Summary
The overwhelming consensus is that a failing DMARC policy is worse than not having DMARC at all. Experts, marketers, and documentation alike agree that a failing DMARC implementation signals an attempt at authentication that is not working, raising suspicion of spoofing attempts. This negatively impacts sender reputation and deliverability. Starting with a 'p=none' policy to monitor email traffic is highly recommended before implementing stricter policies. Furthermore, proper DKIM and SPF setup is crucial, as is providing adequate education to users, particularly when DMARC is set up by default by hosting providers.
Key findings
- Failing DMARC is Worse: Failing DMARC negatively impacts sender reputation and deliverability more than not having DMARC.
- Spoofing Signal: A failing DMARC policy signals an attempted but flawed authentication, raising suspicion of spoofing.
- 'p=none' for Monitoring: Implementing 'p=none' is recommended as an initial step for monitoring traffic and authentication results.
- Provider Defaults: Many hosting providers set up DMARC by default, requiring user education for proper management.
- Implicit DMARC Configuration: Some providers use implicit DMARC configurations
Key considerations
- Correct Authentication: Ensure correct DKIM and SPF setup before enabling DMARC to avoid deliverability issues.
- User Education: Provide proper tools and education for customers when setting up DMARC to prevent confusion and misconfiguration.
- Monitoring is Key: Start with a 'p=none' policy to monitor authentication results before implementing stricter policies.
- Reputation Management: A failing DMARC policy can significantly damage sender reputation, making careful implementation crucial.
What email marketers say
10 marketer opinions
The consensus is that failing DMARC is generally worse than not having DMARC at all. Failing DMARC suggests an attempt at authentication that is not working, which raises suspicion with ISPs and damages sender reputation. This is because it indicates that the sender has attempted to authenticate their emails but has failed, implying potential spoofing or misconfiguration. It is widely recommended to start with a 'p=none' policy to monitor email traffic and authentication results before implementing stricter policies like 'reject' or 'quarantine'. Many providers now set up DMARC by default, but without proper education, this can lead to confusion and delivery issues. Proper SPF and DKIM setup is crucial before enabling DMARC to avoid deliverability problems. A 'p=none' policy is considered beneficial for sender reputation and monitoring purposes.
Key opinions
- Failing DMARC Impact: Failing DMARC negatively impacts sender reputation more than not having DMARC, as it suggests a misconfigured or malicious attempt at authentication.
- ISP Suspicion: A failing DMARC record is more detrimental because it suggests an active but flawed attempt at authentication, leading ISPs to view the sender with more suspicion.
- Default DMARC Setup: Many hosting/domain providers now set up DMARC records by default, which can be problematic without proper tools or education for customers.
- Initial p=none Policy: Setting DMARC to 'p=none' for initial setup and monitoring is recommended to avoid deliverability issues.
- Implicit DMARC: Some providers use implicit DMARC to infer intended configurations, affecting how emails are processed.
Key considerations
- Proper Setup: Ensure proper SPF and DKIM setup before enabling DMARC to avoid deliverability problems.
- Education: Provide proper tools and education for customers when setting up DMARC to avoid confusion and delivery issues.
- Monitoring: Start with a 'p=none' policy to monitor results before implementing stricter policies.
- Sender Reputation: Failing DMARC can have a detrimental impact on your deliverability, a 'p=none' policy is more beneficial for your sender reputation.
- Email Sending practices: Set DMARC to p=none to monitor your email sending practices is the best way to prevent a poor DMARC configuration being setup in the first place.
Marketer view
Email marketer from StackExchange explains on StackExchange that failing DMARC is worse because failing DMARC can have an impact on your deliverability, and a 'p=none' policy is more beneficial for your sender reputation.
1 Nov 2023 - StackExchange
Marketer view
Email marketer from SparkPost responds that a failing DMARC record is more detrimental because it suggests an active but flawed attempt at authentication, leading ISPs to view the sender with more suspicion. They suggest starting with a 'p=none' policy to monitor results before implementing stricter policies.
1 Jan 2022 - SparkPost
What the experts say
3 expert opinions
Experts generally agree that a failing DMARC implementation is worse than having no DMARC record at all. This is because a failing DMARC policy suggests an attempt at authentication that has been incorrectly configured, which can signal potential spoofing attempts to email receivers. While implementing a 'p=none' policy is a recommended first step for monitoring email traffic, a domain with no DMARC is still seen as preferable to one with a failing DMARC setup.
Key opinions
- Failing DMARC Signals Spoofing: Failing DMARC indicates an attempted but flawed authentication setup, raising suspicion of spoofing.
- No DMARC vs. Failing DMARC: A domain with no DMARC record is viewed as less detrimental than a domain with a failing DMARC setup.
- p=none as a First Step: Implementing 'p=none' is recommended as an initial step for monitoring traffic before stricter policies.
Key considerations
- Authentication Attempt: Publishing DMARC, even with p=none, means you’ve thought about authentication, so failing is worse.
- Careful Implementation: Implement DMARC carefully, starting with monitoring and progressing to stricter policies.
- Accurate Configuration: Ensure accurate configuration of SPF and DKIM before implementing DMARC to avoid deliverability issues.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks responds that DMARC failure is worse than having no DMARC at all, because publishing DMARC, even with p=none, implies consideration of authentication. If mail isn’t authenticated despite this, it’s less likely to be legitimate.
30 May 2023 - Email Geeks
Expert view
Expert from Spam Resource explains that having a failing DMARC implementation is worse for deliverability than not having DMARC at all. Failing DMARC indicates that you've attempted to set up authentication but have done so incorrectly, signalling potential spoofing attempts.
4 Mar 2024 - Spam Resource
What the documentation says
5 technical articles
The documentation sources consistently state that a failing DMARC policy is generally worse than not having DMARC at all. Failing DMARC signals an attempt to authenticate that is failing, raising suspicion of spoofing attempts with email receivers. While a 'p=none' policy is useful for monitoring, it doesn't prevent spoofing. Incorrect configuration of strict policies can lead to legitimate emails being blocked, and proper DKIM/SPF configuration is essential.
Key findings
- Failing DMARC Signals Spoofing: A failing DMARC policy indicates an attempted but unsuccessful authentication, raising suspicion of spoofing.
- 'p=none' for Monitoring: A 'p=none' policy is for monitoring purposes and doesn't actively prevent spoofing or improve deliverability on its own.
- Impact on Deliverability: Failing DMARC can lead to emails being rejected or quarantined, impacting deliverability.
- No DMARC Can Be Better: No DMARC can be better than a failing DMARC record.
Key considerations
- Correct Configuration: Ensure correct DMARC records and proper authentication (DKIM/SPF) to avoid impacting sending domain reputation and deliverability.
- Careful Monitoring: Careful monitoring and testing are recommended before implementing stricter DMARC policies.
- Policy Impact: Strict policies like 'reject' without proper configuration can lead to legitimate emails being blocked.
Technical article
Documentation from RFC Editor details the DMARC specification (RFC 7489) stating that failing DMARC is detrimental and can lead to emails being rejected or quarantined, impacting deliverability. No DMARC can be better than a failing DMARC.
29 Oct 2024 - RFC Editor
Technical article
Documentation from DMARC.org responds that failing DMARC is damaging. It also explains that a 'p=none' policy is for monitoring purposes and does not actively prevent spoofing, so it will not improve deliverability on its own. However, strict policies like 'reject' without proper configuration can lead to legitimate emails being blocked.
6 Dec 2021 - DMARC.org
Can I set DMARC to reject if my domain doesn't send email?
Can I use DMARC with shared IP addresses?
Do DMARC and BIMI require p=reject to be present on the organizational domain?
Does DMARC guarantee emails will not be flagged as spam?
Does DMARC improve email deliverability and should ESPs push senders to set it up?
How can I use DMARC to prevent spammers from using my domain?
