Your email, under the microscope

Your email, decoded.

A closer look at your authentication, content and sending configuration.

New test
Example Report

Entirely synthetic findings, not a real delivery. No message, account, private token or quota is used.

DELIVERABILITY SCORE
6.3out of 10
Completed

9 of 10 checks assessed

Unknown checks earn no points.
SYNTHETIC MESSAGE

Example newsletter

This demonstration uses the reserved sender.example domain. It cannot receive mail. Use a new test address to analyze your own message.

Test your email →
Envelope sender
newsletter@sender.example
Received
15 Jan 2026, 10:30 UTC

What to fix first

Confirmed failures come first, followed by actionable warnings. Informational recommendations remain in the detailed analysis.

1 check is Unknown: unavailable evidence, not a confirmed failure. Unknown checks earn no points.

  1. SPF authentication

    Failed

    The sending IP is not authorized by the SPF policy.

    Why it matters
    A receiving server cannot confidently authorize this sending service.
    What to do
    Publish one valid SPF record for the evaluated identity and include every authorized sending service.
    Who can fix it
    The domain administrator or email platform administrator
    View detailed analysis →

  2. HTML & MIME structure

    Warning

    The message has structural issues or content characteristics that deserve review.

    Why it matters
    Structural or active-content issues can affect safe rendering and filtering.
    What to do
    Use valid MIME, include a plain-text alternative for HTML, and remove active HTML or risky attachments.
    Who can fix it
    The email template author or sending application developer
    View detailed analysis →

  3. SpamAssassin score

    Warning

    SpamAssassin returned 2.4 points. Lower scores indicate fewer detected spam signals. MXValidation marks an adjusted total above 0 and below 5 as Warning, even when SpamAssassin classifies the message as ham.

    Why it matters
    Triggered rules identify content and configuration signals worth reviewing; they do not predict every inbox.
    What to do
    Review the largest positive contributions first: HTML_IMAGE_RATIO (+2.00), HTML_ONLY (+0.50). Positive rules contribute to the total; negative rules offset them. A triggered rule is not necessarily a configuration defect.
    Who can fix it
    The email author, with the sending platform administrator
    View detailed analysis →

A clear picture, check by check.

Expand any check for the findings and your next step.

10 / 10 checks returned

SpamAssassin returned 2.4 points. Lower scores indicate fewer detected spam signals. MXValidation marks an adjusted total above 0 and below 5 as Warning, even when SpamAssassin classifies the message as ham.

Your next step

Review the largest positive contributions first: HTML_IMAGE_RATIO (+2.00), HTML_ONLY (+0.50). Positive rules contribute to the total; negative rules offset them. A triggered rule is not necessarily a configuration defect.

Technical result
ham - not classified as spam by SpamAssassin
Execution time
120 ms

Rules by score contribution

Positive points add spam signals; negative points reduce the score. Highest positive contributions appear first.

Red: +1 or moreAmber: above 0, below +1Green: below 0Gray: 0 or excluded rule

Warning and Failed are based on the adjusted score, including negative offsets. EMPTY_MESSAGE and MISSING_SUBJECT stay visible with their original points but are excluded from MXValidation scoring and repair priorities. DMARC rules also stay visible but are scored only in the dedicated DMARC check, avoiding policy-only and duplicate penalties. Contributor labels identify positive rules adding to that total; colors show each rule’s contribution, not a separate pass/fail verdict.

RulePointsImpactMeaning
HTML_IMAGE_RATIO+2.00Higher impact (+1 or more)Warning contributorImage-heavy HTML deserves review.
HTML_ONLY+0.50Small positive contributionWarning contributorNo plain-text alternative was included.
DKIM_VALID-0.10Reduces spam scoreA valid DKIM signature was found.
View raw technical findings
Score
2.4
Rules
  1. Score
    -0.1
    Rule
    DKIM_VALID
    Description
    A valid DKIM signature was found.
  2. Score
    2
    Rule
    HTML_IMAGE_RATIO
    Description
    Image-heavy HTML deserves review.
  3. Score
    0.5
    Rule
    HTML_ONLY
    Description
    No plain-text alternative was included.

The sending IP is not authorized by the SPF policy.

Your next step

Publish one valid SPF record for the evaluated identity and include every authorized sending service.

Technical result
fail
Execution time
120 ms
SPF Lookup Chain

No SPF lookup chain was recorded for this test.

Technical details

The original result is retained; no current DNS lookup or diagnostic simulation is substituted for a historical trace.

Sending server IP
Not recorded
Envelope From / Return-Path domain
sender.example
HELO/EHLO
Not recorded
SPF identity
Not recorded
SPF identity domain
sender.example
Recorded SPF result
FAIL
SMTP AUTH
Not assessed by SPF
Evidence source
Legacy analyzer result; detailed provenance not recorded
Evaluation time
Not recorded
Matched mechanism
No matching mechanism recorded

StepOperationDomainRecord / answersResult
View raw technical findings
Identity
Envelope sender
Domain
sender.example
Explanation
The synthetic sending service is not authorized.

At least one DKIM signature was cryptographically verified.

Technical result
pass
Execution time
120 ms
View raw technical findings
Signatures
  1. Domain
    sender.example
    Selector
    demo
    Pass
    Yes

This message passes DMARC. At least one authenticated SPF or DKIM identity aligns with the visible From domain.

Technical result
pass
Execution time
120 ms

DMARC authentication & domain policy

Message authentication
Pass
Domain policy
none
DMARC record
Valid

Full DMARC points awarded. The domain policy and the presence of rua do not reduce this score.

Information: the domain uses a valid monitoring-only policy (p=none). It does not request quarantine or rejection of messages that fail DMARC.

DMARC Alignment Details

This older report did not record per-identity alignment details.

Technical details

Available authentication identities are shown without inventing individual alignment outcomes. The saved DMARC result is retained.

Alignment modes: not recorded.

IdentityDomainAuthenticationAlignmentDMARC contribution
Header FromNot recordedReferenceReference-
SPF MailFromsender.exampleFAILUNKNOWNPer-identity alignment was not recorded
DKIM d= (signature 1)sender.examplePASSUNKNOWNPer-signature alignment was not recorded

This message passes DMARC. At least one authenticated SPF or DKIM identity aligns with the visible From domain.

View raw technical findings
Policy
none
SPF Aligned
No
DKIM Aligned
Yes

The blocklist check was unavailable or returned an access/DNS error.

Your next step

Retry later or review the configured blocklist service’s access conditions.

Sources for new tests: SpamCop, PSBL and DroneBL. Each provider is reported separately below. DroneBL covers compromised hosts and proxies. An unavailable source stays Unknown; historical reports retain their original findings.

Technical result
unavailable
Execution time
120 ms
View raw technical findings
Reason
Example of an unavailable provider; this is not a listing.

The reverse hostname resolves forward to the sending IP.

Technical result
checked
Execution time
120 ms

SMTP session & DNS identity

These checks describe the server that delivered this message to MXValidation. With an external relay, this is your provider’s infrastructure. A different EHLO and PTR does not by itself predict spam placement and does not deduct points. Reverse DNS is scored once.

Delivering IP
Insufficient data
Accepted EHLO/HELO
Insufficient data
PTR hostnames
Insufficient data
Evidence source
Insufficient data
Delivery identifier
Not recorded
PTR record presentInsufficient data

No reliable SMTP session metadata was recorded for this message. Run a new test.

Forward-confirmed reverse DNSInsufficient data

No reliable SMTP session metadata was recorded for this message. Run a new test.

EHLO/HELO resolutionInsufficient data

No reliable SMTP session metadata was recorded for this message. Run a new test.

EHLO/HELO ↔ PTR matchInsufficient data

No reliable SMTP session metadata was recorded for this message. Run a new test.

View raw technical findings
Fcrdns
Yes

The required message headers passed the configured consistency checks.

Technical result
checked
Execution time
120 ms
View raw technical findings
Issues
None found

The message has structural issues or content characteristics that deserve review.

Your next step

Use valid MIME, include a plain-text alternative for HTML, and remove active HTML or risky attachments.

Technical result
checked
Execution time
120 ms
View raw technical findings
HTML
Yes
Text
No
Issues
None found

This incoming SMTP delivery used TLS encryption.

Technical result
used
Execution time
120 ms
View raw technical findings
Used
Yes
Protocol
TLSv1.3

The score uses a fixed, weighted formula. Missing and unavailable checks earn no points. How scoring works. It is a diagnostic guide, not a guarantee of inbox placement.