mhykim

I think we’re aligned on the hard parts here, so let me be precise.

We’re not wide open for abuse nor are we bypassing the hard parts of email reputation. Quite the opposite. We also utilize SES's infrastructure and monitor reputation continuously, but we don’t assume SPF/DKIM/DMARC are sufficient on their own. They’re basics we have implemented, not the entire strategy.

You are correct private IPs per customer make sense once you’re sending meaningful volume (on the order of ~10k+/day per IP). But its inaccurate to say we are sending from a single private IP. IP pools are typically segmented by reputation and traffic profile for customers.

Reputation here is earned at multiple layers: per-IP, per-domain, per-inbox, and over time. We rate-limit, isolate, or revoke bad actors without poisoning unrelated senders. Hopefully this makes sense.

We do have robust checks in place to catch spam and bad actors(reputation, SPF DKIM DMARC, etc.) but as with all tools there will be bad actors who come up with creative ways to scheme for nefarious purposes.

We expect our infra and policies to evolve with usage, and one of our goals is to make agent driven email safer than the status quo, not just more scalable

I think there will be bad actors in any field, and right now, a lot of agent-based outreach might fall into that bucket, so its rational to be initially skeptical.

The more interesting shift isnt whether humans will keep using email with agents, but whether agents can become distinguishable from noise. Historically, we ignored anonymous calls but we engaged with known vendors that had reputation, contracts, and consequences.

Once an agent has a persistent identity/a domain, trust becomes something that can be accumulated over time instead of being assumed per message.

Nope AgentMail is its own infra. Not a single line of Gmail/Outlook code in the codebase

The tradeoff isnt agents vs humans its where humans sit in the loop.

Sure hiring 10–100 humans gives accountability, but reality is it doesn't scale in any comparable way compared to agents in speed, coverage, or responsiveness. The sheer volume agents can pump out(more vendors, more quotes, faster cycles) is the benefit, while humans retain accountability at the decision boundary.

In practice the agent does the gruntwork, and the human gets looped in when confidence is low. Accountability doesnt dissapear, it gets concentrated where it matters most

Fair concern, and I agree on the end state. Agents will eventually use native agent-to-agent protocols.

The question is the transition, because email is undoubtedly the most ubiquitous channel of communication in today. I would only give my agent an A2A integration if your agent has an A2A integration, but because you don't we are at a stalemate. I'd rather just give my agent an inbox where I know it can communicate with the other billions of people that already have an email address.

Email isn’t the final protocol for agents. It’s the bridge that lets them participate in today’s internet while native agent protocols/networks emerge.

Email is already the internet’s identity layer. By giving agents their own inbox they don't need to borrow human identity rather act as first class actors on their own.

It lets agents plug into the same trust systems the web already uses! And this opens the door to new ways agents can do work and build credibility on the internet.

Hey sauwan, wanted to follow up here. We as of 2 days ago just released our $20/month tier! If you haven't reached out yet already, its live on our website: agentmail.to

Let me know if you have any questions!

MCP's are great as another communication medium with these agents(we have an MCP server as well!)

The problem we are primarily solving is the scale at which you can provision inboxes to these agents in the first place. With Gmail there comes a lot of hoops and hurdles(its built for human usage) with their APi.

So when it comes to orchestrating inboxes for thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of agents, thats where we would come in!