Contact

Editorial process for corrections

When we receive a correction, we verify it against the vendor's official documentation or pricing pages before changing anything. Corrections are applied across every page that repeats the claim - rankings, comparisons, use-case guides, and blog posts - and the page carries an updated date when the change is material. We do not silently delete errors; if a mistake shaped a ranking, we note the correction in the page itself.

Vendor Outreach Rules

• We do not sell placements, badges, or "editors' choice" positions.
• We will read and fact-check briefs, changelogs, and pricing notices you send us.
• Public, source-official inputs are preferred: pricing pages, status pages, documentation, and migration guides.
• Venture-stage vendors are welcome to submit their product; the same evaluation criteria apply to everyone.

Response Expectations

We answer reader questions within a few business days. Corrections to outdated claims are prioritized because those are the issues other readers inherit. If your email is time-sensitive because a procurement deadline is near, say so in the subject line - pragmatic honesty about what we can and cannot answer quickly usually still helps you.

Common Questions

Can you compare two specific providers that aren't on this list?

Often yes - request it and we will evaluate whether both are worth a dedicated page, or a properly structured endpoint-to-endpoint comparison. See the current comparisons for what exists today.

Do you take affiliate links?

No. Rankings and recommendations here are not commission-based, so links are plain references for verification.

Can I republish a table or chart from the site?

Usually yes with attribution and a link; write to us and we will confirm for the specific asset.

Saying What You Need Clearly

The fastest answers follow a simple pattern in your email: which email service you use today, roughly what you send each month, what broke or changed, and whether you need a quick sanity check or a structured recommendation. Emails that follow that pattern get answers in a working day more often than not; the ones that need archaeology get an honest estimate of turnaround first.

Accuracy Reports · What to Include

• URL of the page containing the claim you are challenging.
• The claim in question, quoted, so there is no ambiguity about which sentence changed hands.
• An official source (documentation, pricing page, or changelog) that establishes the correct current state.
• Your preference for credit: named, anonymized, or background-only.

We are especially interested in pricing shifts and in claims that have influenced a decision - those get prioritized and cross-checked against every other page on this site, not just the page you found.

Topics We Would Love Tips About

• New billing-trigger or subscription-aware messaging features (Stripe, Paddle, Lemon Squeezy or beyond).
• Free-tier and pay-per-send packaging changes - these drift fastest and affect the most readers.
• Migration experiences: which exports, DNS steps, or suppression-handling quirks bit you on the way out - or the way in.
• Deliverability protocol changes from mailbox providers that our technical pages should reflect.

Response Language

This site publishes in English only. We can correspond in English by mail; for other languages, machine-assisted translation is fine on your side - we will reply in English and keep it plain so nothing gets lost in the translation of a technical point.

Small Print

Email sent here is handled by humans, not a ticketing system. We do not use reader mail for marketing remarketing or list-building, and we do not forward your inquiry to vendors. If a question requires vendor contact, we say so and copy you. Vendors replying on behalf of a customer inquiry get the same treatment the reader would have received - context included.

Enterprise and Larger Sender Contexts

Teams at the size where sending volume is measured in tens of millions have a wider set of constraints - dedicated IP strategies, compliance attestations, signed DPAs, custom MTA behavior. If you are in that position, our material is a map rather than a contract: we point you to the right shortlist, and then the specifics belong to a supplier conversation. We are happy to flag which comparison pages matter for your case before your meetings, and equally happy to say when a platform's posture will not satisfy your procurement needs without pretending otherwise.

Guidelines We Observe

1. Corrections beat original publication speed. A fast, verified fix beats a delayed disagreement.
2. Sources beat memory. If we cannot point to a page for a specific claim, we will label the inference as judgment.
3. Claims against the strongest vendor in a category get the same scrutiny as smallest rivals - incumbency is not an exemption from being contradicted in the text.
4. Reader privacy is structural: inquiry logs exist only for resolving your question, are not aggregated into analytic profiles, and are deleted when the thread closes rather than retained into a marketing funnel.

If You Represent a Vendor in This Article

Pages here hold numbers with a date, and readers are directed to your official pages for anything close to a purchase decision. When your packaging changes, send the changelog or pricing notice as published - we will reconcile the relevant text. If we got something wrong in a narrower sense, cite the page: that correction flow is faster and more useful for both sides than escalation, and corrections are applied with dates so readers can see what changed.

Working Hours and Time Zones

We operate on a European morning schedule. Mail arriving during US or APAC business mornings tends to be answered by the following European afternoon. If you are coordinating a migration or a go-live that has a same-day dependency on our content, say so in the subject line - planning beats same-day asks on both sides, and we would rather confirm what the page says is current before you rely on it in a meeting.

Third-party Data and Import Questions

Questions about verifying deliverability with seed tests, comparing webhook payloads, or importing suppression lists across vendors are common enough that we answer them without charge, provided the context is a migration or evaluation you are working through - not a request to diagnose a production incident under deadline. For the latter, the honest recommendation is a deliverability consultant; we can outline what a scope for one looks like, which is often enough for the conversation you need to have internally.

Survey the Landscape Quickly

• Broad rankings and trade-offs are on the home page.
• The alternatives index is structured by provider, useful mid-migration.
• The blog carries decisions-by-topic explainers, and the tools directory indexes adjacent infrastructure (testing, orchestration).

Funding Inquiries

Although we publish independently, readers occasionally ask whether the site is for sale or open to sponsorship. The short answer is no for placements, and transparent for everything else: we will explain the current funding model and what it would take for anything material to change, always with the same specificity we demand of the vendors we rank. Those conversations tend to be the rarest because we are specific about what we will not accept.

Housekeeping

• We do not add readers to any list. If you mail us, the thread stays a thread.
• Attachments: plain links are preferred over attachments for everything except incident evidence when accuracy demands it.
• Public-facts by mail: when a correction is verifiable from public pages alone, we do not need more than the URL and the claim.

Logo and Quote Requests

Journalists and content teams may quote this site with attribution. Structured data in our tables is factual and citable; opinions and rankings are citable as "the editorial position of this site" rather than as a detached fact. If your story hinges on a specific claim, confirm with us before running it - the email in this page works for speed-checking, and we would rather validate today's state than have you quote a snapshot that has moved on.