right after the 2025 crackdown, something predictable happened.

every vendor with an SMTP product suddenly had a very loud opinion about why Google Workspace was finished for cold email. blog posts, webinars, urgent emails telling you to migrate immediately.

Richard tells every client who asks the same thing: "everyone who says there's a problem with it has a product that solves that problem."

people invent problems and then build a solution to solve it. that's what happened here. the crackdown created genuine fear, and a lot of companies profited off that fear by pushing their own SMTP infrastructure as the answer.

so let's talk about this honestly, without a product to sell you on the back of it.

when SMTP genuinely makes sense

SMTP is the right call in specific situations. if you're running very high volume (thousands of emails per day across dozens of domains) and you have an in-house technical team who can manage server configuration, monitor IP reputation, handle deliverability troubleshooting, and keep everything updated when providers change their filtering models.

that's a legitimate use case. no argument.

when Google or Microsoft wins

for the vast majority of cold emailers, Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 are the better option. and it comes down to something pretty straightforward.

Google has spent billions building sender reputation systems and deliverability infrastructure. their authentication is built in. their IP pools are trusted globally. their filtering models are the ones OTHER providers are trying to keep up with.

to quote Richard directly: "Mr Joe Bloggs who coded a server with 5 clients that breaks every 3 months is probably not better than Google."

that's not a dig at SMTP as a technology. it's a reality check about who you're trusting with your deliverability.

the decision matrix

Factor SMTP Google/Microsoft
Volume capacity Higher ceiling (if managed well) Sufficient for most B2B outbound
Technical overhead HIGH. you need someone monitoring this daily LOW. authentication and compliance are built in
IP reputation You build it from scratch. shared IPs = shared risk Inherited from Google/Microsoft's global reputation
Compliance Your responsibility entirely Largely handled by the provider
Cost Cheaper per inbox at scale More per inbox, but less hidden cost
Reliability Depends entirely on your team and your provider Consistently high if you follow the rules
Who it's for Technical teams with dedicated infra management Everyone else

red flags to watch for

if someone approached you after the 2025 crackdown telling you Google is dead and you need to migrate to their SMTP solution immediately, ask yourself one question.

did they have this opinion BEFORE the crackdown? or did they suddenly discover it was a problem right around the time they had something to sell?