Is a blocked Internet Archive entry a dead end for historical CMC validation?
Michael Ko
Co-founder & CEO, Suped
Published 15 Nov 2025
Updated 15 Nov 2025
7 min read
When working on Brand Indicators for Message Identification (BIMI) implementation, one of the crucial steps is validating the historical usage of a brand's logo. This often involves checking the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, a widely recognized resource for historical web content. However, encountering a "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine" message can feel like a significant roadblock, especially when trying to prove consistent brand usage over time for Certificate Mark (CMC) validation. This situation raises important questions about how to proceed when a primary source of historical web evidence is unavailable.
The immediate thought is often that this is a dead end for CMC validation. If the historical record of a website is inaccessible through the most common archival tool, how can a Certificate Authority (CA) verify that a logo has been consistently used and is thus eligible for a BIMI CMC certificate? This challenge can be particularly frustrating for those navigating the intricacies of email deliverability issues and seeking to enhance sender reputation through visual brand recognition.
The implications go beyond just getting a logo to display next to your emails. BIMI is a powerful standard that relies on robust verification processes to combat phishing and improve trust. If a key part of that verification, like historical logo usage, is obstructed, it can stall the entire implementation process, impacting overall email security and branding efforts. Understanding why an entry is blocked and exploring alternative avenues is crucial for moving forward.
Why sites are blocked in the Wayback Machine
There are several reasons why a website's content might be excluded from the Wayback Machine. Historically, a robots.txt file on the website could instruct crawlers, including the Internet Archive's, not to archive certain pages or even the entire site. While the Internet Archive ceased honoring robots.txt exclusions for past captures in 2017, it could still impact older archives. The more common reason for a "URL excluded" message today is an explicit request from the site owner. The Internet Archive will readily suppress content upon request, often with just a polite email, which can be done for various reasons, including copyright concerns or simply not wanting past versions of a site publicly visible.
Key reasons for Internet Archive exclusion:
Past robots.txt rules: Older directives may have prevented archiving, even if the policy has changed. If your SPF record is similarly misconfigured it can lead to email deliverability issues too.
Owner request: Site owners can easily request removal of their content, leading to the exclusion message.
Legal challenges: In some cases, legal disputes or threats can result in content being suppressed.
For BIMI CMC validation, Certificate Authorities (CAs) often rely on publicly accessible, independent archives like the Wayback Machine to verify historical logo usage. If a site or page is excluded, it deprives the CA of this critical third-party evidence. This isn't necessarily a permanent block for BIMI, but it certainly complicates the process, requiring alternative verification methods which might take more time or specialized documentation.
The challenge of CMC validation
BIMI (Brand Indicators for Message Identification) aims to enhance email trust by displaying your brand's logo next to authenticated emails. For a verified mark certificate (VMC) or a CMC, which provides a higher level of assurance, CAs require proof that the logo has been consistently used by the brand, typically for an extended period. This proof traditionally comes from public records, with the Internet Archive being a prime example. The CA needs to be confident that the logo represents an established brand identity and isn't just a recent addition.
When a domain is excluded from the Wayback Machine, it creates a gap in this historical evidence. CAs are strict about their validation requirements to maintain the integrity of the BIMI standard. Without readily available archival proof, the validation process can come to a halt. This is where understanding the specific requirements for your chosen CA becomes essential, as they might have protocols for handling such situations, though often with increased scrutiny and a need for alternative documentation.
The situation can feel like a dead end because the most straightforward path to historical proof is blocked. It's not uncommon for businesses to face this, especially those with long histories online, where website changes or previous legal actions might have led to content removal requests. The key is to realize that while it's a significant obstacle, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of your BIMI journey, but rather a pivot towards more intensive, direct validation methods.
Alternative validation methods for BIMI
While the Internet Archive is a powerful tool, its exclusion doesn't entirely close the door on historical CMC validation. You'll need to work more closely with your Certificate Authority to provide alternative forms of evidence. This could include submitting official company records, such as marketing materials, press releases, or legal filings that clearly display the logo with dates. Older branding guidelines or digital asset archives maintained internally by the company can also serve as supporting documentation.
Reliance on public archives
Ease of verification: Public archives provide independent, timestamped evidence that CAs can quickly verify.
Standard procedure: Many CAs have standard processes built around checking the Wayback Machine.
Alternative evidence submission
Internal documentation: Provide official company records, marketing collateral, or legal documents with dated logo usage.
Legal review: A legal opinion letter confirming logo ownership and usage history might be required. For this, ensuring DMARC policy is enabled is important.
It’s important to understand that while these alternative methods can work, they often involve a more rigorous and time-consuming review process by the CA. The CA will need to be satisfied that the submitted evidence is authentic and sufficiently demonstrates consistent logo use over the required period. This might involve additional back-and-forth communication or even a legal attestation from the brand owner.
Ultimately, a blocked Internet Archive entry is not a dead end, but rather a redirection. It means you'll need to be prepared with comprehensive internal documentation and a willingness to engage more directly with the CA to fulfill their BIMI validation requirements. Proactive management of your brand's digital assets and a clear understanding of CA expectations are vital to navigate these challenges effectively.
Views from the trenches
Best practices
Proactively secure digital assets: Ensure long-term storage and easy access to historical logo usage, marketing materials, and official branding guidelines for quick retrieval.
Establish a clear internal archiving policy: Regularly capture and timestamp key website pages and brand assets, creating your own verifiable historical record.
Maintain open communication with your CA: Discuss potential issues early in the BIMI process to understand their specific requirements for alternative evidence.
Monitor your website's robots.txt: Ensure it aligns with your archiving goals and doesn't unintentionally block web crawlers important for external validation.
Common pitfalls
Relying solely on public archives: Assuming the Internet Archive will always have a complete record can lead to delays when entries are excluded, impacting your
If the Wayback Machine is blocked, reach out to the Certificate Authority directly to inquire about acceptable alternative forms of historical logo validation. They might accept dated marketing collateral or legal attestations.
Consider engaging legal counsel to prepare an affidavit confirming logo ownership and historical usage if other documentation proves insufficient for CA requirements.
Implement a robust internal digital asset management system to maintain a verifiable archive of all brand logos, website screenshots, and marketing materials with clear timestamps and usage dates.
Actively monitor your domain's online presence and ensure that any archival requests made in the past align with current BIMI validation needs. Remove old robots.txt directives if no longer relevant to BIMI.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks says that the Internet Archive will readily suppress pages or sites upon request. It often takes just one polite email to them to get it done.
July 12, 2024 - Email Geeks
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks says that if the Wayback Machine is blocked, it's a dead end for CMC validation, as that's currently the only way they check it.
July 12, 2024 - Email Geeks
Securing your email's future
While a blocked Internet Archive entry can initially seem like a setback, it is not an insurmountable dead end for historical CMC validation. It simply necessitates a more strategic and resourceful approach to gathering and presenting evidence. By understanding the reasons for exclusion and preparing robust alternative documentation, brands can still successfully navigate the BIMI CMC validation process.
Ultimately, achieving BIMI compliance and securing your brand's visual identity in the inbox is about more than just a single archived webpage. It's part of a broader commitment to robust email authentication and deliverability. Tools that provide comprehensive monitoring of your email security protocols, like Suped's DMARC monitoring, can help you stay on top of your domain's health and ensure your brand is always protected.
With actionable recommendations, real-time alerts, and a unified platform for DMARC, SPF, and DKIM, Suped offers the insights you need to confidently manage your email security and deliverability, even when unexpected challenges like archival blocks arise. Proactive monitoring and a strategic approach are your best defenses in the evolving landscape of email security.
