LuxSci

Is the Email Encrypted? How to Tell if an Email is Transmitted Using TLS

encrypted email transmission

SMTP TLS encryption is popular because it provides adequate data protection without creating a complicated user experience for email recipients. Sometimes, though, the experience is too seamless, and recipients may wonder if the message was protected at all.

Luckily, there is a way to tell if an email was encrypted using TLS. To see if a message was sent securely, we can look at the raw headers of the email. However, it requires some knowledge and experience to understand the text. It is actually easier to tell if a recipient’s server supports TLS than to tell if a particular message was securely transmitted.

To analyze a message for transmission security, we will look at an example email message sent from Hotmail to LuxSci. We will explain what to look for when decoding the message headers and how to tell if the email was transmitted using TLS encryption.

An Example Email Message

First, we must understand how an email message typically travels through several machines on its way from the sender to the recipient. Roughly speaking:

  1. The sender’s computer talks to the sender’s email or WebMail server to upload the message.
  2. The sender’s email or WebMail server then talks to the recipient’s inbound email server and transmits the message to them.
  3. Finally, the recipient downloads the message from their email server.

It is step 2 that people are most concerned about when trying to understand if their email message is transmitted securely. They usually assume or check that everything is secure and OK at the two ends. Indeed, most users who need to can take steps to ensure that they are using SSL-enabled WebMail or POP/IMAP/SMTP/Exchange services so that steps 1 and 3 are secure. The intermediate step, where the email is transmitted between two different providers, is where messages may be sent insecurely.

To determine if the message was transmitted securely between the sender’s and recipient’s servers (over TLS), we need to extract the “Received” header lines from the received email message. If you look at the source of the email message, the lines at the top start with “Received.” Let’s look at an example message from a Hotmail user below. The email addresses, IPs, and other information are obviously fake.

LuxSci:

The Outlook email was sent to a LuxSci user. The Received headers appear in reverse chronological order, starting with the server that touched the message last. Therefore, in this example, we see the LuxSci servers first.

Received: from abc.luxsci.com ([1.1.1.1])
	by def.luxsci.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7JEfLgH003867
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
	for <user-xyz@def.luxsci.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:41:21 -0400
Received: from abc.luxsci.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by abc.luxsci.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7JEfK0Z030182
	for <user-xyz@def.luxsci.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:41:20 -0500
Received: (from mail@localhost)
	by abc.luxsci.com (8.14.4/8.13.8/Submit) id r7JEfKXD030178
	for user-xyz@def.luxsci.com; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:41:20 -0500
Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [2.2.2.2])
	by abc.luxsci.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7JEfIkK030002
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
	for <someone@luxsci.net>; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:41:19 -0500

Proofpoint:

LuxSci uses an email filtering service, Proofpoint. Messages reach Proofpoint’s servers before being delivered to LuxSci. Here’s what their servers report about the email transmission:

Received: from unknown [65.54.190.216] (EHLO bay0-omc4-s14.bay0.hotmail.com)
	by dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com.ppe-hosted.com
        (envelope-from <someone@hotmail.com>);
	Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:41:18 -0600 (MDT)

Outlook:

And finally, here’s what we see from Oultook’s server.

Received: from BAY403-EAS373 ([65.54.190.199]) by bay0-omc4-s14.bay0.outlook.com
       with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); 
       Mon, 19 Aug 2019 07:41:19 -0700

How to Use Received Message Headers to Tell if the Email is Encrypted

The message headers contain information that can help us determine if an email is encrypted. Here are a few helpful notes to help you decode the text:

  1. We said this above, but the message headers appear in reverse chronological order. The first one listed shows the last server that touched the message; the last one is the first server that touched it (typically the sending server).
  2. Each Received line documents what a server did and when.
  3. There are three sets of servers involved in this example: one machine at Hotmail, one machine at Proofpoint, where our Premium Email Filtering takes place, and some machines at LuxSci, where final acceptance of the message and subsequent delivery happened.

Presumably, the processing of email within each provider is secure. The place to be concerned about is the hand-offs between Hotmail and Proofpoint and between Proofpoint and LuxSci, as these are the big hops across the internet between providers.

In the line where LuxSci accepts the message from Proofpoint, we see:

(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)

This section, typical of most email servers running “sendmail” with TLS support, indicates that the message was encrypted during transport with TLS using 256-bit AES encryption. (“Verify=not” means that LuxSci did not ask Proofpoint for a second SSL client certificate to verify itself, as that is not usually needed or required for SMTP TLS to work correctly). Also, “TLSv1/SSLv3” is a tag that means that “Some version of SSL or TLS was used;” it does not mean that it was SSL v3 or TLS v1.0. It could have been TLS v1.2 or TLS v1.3.

So, the hop between Proofpoint and LuxSci was locked down and secure. What about the hop between Hotmail and Proofpoint? The Proofpoint server’s Received line makes no note of security at all! This means that the email message was probably not encrypted during this step.

Hotmail either did not support opportunistic TLS encryption for outbound emails, or Proofpoint did not support receipt of messages over TLS, and thus, TLS could not be used. With additional context, you can know which server supports TLS and which does not.

In this case, we know that Proofpoint supports inbound TLS encryption. In fact, from another example message where LuxSci sent a message to Proofpoint, we see the Received line:

Received: from unknown [44.44.44.44] (EHLO wgh.luxsci.com)
	by dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com.ppe-hosted.com
        (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	with ESMTP id b-022.p01c11m003.ppe-hosted.com
        (envelope-from <from@domain.com>);
	Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:28:27 -0700 (MST)

The red text makes it clear that the message was indeed encrypted. Based on the additional context, we can deduce that the Hotmail sending server did not securely transmit the email using TLS.

How To Tell if an Email is Encrypted With TLS

  1. When analyzing your message headers, consider the following items to determine if the email is encrypted:
    1. The receiving server will log what kind of encryption, if any, was used in receiving the message in the headers.
    2. Different email servers use different formats and syntax to display the encryption used. Look for keywords like “SSL,” “TLS,” and “Encryption,” which will signify this information.
    3. Not all servers will record the use of encryption. While LuxSci has always logged encryption use, not every email service provider does. It is possible to use TLS encryption and not log it. Sometimes, there is no way to tell from the headers if a message is encrypted if it is not logged.
    4. Messages passed between servers at the same provider do not necessarily need TLS encryption to be secure. For example, LuxSci has back-channel private network connections between many servers so that information can be securely passed between them without SMTP TLS. So, the lack of TLS usage between two servers does not mean the transmission between them was “insecure.” You may also see multiple received lines listing the same server: the server passes the message between different processes within itself. This communication also does not need to be TLS encrypted.
    5. If you are a LuxSci customer, you can view online email delivery reports to see if TLS was used for any particular message. We record the kind of encryption in the delivery reports, so it’s easy to see which emails were encrypted.

How can you Ensure Emails Are Securely Transmitted?

With some servers not recording TLS in message headers, how can you determine if a message was transmitted securely from sender to recipient?

To answer this question accurately, you must understand the properties, servers, and networks involved. It may be easy to determine that the message was transmitted securely if included in the header information. However, the absence of information does not necessarily mean the message was insecurely transmitted. You can only know this if you know what each system’s servers record.

In our example of a message from Hotmail to LuxSci, you need to know that:

  1. Proofpoint and LuxSci will always log the use of TLS in the headers. We can infer that the Hotmail to Proofpoint transmission was not secure as nothing was recorded there.
  2. The transmission of messages within LuxSci’s infrastructure is secure due to private back channel transmissions. So, even though there is no mention of TLS in every Received line after LuxSci accepts the message from Proofpoint (in this example), transferring the messages between servers in LuxSci is as secure as using TLS. Also, the same server can add multiple received lines as it talks to itself. Generally, these hand-offs on the same server will not use TLS, as there is no need. In the LuxSci example, we see this as “abc.luxsci.com” adds several headers.
  3. We don’t know anything about Hotmail’s email servers, so we don’t know how secure the initial transmissions within their network are. However, since we know they did not securely transmit the message to Proofpoint, we are not confident that the transmissions and processing within Hotmail (which may have gone unrecorded) were secure.

Was the email message sent and received using encryption?

We skipped steps 1 and 3 and focused on step 2 – the transmission between servers. Steps 1 and 3 are equally, if not more, necessary. Why? Because eavesdropping on the internet between ISPs is less of a problem than eavesdropping near the sender and recipient (i.e., in their workplace or local wireless hotspot). So, it’s essential to ensure messages are sent securely and received securely. This means:

  • Sending: Use SMTP over SSL or TLS when sending messages from an email client or use WebMail over a secure connection (HTTPS).
  • Receiving: Ensure your POP or IMAP connection is secured via SSL or TLS. If using WebMail to read your email, be sure it is over a secure connection (HTTPS).
  • WebMail: There is generally no record in the email headers to indicate if a message sent using WebMail was transmitted from the end-user to WebMail over a secure connection (SSL/HTTPS).

You can typically control one side and ensure it is secure; you can’t control the other without taking extra steps. So, what can you do to ensure your message is secure even if it might not be transmitted with encryption or if the recipient tries to access it insecurely?

You could use end-to-end email encryption (like PGP or S/MIME, which are included in SecureLine) or a secure web portal that doesn’t require the recipient to install or set up anything to get your secure email message. These methods meet HIPAA and other regulatory compliance requirements for secure data transmission and provide complete confidence that the message will be sent and received securely.

LuxSci’s SecureLine offers flexible encryption options, including TLS, secure web portal, PGP, and S/MIME. Its dynamic capabilities can determine what types of encryption the recipient’s server supports to ensure your emails are always sent securely. Contact our team today to learn more about how to secure your emails.

Picture of LuxSci

LuxSci

Get in touch

Find The Best Solution For Your Organization

Talk To An Expert & Get A Quote




A member of our staff will reach out to you

Get Your Free E-Book!

LuxSci High Email Deliverability Best Practices Paper

What you’ll learn:

Related Posts

LuxSci G2 2026

LuxSci Earns 19 G2 Spring 2026 Badges

LuxSci continues its strong performance in the G2 Spring 2026 Reports, earning 19 badges that reflect real customer satisfaction and consistent product excellence across multiple areas, including email encryption, HIPAA compliant messaging, email security and email gateways.

G2: A Highly Reputable Peer Review Platformn

In a crowded software landscape, it’s easy for bold claims to blur together. That’s where G2 stands apart. Its rankings are based entirely on verified user feedback, giving buyers a clearer picture of how solutions actually perform in day-to-day use, not just how they’re marketed.

For Spring 2026, LuxSci earned recognition across multiple categories, including Leader, Best Customer Support, and Best ROI. Together, these awards show that LuxSci delivers leading technology and a best-in-class customer experience.

What the Badges Represent

Each G2 badge reflects direct input from customers using LuxSci in real-world environments. These evaluations cover usability, onboarding, support responsiveness, and long-term value. LuxSci’s Spring 2026 badges span leadership, customer satisfaction, ROI, and ease of implementation, demonstrating consistent strength across the full customer lifecycle.

Leader Badge: Market Leadership Validated

The Leader badge is awarded to companies with high customer satisfaction and strong market presence. LuxSci’s placement reflects reliable performance, strong security, and continued trust from organizations operating in highly regulated environments like healthcare.

Best Customer Support: A Standout Strength

In secure healthcare communications, timely and accurate support is essential. Issues must be resolved quickly to avoid operational or compliance risks. Customers consistently highlight LuxSci’s fast response times, deep expertise, and a hands-on approach, showing that our technology and our people deliver meaningful, real-world solutions.

Best ROI: Proven Business Value

ROI includes reduced compliance risk, improved efficiency, and scalable operations, not just cost. Customers report measurable benefits from LuxSci’s reliability, built-in compliance, and streamlined workflows, leading to strong long-term value and a solution that keeps you ahead of security and compliance risks.

What This Means for LuxSci Customers

These awards show LuxSci’s ability to serve organizations of varying sizes, from mid-market to enterprise. All reviews are from verified users, ensuring authenticity and transparency. Customers consistently mention reliability, security, and responsive support, along with overall peace of mind. The recognitions validate LuxSci’s ability to deliver secure, dependable communication solutions backed by strong support, including HIPAA compliant email, marketing and forms.

LuxSci’s 10 G2 Spring 2026 badges—including Leader, Best Customer Support, and Best ROI—demonstrate consistent excellence across performance, usability, and customer satisfaction. These results reinforce its position as a trusted provider in secure communications.

LuxSci MFA

Traditional MFA No Longer Qualifies as “Reasonable” Security

For years, multi-factor authentication (MFA) was considered one of the most effective ways to protect sensitive systems. By requiring a second verification step, such as a text message code or push notification, organizations could significantly reduce the risk of compromised passwords.

But the threat landscape has changed.

Today, attackers routinely bypass traditional MFA using techniques such as MFA evasion, token replay attacks, and consent phishing. These methods are no longer rare or highly sophisticated. They are widely used, automated, and increasingly effective.

As a result, regulators, auditors, and security frameworks are raising expectations for authentication security. For healthcare organizations in particular, traditional MFA alone may no longer satisfy the HIPAA requirement to implement “reasonable and appropriate safeguards.”

In the near future, email systems that rely only on basic MFA, without conditional access or phishing-resistant authentication, may increasingly be viewed as security gaps during risk assessments.

Why Traditional MFA Is No Longer Enough

Traditional MFA still improves security compared to passwords alone. However, many common MFA methods were designed before today’s phishing techniques and cloud authentication attacks became widespread.

Common MFA methods include:

  • SMS verification codes
  • Email-based authentication codes
  • Push notifications to mobile apps

While these mechanisms add friction for attackers, they can still be intercepted or manipulated during sophisticated phishing attacks. Because modern attackers now target authentication workflows directly, organizations relying solely on traditional MFA may be more vulnerable than they realize.

How Attackers Bypass MFA Today

Cybercriminals increasingly rely on tools that capture credentials and authentication tokens during login sessions. Three attack techniques are now especially common.

  • MFA Evasion and Phishing Proxies – Attackers frequently deploy adversary-in-the-middle phishing kits that sit between the user and the real login service. When users enter their credentials and MFA code on a phishing page, the attacker forwards the information to the legitimate site and captures the authentication session. The user successfully logs in—but the attacker gains access as well. If attackers capture those tokens, they can reuse them to access the account directly.
  • Token Replay Attacks – After successful authentication, systems typically issue session tokens that allow users to remain logged in without repeated MFA prompts. This technique has been widely observed in attacks targeting cloud email platforms such as Microsoft 365, allowing attackers to access email data even when MFA is enabled.
  • Consent Phishing – Consent phishing bypasses MFA entirely. Instead of stealing passwords, attackers trick users into granting permissions to malicious applications that request access to their mailbox or files. If users approve the request, the attacker’s application receives persistent access to the account through APIs—often without triggering security alerts.

Why Email Authentication Matters Most in Healthcare

Email remains one of the most critical systems in healthcare organizations. It supports patient communication, internal collaboration, and the exchange of sensitive information. Unfortunately, it is also the most frequently targeted entry point for cyberattacks.

Once attackers gain access to an email account, they can:

  • Impersonate healthcare staff
  • Launch internal phishing attacks
  • Access sensitive patient communications
  • Extract protected health information (PHI)

Because of this, email authentication controls are becoming a major focus for security teams and compliance auditors alike.

Evolving Regulatory Expectations

HIPAA does not prescribe specific technologies, but it requires organizations to implement safeguards that are “reasonable and appropriate” based on risk. As new attack methods emerge, the definition of reasonable security evolves.

Today, many security frameworks and regulatory bodies are emphasizing stronger identity protections, including:

  • Phishing-resistant authentication
  • Conditional access policies
  • Monitoring for suspicious login behavior
  • Controls for third-party application permissions

Organizations that rely solely on basic MFA may increasingly struggle to demonstrate that their authentication protections are sufficient.

The Shift Toward Phishing-Resistant Authentication

To address the weaknesses of traditional MFA, many organizations are adopting phishing-resistant authentication technologies, which can be enabled with tools like Duo and Okta. These solutions rely on cryptographic authentication tied to trusted devices, which prevents attackers from capturing or replaying login credentials.

Examples include:

  • Hardware security keys
  • Passkeys
  • Certificate-based authentication

Because authentication is tied to both the device and the legitimate website domain, these technologies significantly reduce the success rate of phishing attacks.

Why Conditional Access Is Becoming Essential

Conditional access adds another layer of protection by evaluating context and risk before granting access. Instead of treating every login the same, conditional access policies analyze signals such as:

  • Device security status
  • Geographic location
  • Network reputation
  • User behavior patterns

If something appears unusual, such as a login from a new country, the system can require stronger authentication or block the attempt altogether. This risk-based approach to authentication helps prevent many account compromise scenarios.

The Future of HIPAA Risk Assessments

As authentication threats evolve, healthcare security assessments are increasingly focusing on identity protection maturity. Organizations may begin seeing findings related to:

  • Weak or outdated MFA methods
  • Lack of conditional access policies
  • Insufficient monitoring of login activity
  • Unrestricted third-party application permissions

In particular, email systems without advanced authentication protections may be flagged as high-risk vulnerabilities, especially when PHI is accessible.

LuxSci’s Modern Approach to MFA

Modern threats require more than a simple second login factor. LuxSci approaches authentication security with layered identity protection designed specifically for healthcare environments.

Instead of relying solely on basic MFA methods like SMS codes or email verification, LuxSci supports stronger authentication controls and policies that align with evolving security expectations. These protections can include:

  • Strong multi-factor authentication options
  • Monitoring for unusual login behavior
  • Enhanced identity verification mechanisms

By combining multiple security layers within its HIPAA-compliant secure communications email and marketing solutions, LuxSci helps healthcare organizations protect sensitive email communications while maintaining usability for providers, health plan administrators, payment providers, and patient engagement teams.

Conclusion

Multi-factor authentication remains an important security control—but not all MFA is created equal. Attack techniques such as phishing proxies, token replay, and consent phishing have demonstrated that traditional MFA methods can be bypassed. As a result, regulators and auditors are increasingly expecting stronger identity protections.

For healthcare organizations that rely heavily on email communications, the implications are significant. Weak authentication controls can expose sensitive patient data and may soon appear as high-risk findings during HIPAA risk assessments. The organizations best positioned for the future will be those that modernize authentication strategies now, moving toward phishing-resistant methods, conditional access policies, and layered identity protection.

Reach out to LuxSci today to learn how HIPAA compliant email can support both your organization’s engagement and cybersecurity needs.


FAQs

1. What is traditional MFA?

Traditional MFA refers to authentication methods that require a second verification step, typically SMS codes, email codes, or push notifications.

2. Why can attackers bypass MFA today?

Modern phishing tools can intercept authentication sessions or steal login tokens, allowing attackers to access accounts even when MFA is enabled.

3. What is phishing-resistant authentication?

Phishing-resistant authentication uses cryptographic methods tied to trusted devices, preventing attackers from capturing login credentials.

4. Why is email security especially important for healthcare organizations?

Email systems often contain patient communications and sensitive information, making them a common target for cyberattacks.

5. How can organizations improve authentication security?

Organizations can strengthen identity security by adopting phishing-resistant authentication methods, implementing conditional access policies, and monitoring login activity.

LuxSci Automated Email Encryption

Encryption Optional Email Will Fail Audits in 2026 and Beyond

For years, healthcare organizations have relied on click-to-encrypt email workflows and secure portals as a practical compromise between usability and compliance. Or in some cases, they simply thought most of their emails did not need to be compliant. In regulated industries where data security and privacy are paramount, this approach was still considered “good enough.”

That era is ending.

As we progress into 2026 and beyond, regulators, auditors, and cyber insurers are sending a clear and consistent message: encryption that depends on human choice is no longer acceptable. It’s already happening. Encryption optional email isn’t merely raising concerns, it’s failing audits outright.

An Email Threat Landscape That’s Changing Faster Than Email Habits

Historically, email encryption was treated as a best practice rather than a hard requirement. If an organization could demonstrate that encryption tools existed and that employees had access to them, auditors were often satisfied. The box was checked, everybody moved on.

Today, the questions auditors ask are fundamentally different. Instead of asking whether encryption is available, they are asking whether sensitive data can ever leave the organization unencrypted. If the answer is yes, even in rare cases, or even accidentally, that’s no longer viewed as an acceptable gap. It’s viewed as inadequate control.

Why 2026 Is a Tipping Point for Email Security

Several forces are converging here in 2026 that make optional encryption increasingly untenable. Regulatory scrutiny around PHI and PII exposure continues to intensify. Breach costs and litigation are rising, with email remaining one of the most common vectors for data exposure and breaches. AI is also changing the game for cybercriminals, and attacks will continue to increase and be more sophisticated. As a result, cyber insurers are tightening underwriting requirements and demanding stronger, more predictable controls.

At the same time, email user behavior is unpredictable and inconsistent, which is a non-starter for data security in today’s world.

Taken together, these trends and behaviors point to a single requirement: email security controls must be automated. They must be enforced by systems, not dependent on employee memory, judgment, or good intentions.

The Reality of “Encryption Optional” in Practice

On paper, optional encryption can sound reasonable. In practice, it creates gaps large enough to open you up to a breach.

Secure portals are a good example. They require recipients to click a link, authenticate, and access content in a controlled environment. While this protects data in transit, and is a better approach than no security at all, it also introduces friction. And people don’t like friction. Senders forget to use the portal. Recipients ask for “just a quick email instead.” Shortcuts are taken to save time. And every shortcut becomes a risk.

Click-to-encrypt systems suffer from a similar problem. They rely on users to correctly identify sensitive data and remember to take action. But people often misclassify information, forget to click the button, or assume someone else has already secured the message. From an auditor’s perspective, this isn’t a training failure. It’s a set-up and control failure.

Email Security Defaults Are the New Normal

The latest message from regulators, auditors, and insurers is clear. If encryption is optional, data vulnerabilities become inevitable.

What can you do?

Below is a quick email security checklist to help you get started. Cyber insurers may require or recommend the following safeguards during the underwriting process, such as:

  • Multi-factor authentication (MFA)
  • Endpoint protection
  • Encrypted backups
  • Incident response planning
  • Encryption protocols for sensitive data in transit and at rest, including PHI in emails

In 2026 and beyond, healthcare organizations and regulated industries will be judged not by what they allow, but by what they prevent. Automated, encrypted email is the new. normal.

Want to learn more about LuxSci HIPAA compliant email? Reach out today.

LuxSci Oiva Health

LuxSci and Oiva Health Combine to Form Transatlantic Healthcare Communications Group

Boston & Helsinki, February 12, 2026 – LuxSci, a provider of secure healthcare communications solutions in the United States, and Oiva Health, a Nordic provider of Digital Care solutions in social and healthcare services, today announced that the companies are joining forces. Backed by Main Capital Partners (“Main”), the combination brings together two complementary platforms and teams, forming a strong transatlantic software group focused on secure healthcare communications.

Founded in 1999, LuxSci is a U.S. provider of HIPAA‑compliant, secure email, marketing, and forms solutions. Its application and infrastructure software enable organizations to securely deliver personalized, sensitive data at scale to support a broad range of healthcare communications and workflows including care coordination, benefits and payments, marketing, wellness communications, after care and ongoing care. Certified by HITRUST for the highest levels of data security, LuxSci serves dozens of healthcare enterprises and hundreds of mid‑market organizations.

Founded in 2010, Oiva Health is a provider of digital care and communications solutions in the Nordics. Headquartered in Finland, with additional offices in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, Oiva Health offers digital care and digital clinic solutions – including digital visits, secure messaging, online scheduling and appointments, and caregiver communications – serving the long-term care, especially elderly care, and occupational healthcare verticals. The company employs approximately 60 people and has recently expanded across the Nordic region, with a growing presence in Norway and Sweden.

The combination of LuxSci and Oiva Health creates a larger, cross Atlantic group with complementary solutions, serving the U.S. and European markets. Together, the companies offer healthcare providers, payers, and suppliers a comprehensive suite of tools to communicate securely and compliantly, spanning communications, workflows, and virtual care delivery.

Daan Visscher, Partner and Co-Head North America at Main, commented: “We are pleased to announce this cross Atlantic transaction, creating an internationally active secure communications player within the healthcare and home care space. The combined product suite enables healthcare organizations to drive much needed efficiency gains in healthcare provision addressing a global trend of rising costs, aging population, and increasing pressure on resources needed to provide high-quality care.”

Mark Leonard, CEO of LuxSci, said, “We are thrilled to join forces with Oiva Health and believe that together we can truly make a difference in healthcare coordination, access, and delivery. We see an exciting path forward with our customers benefiting from an end-to-end, secure and compliant approach to optimizing both healthcare communications and today’s frontline workers, which we need now more than ever.”

Juhana Ojala, CEO at Oiva Health, concluded, “We look forward to this new chapter together with LuxSci. We are very excited about the strong alignment between our solutions, which especially strongly positions us to expand our flagship Digital Care offering to the high-potential U.S. care market – from care coordination to care delivery to in-home and institutional care.”

Nothing contained in this Press Release is intended to project, predict, guarantee, or forecast the future performance of any investment. This Press Release is for information purposes only and is not investment advice or an offer to buy or sell any securities or to invest in any funds or other investment vehicles managed by Main Capital Partners or any other person.

[END OF MESSAGE]

About LuxSci

LuxSci is a U.S.-based provider of secure healthcare communications solutions for the healthcare industry. The company offers secure email, marketing, forms and hosting, delivering HIPAA‑compliant communication solutions that enable organizations to safely manage and transmit sensitive data. Founded in 1999, LuxSci serves more than 1,900 customers across healthcare verticals, including providers, payers, suppliers, and healthcare retail, home care providers, and healthcare systems, as well as organizations operating in other highly regulated industries. LuxSci is HITRUST‑certified with example clients being Athenahealth, 1800 Contacts, Lucerna Health, Eurofins, and Rotech Healthcare, among others.

About Oiva Health

Oiva Health is a Digital Care provider in the Nordics, offering a comprehensive Digital Platform for integrated health and care services to digitalize primary healthcare, social care, hospital healthcare and long-term care services. The company was founded in 2010 and currently employs approximately 60 people in Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden serving domestic municipalities, customers and partners, such as City of Helsinki, Keski-Suomi Welfare Region, Länsi-Uusimaa Welfare Region in Finland, and Viborg municipality in Denmark with its Digital Care platform. Annually over 5 million customer contacts are handled digitally through Oiva Health’s Digital Care and Digital Clinic platforms.  

About Main Capital Partners

Main Capital Partners is a software investor managing private equity funds active in the Benelux, DACH, the Nordics, France, and the United States with approximately EUR 7 billion in assets under management. Main has over 20 years of experience in strengthening software companies and works closely with the management teams across its portfolio as a strategic partner to achieve profitable growth and create larger outstanding software groups. Main has approximately 95 employees operating out of its offices in The Hague, Düsseldorf, Stockholm, Antwerp, Paris, and an affiliate office in Boston. Main maintains an active portfolio of over 50 software companies. The underlying portfolio employs approximately 15,000 employees. Through its Main Social Institute, Main supports students with grants and scholarships to study IT and Computer Science at Technical Universities and Universities of Applied Sciences.

The sender of this press release is Main Capital Partners.

For more information, please contact:

Main Capital Partners
Sophia Hengelbrok (PR & Communications Specialist)

sophia.hengelbrok@main.nl

+ 31 6 53 70 76 86

You Might Also Like

MailHippo HIPAA compliant

What You Need To Know About Email Deliverability

Email deliverability refers to the ability of emails to reach recipients’ inboxes successfully without being filtered into spam folders or blocked entirely by email service providers. This metric encompasses the entire journey an email takes from sender to recipient, including authentication protocols, sender reputation, content quality, and recipient engagement patterns. For healthcare organizations managing patient communications, provider networks, and supplier relationships, understanding email deliverability becomes particularly important given the sensitive nature of healthcare data and the need for reliable communication channels. Healthcare providers, payers, and suppliers who master email deliverability can maintain better patient relationships, reduce administrative costs, and avoid compliance issues that arise from failed communications.

How Email Service Providers Evaluate Messages

Email service providers use algorithms to evaluate incoming messages and determine their appropriate destination within recipient email systems. These systems analyze multiple factors simultaneously, including sender authentication records, message content, sending patterns, and recipient behavior. The filtering process occurs in real-time, with providers like Gmail, Outlook, and Yahoo applying machine learning models trained on billions of email interactions to identify potential spam or malicious content.

Authentication plays a large role in this filtering process through verification of sender identity. Providers verify sender identity through SPF (Sender Policy Framework), DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail), and DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) records. Healthcare organizations without properly configured authentication often find their appointment reminders, lab results, or billing communications relegated to spam folders, disrupting patient care workflows and administrative processes.

Content analysis represents another layer of filtering, where providers examine subject lines, message body text, and embedded links for spam indicators. Healthcare communications containing medical terminology, prescription information, or insurance details may trigger false positives if not properly formatted or if sent from domains with poor reputation scores. The complexity of these filtering systems means that even legitimate healthcare communications can face delivery challenges without proper optimization.

Recipient engagement metrics influence future email deliverability for healthcare organizations, as providers track open rates, click-through rates, and spam complaint rates. When patients consistently ignore or delete emails from healthcare organizations, providers may begin filtering future messages more aggressively. This creates a feedback loop where poor engagement leads to worse delivery rates, making it increasingly difficult to reach patients with important medical information.

Sender Reputation and Healthcare Communications

Sender reputation functions as a digital credit score for email domains and IP addresses, influencing whether healthcare organizations can reliably reach patients, providers, and business partners. Email service providers maintain reputation databases that track sending behavior, bounce rates, spam complaints, and recipient engagement over time. A single domain or IP address with poor reputation can affect email deliverability across an entire healthcare network, creating widespread communication problems.

Healthcare organizations face unique reputation challenges due to the nature of their communications and patient populations. Patient appointment reminders sent to outdated email addresses generate high bounce rates, while automated billing notifications may receive spam complaints from recipients who forgot they subscribed to such communications. These factors can gradually erode sender reputation, making it increasingly difficult to reach patients with time-sensitive medical information or coordinate care between providers.

The healthcare industry’s regulatory environment adds complexity to reputation management, as organizations must balance effective communication with privacy requirements. HIPAA compliance considerations may limit how organizations can personalize emails or track recipient behavior, potentially affecting engagement metrics that influence sender reputation. Healthcare organizations tackle these constraints while maintaining the communication effectiveness needed for patient care and business operations.

Reputation recovery in healthcare settings requires sustained effort and careful monitoring of multiple factors. Organizations must implement proper list hygiene practices, authenticate their domains correctly, and monitor feedback loops from major email providers. The process can take weeks or months, during which patient communications may continue experiencing delivery issues that could impact care coordination and administrative efficiency. Proactive reputation management helps prevent these problems before they affect patient care.

Authentication Protocols for Healthcare Email Security

Modern email deliverability depends heavily on proper implementation of authentication protocols that verify sender identity and prevent email spoofing attempts. SPF records specify which mail servers are authorized to send emails on behalf of a domain, while DKIM adds cryptographic signatures to verify message integrity. DMARC ties these protocols together by instructing receiving servers how to handle emails that fail authentication checks, providing policy guidance for email providers.

Healthcare organizations must configure these protocols carefully to avoid authentication failures that could block legitimate patient communications. A misconfigured SPF record might prevent appointment confirmation emails from reaching patients, while improper DKIM setup could cause lab result notifications to be filtered as spam. These authentication failures can have serious implications for patient care, particularly when dealing with urgent medical communications or time-sensitive treatment instructions.

The implementation process requires coordination between IT teams, email service providers, and third-party healthcare applications that send email on behalf of the organization. Many healthcare systems use multiple platforms for patient communications, billing, and administrative functions, each requiring proper authentication configuration to maintain good email deliverability across all communication channels. This complexity makes authentication management an important component of healthcare IT operations.

Regular monitoring and maintenance of authentication protocols helps ensure continued email deliverability for healthcare organizations. DNS records can change unexpectedly, third-party applications may modify their sending practices, and email providers periodically update their authentication requirements. Healthcare organizations benefit from establishing procedures for ongoing authentication monitoring and having technical expertise available to address configuration issues quickly when they arise.

Content Quality and Compliance Considerations

Email content quality directly affects deliverability, with providers using advanced algorithms to evaluate message structure, language patterns, and formatting for spam indicators. Healthcare organizations must balance informative content with delivery requirements, ensuring that medical communications reach their intended recipients without triggering spam filters. This balance is challenging when dealing with complex medical terminology, prescription information, or insurance-related content that may resemble spam to automated filtering systems.

HIPAA compliance adds another layer of complexity to healthcare email content, as organizations must protect patient information while maintaining effective communication channels. Emails containing protected health information require additional security measures and careful content formatting to avoid both compliance violations and deliverability issues. The challenge is in creating compliant, informative communications that also pass through increasingly sophisticated spam filters without compromising patient privacy or care quality.

Subject line optimization also plays a role in healthcare email deliverability, as providers analyze these elements for spam indicators and patient engagement patterns. Generic subject lines like “Appointment Reminder” or “Lab Results Available” may perform differently across various email providers, requiring healthcare organizations to test and optimize their messaging strategies while maintaining compliance with healthcare communication regulations. Personalization can improve engagement but must be balanced with privacy requirements and spam filter sensitivities.

Message formatting and design elements influence both deliverability and patient engagement with healthcare communications. HTML emails with excessive images, complex layouts, or suspicious formatting may trigger spam filters, while plain text messages may not engage recipients effectively. Healthcare organizations must find the right balance between visual appeal and delivery reliability, often requiring testing across multiple email clients and providers to ensure consistent performance.

List Management and Patient Engagement Strategies

Effective list management forms the foundation of sustainable email deliverability for healthcare organizations managing communications with patients, providers, and suppliers. Clean, engaged recipient lists generate better delivery rates and help maintain positive sender reputation over time. Healthcare organizations must implement systematic approaches to list hygiene, including regular removal of bounced email addresses, management of unsubscribe requests, and monitoring of engagement patterns across different communication types.

Patient engagement patterns in healthcare differ significantly from typical marketing communications, as medical emails often contain information that recipients need rather than want. Appointment reminders, lab results, and billing notifications serve functional purposes that may not generate traditional engagement metrics like high open rates or click-through rates. Understanding these patterns helps healthcare organizations optimize their sending strategies without compromising the informational value of their communications or patient care quality.

Segmentation strategies in healthcare email deliverability focus on communication types and recipient preferences rather than demographic targeting approaches. Patients may engage differently with preventive care reminders compared to urgent test results, requiring sending approaches that consider both deliverability factors and patient communication preferences. This segmentation helps maintain good sender reputation while ensuring that different types of healthcare communications reach their intended recipients effectively.

Data quality management includes verification of patient contact information, preference management, and communication history tracking. Healthcare organizations benefit from implementing processes to capture updated email addresses during patient visits, verify contact information through multiple channels, and maintain records of communication preferences that respect patient choices while supporting care coordination needs. These practices improve both deliverability and patient satisfaction with healthcare communications.

Maintaining Email Deliverability Performance

Monitoring of email deliverability metrics provides healthcare organizations with the data needed to identify and address communication issues before they impact patient care or administrative operations. Key metrics include delivery rates, bounce rates, spam complaint rates, and inbox placement percentages across different email providers. These metrics help organizations understand how their communications perform across various platforms and identify potential problems with specific communication types or recipient segments.

Healthcare organizations should establish monitoring systems that track deliverability performance across different communication channels, including patient portal notifications, appointment reminders, billing communications, and provider-to-provider messages. This approach helps identify patterns that might indicate authentication issues, content problems, or reputation concerns that could affect the organization’s ability to communicate effectively with patients and business partners. Regular analysis of these patterns enables proactive problem-solving and continuous improvement.

Deliverability testing and optimization require ongoing attention to changing email provider policies, spam filter updates, and evolving patient communication preferences. Healthcare organizations benefit from implementing A/B testing for subject lines, send times, and content formats while maintaining compliance with healthcare regulations. Testing should include evaluation of deliverability performance across different email clients, devices, and providers to ensure consistent communication effectiveness.

Regular deliverability audits should include testing of authentication protocols, review of sender reputation scores, analysis of content performance, and evaluation of list management practices. These audits help healthcare organizations maintain optimal email deliverability while ensuring that their communication strategies remain aligned with both technical requirements and healthcare industry best practices for patient communication and data protection. Documentation of audit results and remediation activities shows commitment to maintaining reliable patient communications and regulatory compliance.

healthcare marketing trends

What Makes a Platform HIPAA Compliant?

A platform becomes HIPAA compliant through a combination of security features, privacy controls, and administrative processes that protect patient information according to HIPAA regulations. No platform is inherently compliant but, rather, compliance emerges from implementing required safeguards, obtaining a Business Associate Agreement, and configuring the platform HIPAA compliant settings to handle protected health information properly. Healthcare organizations must evaluate platforms based on these capabilities and implement appropriate security measures to maintain compliance.

Core Security Protections

To make a platform HIPAA compliant, entities must incorporate several fundamental security capabilities. Encryption protects data both during storage and transmission, preventing unauthorized access. Authentication systems verify user identities through methods like password requirements and multi-factor verification. Access controls restrict what information different users can view based on job roles and responsibilities. Audit logging creates records of who accessed information and what actions they performed. Backup systems maintain data availability while incorporating appropriate security protections. These features enable organizations to implement the safeguards required by the HIPAA Security Rule.

Vendor Agreement Framework

HIPAA compliant platforms provide Business Associate Agreements (BAAs) establishing vendor responsibilities for protecting healthcare information. These agreements define how the platform vendor handles protected health information and outlines security obligations. Platforms designed for healthcare use typically offer standardized BAAs as part of their service agreements. The agreement specifies which portions of the platform fall under compliance coverage, as some vendors exclude certain features or services. Organizations must obtain these agreements before storing any patient information on third-party platforms regardless of security features implemented.

Patient Data Privacy Mechanisms

Platforms supporting healthcare data incorporate privacy controls aligned with HIPAA requirements. Notice functionality allows organizations to inform patients about information usage and their privacy rights. Consent management captures and stores patient authorizations for information disclosures. Access request handling helps organizations respond when patients want copies of their records. These privacy features help organizations fulfill obligations under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. While security prevents unauthorized access, privacy controls manage authorized information usage according to regulatory requirements and patient preferences.

Compliance Evidence Generation

To make a platform HIPAA compliant, entities can adopt solutions that provide documentation capabilities demonstrating regulatory adherence. Configuration documentation shows how security settings protect patient information. Audit reports detail system access and usage patterns for compliance verification. Risk assessment tools help identify potential vulnerabilities within platform implementations. These documentation features support healthcare organizations during internal reviews and external audits. Thorough reporting capabilities allow organizations to demonstrate due diligence in protecting healthcare information when questions arise about compliance status.

Healthcare Process Enablement

Platforms designed for healthcare environments incorporate features that maintain compliance while supporting clinical and administrative workflows. Secure messaging allows providers to discuss patient care without compromising confidentiality. Document management includes appropriate security controls for clinical records. Task management tracks workforce activities while protecting associated patient information. These workflow capabilities allow healthcare organizations to maintain productivity while adhering to regulatory requirements. The platform architecture considers both security needs and practical usage patterns within healthcare environments.

Continuous Protection Adaptation

HIPAA compliant maintenance includes features that support compliance over time as threats evolve. Vulnerability scanning identifies potential security issues as they emerge. Update mechanisms implement security patches without disrupting operations. Configuration management prevents inadvertent changes that might compromise compliance status. Training tools help staff understand proper system usage and security procedures. These management capabilities help organizations maintain compliance as technology and regulations evolve. Effective platforms reduce the administrative burden of ongoing compliance management while maintaining appropriate security controls

LuxSci MFA

Traditional MFA No Longer Qualifies as “Reasonable” Security

HIPAA Compliant

Is WordPress HIPAA Compliant?

WordPress itself is not HIPAA compliant out of the box, but it can be configured to create HIPAA compliant websites with additional security measures, proper hosting, and careful plugin selection. The basic WordPress installation lacks necessary security features for protected health information, but healthcare organizations can implement encryption, access controls, and security plugins to achieve compliance. Developing a HIPAA compliant WordPress site requires specialized knowledge and ongoing maintenance.

WordPress Core Platform Limitations

The standard WordPress installation lacks several features needed for HIPAA compliance. WordPress stores content in a database that doesn’t include encryption by default. User authentication systems in basic WordPress installations don’t meet healthcare security standards for password complexity or multi-factor authentication. The platform’s logging capabilities fall short of HIPAA audit requirements that track user actions and data access. Default form handling transmits information without encryption protections. These limitations mean healthcare organizations need significant modifications before using WordPress for patient information. Many healthcare providers work with developers experienced in both WordPress and healthcare regulations.

Hosting Considerations for WordPress

WordPress websites handling protected health information require HIPAA compliant hosting environments. Standard shared WordPress hosting lacks the security measures and business associate agreements needed for healthcare data. Organizations using WordPress for patient information typically choose dedicated hosting solutions with enhanced security features. The hosting provider must sign a business associate agreement accepting responsibility for data protection. Hosting environments need features like server-level encryption, network monitoring, and physical security controls. HIPAA compliant hosting providers offer WordPress-specific security configurations that address known platform vulnerabilities while maintaining compatibility with WordPress core functions.

Security Plugins and Configurations

WordPress security plugins help address compliance gaps in the standard installation. Authentication plugins add features like multi-factor authentication, password complexity requirements, and account lockout after failed attempts. Encryption plugins help protect data both in transit and at rest within the WordPress database. Firewall plugins block common attack patterns that could compromise patient information. Logging and monitoring plugins create audit trails of user activities and system events. Plugins themselves introduce potential security issues if not properly vetted and maintained. Healthcare organizations can establish a review process for all plugins used on HIPAA compliant WordPress sites.

Form Handling and Patient Data

Healthcare organizations may collect patient information through WordPress forms. Securing these forms requires other measures than standard WordPress capabilities. Form submissions containing protected health information need encryption during transmission using current security protocols. Data storage after form submission requires encryption and access controls. Many healthcare websites use specialized HIPAA compliant form handlers rather than standard WordPress form plugins. Patient portal functionality generally requires custom development or specialized WordPress extensions designed for healthcare use. Form data often integrates with separate electronic health record systems rather than staying within the WordPress database.

Theme and Plugin Security Risks

WordPress themes and plugins are seen as challenges for HIPAA compliance by entities. Third-party code may contain vulnerabilities that compromise protected health information. Healthcare organizations must carefully evaluate all themes and plugins before installation on compliant websites. Security scanning helps identify potential vulnerabilities in installed components. Plugin updates require testing in development environments before applying to live websites. Custom theme development often provides better security control than third-party themes with unknown code quality.

Maintenance and Compliance Documentation

HIPAA compliant WordPress websites require ongoing maintenance and documentation. Regular updates address security vulnerabilities in the WordPress core, themes, and plugins. System backups protect against data loss while maintaining appropriate encryption. Access reviews verify that user permissions remain appropriate over time. Security testing identifies new vulnerabilities as they emerge. Compliance documentation includes records of all security measures, risk assessments, and system changes. This attention ensures WordPress installations remain compliant as technology and regulations evolve.