Zendepot uses Brevo for marketing email and SparkPost for transactional/notifications. We've also observed sends via 4 other providers: SendGrid, Postmark, Mailjet, Mailersend. Their email authentication setup is good (score 73/100). Missing: DMARC enforcement. We've recorded 1 ESP change since first observing this brand.
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.
DMARC reports sent to brevo.com. Policy
p=none is monitor-only — receivers won't act on spoofing yet.
SPF alignment: observed emails use a third-party return-path (gv.d.sender-sib.com, af.d.mailin.fr, ha.d.sender-sib.com) — SPF passes there but doesn't align with zendepot.de, so DMARC has to rely on DKIM alignment.
DKIM alignment: all 24 observed emails sign with a domain aligned with zendepot.de (zendepot.de). DKIM authenticates the visible From — supports DMARC directly.
TLS: 67% TLS 1.3, 33% TLS 1.2 (across 12 sends).
Brands often use multiple ESPs (e.g. one for marketing, another for transactional/notifications).
SendGrid 2 Postmark 1 Mailjet 1 Mailersend 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.
"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: zendepot.de, ha.d.sender-sib.com, gv.d.sender-sib.com, af.d.mailin.fr, ka.d.sender-sib.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 | 32 | 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 % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brevo | 9 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| Mailersend | 1 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| Mailjet | 1 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| Postmark | 1 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| Sarbacane | 1 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| SendGrid | 2 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| SparkPost | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| rapidmail | 2 | 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 zendepot.de has been observed sending from, and where their mail landed in Gmail.