Summary
Choosing between an SPF soft fail (~all) and hard fail (-all) policy is a critical decision that impacts email deliverability and overall email authentication strategy. While a hard fail policy might seem more secure by explicitly rejecting unauthorized senders, it carries significant risks, particularly with legitimate email being incorrectly blocked before DMARC or DKIM can be fully evaluated. A soft fail policy, on the other hand, offers a more flexible approach, signaling a potential issue without immediate rejection, thereby allowing DMARC to apply its policy and provide valuable feedback through reports. This approach is widely recommended for its ability to balance security with deliverability, especially during the initial phases of DMARC implementation or in complex email environments.
Key findings
- DMARC primacy: SPF soft fail (`~all`) is generally preferred because it defers the final decision on email rejection to the DMARC policy, allowing for a more nuanced handling of authentication failures. This prevents premature blocking that might occur with SPF hard fail, enabling DMARC to check for DKIM alignment.
- Risk of rejection: A hard fail (`-all`) SPF policy can lead to legitimate emails being rejected even before the receiving server can process other authentication mechanisms like DKIM. This is particularly relevant for smaller mailbox providers that might enforce SPF strictly.
- Feedback mechanism: Soft fail provides a signal of potential issues without outright rejection. This allows senders to receive DMARC reports and understand authentication failures, aiding in troubleshooting and policy refinement.
- Policy progression: Transitioning from a relaxed to a more stringent email authentication policy, such as DMARC's p=none, p=quarantine, or p=reject, should ideally start with SPF soft fail to gather data before enforcing stricter DMARC policies.
- Simplifying authentication: By using soft fail, SPF and DKIM can be seen as positive assertions of legitimacy, while DMARC handles the negative policy assertions for unauthorized mail, simplifying the overall email authentication framework.
Key considerations
- Gradual deployment: It is advisable to start with `~all` and monitor DMARC reports to ensure all legitimate sending sources are properly authenticated before considering a move to `-all`, if at all.
- Legacy systems: Older email systems or forwarding mechanisms may not always pass SPF checks. Soft fail provides a safety net for such scenarios.
- Internal compliance: If the goal is to prevent unauthorized internal emailing, DMARC with a monitoring policy (`p=none`) and subsequent reporting analysis offers a better solution than relying solely on SPF hard fail.
- Troubleshooting: SPF soft fail errors are easier to troubleshoot as they do not immediately cause rejections, allowing for adjustments based on DMARC report analysis.
- Domain reputation: Aggressive use of hard fail without proper configuration can negatively impact your domain's sending reputation by inadvertently blocking legitimate mail.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often navigate the complexities of SPF policies to balance strong authentication with reliable deliverability. Their perspectives frequently highlight the practical implications of choosing between soft fail and hard fail, especially concerning campaigns, customer communication, and avoiding accidental blocklists. The consensus generally leans towards a cautious approach, leveraging DMARC's capabilities for enforcement and reporting rather than relying solely on SPF for outright rejection.
Key opinions
- Stops 'random acts': Marketers seek ways to prevent unauthorized internal users from sending bulk mail. While an SPF hard fail might seem like a solution, DMARC is generally considered the more appropriate tool for this level of control and reporting.
- Initial deployment strategy: Many marketers advocate for starting with SPF soft fail and transitioning gradually, as advised by email authentication best practices.
- Avoiding accidental blocking: There's a strong preference to avoid situations where legitimate emails might be mistakenly rejected due to overly aggressive SPF policies, emphasizing the role of DMARC in providing control.
- Clarity of purpose: Marketers find it helpful to view SPF and DKIM as mechanisms for asserting legitimacy, with DMARC handling the enforcement of policies for unauthorized sending.
Key considerations
- Impact on deliverability: Marketers must weigh the security benefits of hard fail against the potential for decreased deliverability, particularly if their SPF record is not perfectly configured or if they use third-party senders, which can lead to broken SPF records.
- Monitoring DMARC reports: Continuous monitoring of DMARC reports is essential to identify any legitimate mail flows that might be failing SPF, allowing for timely adjustments before moving to a stricter DMARC policy or considering SPF hard fail.
- Internal policy and training: For preventing unauthorized internal sending, a robust internal policy combined with DMARC's `p=none` monitoring phase is crucial to educate staff and enforce compliance without impacting deliverability.
- Spam filtering interaction: Understanding how various mailbox providers interpret SPF soft fail and hard fail signals is vital, as this can affect whether an email lands in the inbox or the spam folder. This is a key aspect of overall email deliverability.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks notes that their client's primary goal with an SPF fail configuration is to prevent unauthorized bulk mail sent internally to external recipients. They are looking for a robust solution to stop what they term "random acts of emailing" originating from within the company. This demonstrates a common challenge in large organizations where various departments or individuals might use unapproved sending methods, leading to deliverability issues.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks confirms the sentiment of relying on DMARC for policy enforcement, aligning with the idea that SPF soft fail (`~all`) effectively delegates the final blocking decision. This approach is seen as a way to maintain control over deliverability while ensuring that authentication failures are handled at a higher policy level. The collective agreement underscores the industry's shift towards DMARC as the central point for managing email authentication outcomes.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts consistently emphasize the strategic advantages of SPF soft fail over hard fail, especially in the context of a robust DMARC implementation. Their insights often delve into the technical nuances of how mailbox providers interpret SPF records and the potential pitfalls of overly aggressive policies. The consensus among experts is to prioritize a layered authentication approach where DMARC serves as the ultimate policy enforcer, leveraging the informational role of SPF soft fail.
Key opinions
- DMARC control: Experts advise that SPF soft fail (`~all`) is superior because it delegates the blocking decision to the DMARC policy, allowing DMARC to check for DKIM authentication before any rejection occurs.
- Avoiding premature rejection: A hard fail (`-all`) can cause emails to be blocked prematurely by some mailbox providers, even before DMARC or DKIM checks are completed, leading to deliverability issues.
- Policy clarity: SPF and DKIM should be seen as mechanisms for positive assertion of legitimate mail, with DMARC providing the negative policy assertion for unauthorized mail. This simplifies policy management.
- Recommended by M3AAWG: Leading industry bodies, such as M3AAWG, recommend SPF soft fail as a best practice for email authentication.
- Handling internal abuse: For preventing unauthorized internal sending (e.g., "random acts of emailing"), DMARC is the most effective solution, especially when starting with a monitoring policy to gather data and build internal enforcement. This ensures that a hard fail is not strictly necessary with DMARC.
Key considerations
- Mailbox provider variability: While RFCs provide guidelines, actual implementation by mailbox providers can vary. Some smaller providers might be more aggressive in their interpretation of SPF `-all`, potentially leading to unexpected blocks.
- DMARC rollout: The "p=none, read reports" phase of DMARC implementation is crucial. It provides insights into unauthenticated email streams, enabling organizations to refine their policies and ensure legitimate mail is authenticated before safely transitioning to quarantine or reject.
- Comprehensive authentication: SPF is one component of email authentication; it should be used in conjunction with DKIM and DMARC for a robust defense against spoofing and phishing.
- Ongoing monitoring: Regardless of the SPF policy chosen, continuous monitoring of email deliverability and authentication reports is essential to detect and address any emerging issues proactively, as highlighted in expert discussions.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks indicates that an SPF hard fail (`-all`) can sometimes take precedence and cause blocking even before DMARC has a chance to check for DKIM. While this behavior is more prevalent with smaller mailbox providers and not widespread, it represents an unnecessary risk. The underlying message is to avoid potential problems by adopting a more flexible SPF policy.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks suggests that SPF soft fail (`~all`) is the preferable approach because it effectively passes the blocking decision to the DMARC policy. This allows DMARC to perform its full assessment, including DKIM checks, before determining the final fate of an email. This reflects a consensus that DMARC should be the primary enforcement mechanism for email authentication.
What the documentation says
Technical documentation, particularly RFCs, provides the foundational definitions and guidelines for SPF, outlining the precise meaning and intended behavior of soft fail and hard fail mechanisms. This documentation clarifies how receiving mail servers are expected to interpret these signals, reinforcing the role of SPF as an authorization framework within the broader email ecosystem. It underscores the technical rationale behind preferring soft fail for flexibility and compatibility with DMARC.
Key findings
- RFC 7208 definition: RFC 7208, the authoritative document for SPF, states that there should be no rejection solely because of an SPF failure when the SPF record ends in `~all` (soft fail). This mechanism explicitly indicates a weak statement about authorization.
- Soft fail interpretation: The `~all` mechanism suggests that the host is likely not authorized but explicitly tells the receiving server not to outright reject the message. This allows for further analysis, typically by DMARC.
- Hard fail interpretation: Conversely, the `-all` (fail) mechanism is a strong statement that the host is not authorized and implies that receiving servers should reject such messages.
- Combined authentication: SPF is designed to work in conjunction with other email authentication protocols like DKIM and DMARC to provide a comprehensive defense against email spoofing and phishing attacks. This multi-layered approach is critical.
Key considerations
- Policy enforcement: The RFCs establish the expected behavior of SPF mechanisms, but the ultimate enforcement action (e.g., rejection, quarantine, or none) rests with the DMARC policy. This highlights why DMARC is critical for setting email authentication policies.
- DNS resource management: RFC 7208 also touches upon minimizing DNS resource lookups for SPF, emphasizing the importance of efficient record configuration to avoid performance issues and enhance reliability. This is a common aspect of SPF best practices.
- Backward compatibility: While `-all` provides a strong signal, its strictness can create issues with legitimate mail forwarded by traditional mail servers, which often break SPF. Soft fail offers a more forgiving approach in such scenarios.
Technical article
Documentation from RFC 7208 specifies that an email should technically not be rejected solely because SPF fails when the record ends with `~all`. This designation of a soft fail indicates that the message is likely unauthorized but permits the receiving server to accept it for further processing. This foundational rule clarifies the intended lenient nature of `~all`.
Technical article
RFC 7208 further clarifies that the `~all` mechanism signifies that the sending host is probably not authorized to send mail for the domain, yet it explicitly advises against immediate rejection. This allowance enables other authentication methods, such as DKIM and DMARC, to contribute to the final delivery decision. It highlights `~all` as a warning rather than a definitive failure.
Related resources
8 resources
Related pages
When should you use DMARC p=none, p=quarantine, or p=reject policies?
How do broken SPF records, like those with too many DNS lookups or exceeding size limits, affect email deliverability and authentication?
Should SPF hardfail be enforced if DMARC is in place?
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
How to safely transition your DMARC policy to quarantine or reject
If DMARC passes but SPF fails, what are the concerns and impacts on email deliverability?
What are common misconceptions and best practices regarding SPF records and email deliverability for small mail servers?
Why your emails fail: expert guide to improve email deliverability [2025]
Demystifying the SPF TempError in your DMARC reports
Why Your Emails Are Going to Spam in 2024 and How to Fix It
