Pantuniestal uses EmailLabs as their primary email service provider. They rank #511,888 in the Tranco list of most-popular domains. We've also observed sends via SparkPost. Their email authentication setup is incomplete (score 50/100). 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 4 emails we've observed. DMARC policy is read live from DNS.
Multiple DMARC records published — receivers apply no DMARC at all (RFC 7489). The domain is effectively unprotected until the duplicate record is removed.
SPF alignment: observed emails use a third-party return-path (transactional.emaillabs.net.pl, sparkpost.bounce.edrone.me) — SPF passes there but doesn't align with pantuniestal.com, so DMARC has to rely on DKIM alignment.
DKIM alignment: all 9 observed emails sign with a domain aligned with pantuniestal.com (pantuniestal.com). DKIM authenticates the visible From — supports DMARC directly.
TLS: modern — 100% TLS 1.3 (across 7 sends).
Brands often use multiple ESPs (e.g. one for marketing, another for transactional/notifications).
SparkPost 2ESPs 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.
"Observed" pills mean we detected emails from these ESPs, but they don't appear in any SPF record we probed. They may still be properly authorized — sending infrastructure can live on subdomains we haven't seen yet, or use IP-listing instead of include: directives.
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: pantuniestal.com, sparkpost.bounce.edrone.me, transactional.emaillabs.net.pl
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 | 2 | 22.2% |
| promotions | 6 | 66.7% |
| spam | 1 | 11.1% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SparkPost | 2 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | |
| EmailLabs | 7 | 14.3% | 85.7% | 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 pantuniestal.com has been observed sending from, and where their mail landed in Gmail.