Email Provider comparison - Test 3


Following on from the previous post, I’m going to attack the technical tests now (part 3).

zoho zeptomail

The company is based in USA/Inde.

Result:

Received-SPF: pass
    (bounce-zem.super-independant.com: Sender is authorized to use 'test+95859990-e894-11f0-ab7e-cabb711367dc_vt1@bounce-zem.super-independant.com' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'include:eu.zeptomail.net' matched))
    receiver=phl-mx-04.messagingengine.com;
    identity=mailfrom;
    envelope-from="test+95859990-e894-11f0-ab7e-cabb711367dc_vt1@bounce-zem.super-independant.com";
    helo=system82.eu.zeptomail.net;
    client-ip=136.143.168.82
Received: from system82.eu.zeptomail.net (system82.eu.zeptomail.net [136.143.168.82])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	by phl-mx-04.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4620B13800BC
	for <test@superindependant.com>; Sat,  3 Jan 2026 06:09:18 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=gRninFk4ic7ZKcAI6nkWe3oICvakp+q5FWjksimDIpBP39dp0huYs3kOeCQGQ4uC6v4oC3+JOGrSSzSJ6pn/pJSEC/Pm4a2CFQSCNLr/2QLaTBtFmvhPTGz6a57rcSRQqwpj9kASSGpHTxSPBSuJjVBpSGNWDZKRPmByNTcedY8=; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=312626; d=super-independant.com; v=1; bh=FG3eJeVNMNWqbacqwOkA6AMYSvlIhRlcNvJ+WTSMOpQ=; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:date:from:to:message-id:subject;

The alignment is respected 👍 with sub domain (relaxed mode).

lettermint

The company is based in Netherlands.

Result:

Received-SPF: pass
    (lm-bounces.super-independant.com: Sender is authorized to use 'feedback-dc983f1f-4ca6-48e0-b58d-eaca694425b4@lm-bounces.super-independant.com' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'include:spf.lmta.net' matched))
    receiver=phl-mx-03.messagingengine.com;
    identity=mailfrom;
    envelope-from="feedback-dc983f1f-4ca6-48e0-b58d-eaca694425b4@lm-bounces.super-independant.com";
    helo=gra-129-srv.lmta.net;
    client-ip=155.254.62.129
Received: from gra-129-srv.lmta.net (gra-129-srv.lmta.net [155.254.62.129])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	by phl-mx-03.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DD2D4BA00A7
	for <test@super-independant.com>; Sat,  3 Jan 2026 05:58:06 -0500 (EST)
X-LM-Trace: eyJfQF8iOiJcXF8vIiwibWVzc2FnZV9pZCI6IjxkYzk4M2YxZi00Y2E2LTQ4ZTAtYjU4ZC1lYWNhNjk0NDI1YjRAbG10YS5uZXQ+IiwicmVjaXBpZW50IjoidGVzdC5sZXR0ZXJtaW50QHN1cGVyLWluZGVwZW5kYW50LmNvbSIsInRlbmFudCI6InRlYW1fMTEwNDAiLCJ4X2xldHRlcm1pbnRfbWVzc2FnZWlkIjoiZGM5ODNmMWYtNGNhNi00OGUwLWI1OGQtZWFjYTY5NDQyNWI0In0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=bounces.lmta.net; s=lettermint; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	bh=fSX+QXRkDWUED35nWr0eD7ENKkgbe2pq9tnZ2SqSkvA=;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:to:to:cc:resent-date:
		resent-from:resent-to:resent-cc:in-reply-to:references:list-id:list-help:
		list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:list-unsubscribe-post:list-owner:
		list-archive:feedback-id:feedback-id:cfbl-address:cfbl-address;
	t=1767437884;
	b=MgDarQn2laDjO1uFNoihw04YL2l44/b7XlRJF2Q+P/8SC+a5LEn6hfbfgu+zfwP4cLjkdEe9I
	i6SKFHESHwAyy9pCIdlRBeKG/x66bBDN37l50848mMoAPQRYCbHnqumFxgtChOP7vR4H/kTTmQt
	sf3XV3L4U71kNaR7lwsUmJjcB8wciDJTaZifTC5Vy024mdn/4V0RWj6LWPK4Dgeyj+YaXSZD2FJ
	j/wwRDG9/nrVy8X1hNo1D+ihWVRfzbyOqtPtCI5qRLMgg9MZJb+iunUGVoeoKWMV9Em8GQ370nm
	zvJ7ajmTOVtauN8DOVr4RIQBTGrsNMlkZwGKpOgoYUmQ==;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=super-independant.com; s=lettermint;
	c=relaxed/relaxed; bh=fSX+QXRkDWUED35nWr0eD7ENKkgbe2pq9tnZ2SqSkvA=;
	h=from:reply-to:subject:date:to:cc:resent-date:resent-from:resent-to:
		resent-cc:in-reply-to:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:
		list-subscribe:list-post:list-unsubscribe-post:list-owner:list-archive;
	t=1767437884;
	b=eYGbqz5BkQ2ESqCBQ6ulw6IbJtgqL5HvrDnpRMDGgbqNoTktmIfjQ96UqAqg8LLffQmlEwpH0
	RVJCMf7iJTOGN1sCP1EniebbosjtCtLtfIuPDpT6R2cLTTr+wbikcUnRLHu1RzUadfn1k5M8KwG
	bmrsVRuEtRWqeH3mRr9qZqTL5bE79OmTVoipHiwOdBw+0y1ZzaUrJFHGZZlag98bAxltXDNgo/a
	aPntANS4aSOpVvmgL1BwNniYZ26ysE5hbNq6RlVZs/tGIQNoDCN++4QTg6hKM+SCqsT26hG62UR
	fqjKYQlPbLfiHrEowfny8AS1mO2n8810+MK7lWtvyH5g==;

The alignment is respected 👍 with sub domain (relaxed mode).

sweego

The company is based in France.

Result:

Received-SPF: pass
    (swg.super-independant.com: Sender is authorized to use 'prod-mta-06.8932c0b77852469d927b54de57019825.19b837f67bc000be1b@swg.super-independant.com' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'include:spf.swg-srv.net' matched))
    receiver=phl-mx-01.messagingengine.com;
    identity=mailfrom;
    envelope-from="prod-mta-06.8932c0b77852469d927b54de57019825.19b837f67bc000be1b@swg.super-independant.com";
    helo=prod-mta-06.swg-srv.net;
    client-ip=185.255.28.11
Received: from prod-mta-06.swg-srv.net (prod-mta-06.swg-srv.net [185.255.28.11])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	by phl-mx-01.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0679711200AD
	for <test@super-independant.com>; Sat,  3 Jan 2026 05:55:27 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=super-independant.com; q=dns/txt; s=selector1;
 bh=klVfUE/YWVssjPrfE3JmZCVUWl1VR8skC751sx1C/8o=;
 h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:feedback-id;
 b=onFsLOMUR4KQwLutDgcsG2MSkhqZL7LhVZxG7Lvq2oqlJ/14Blefh9PZLLqnlmp0sD28GcjGs
 4eIIAXLbSOdxbrdHT8gZp2VHpGmI2VnyHWex4V+G34gLV5SsEGOSZEHLk3cCKJhMEF3RrRniMTY
 y3TpPt4jAvVh4cCl1JBCHJmTX3B2Rw2IgQTeZroE3Tj7Ah+IMrd3wrvc/eOOYOh6aVO60HkK+YI
 q9gqO4FnaHVEdJOYXiCyDl3t6PLtP2bJuu/r2NwPjnYZOLrzm9Fg0HeQm7yCo3o4s0FVuzdS7YD
 qVHrFRWIPwsuVuZeczzToVE8A0oERqi14rltfFhRc67A==

The alignment is respected 👍 with sub domain (relaxed mode).

emaillabs

The company is based in Poland.
I didn’t get very far with the tests. The registration process had several bugs, and the email address validation email ended up in spam, mainly because the BIMI certificate is invalid.
This shows a lack of professionalism.