery (7d) |
|---|---|---|
lwf.org | Marketo 5 |