Summary
The increasing complexity of email infrastructure, particularly how legitimate email services (like Mailchimp) rewrite headers to ensure deliverability and comply with authentication standards (like DMARC), creates a significant challenge for the average user in identifying phishing emails. While these technical modifications are essential for email deliverability, they can inadvertently mask the true sender's identity, making it harder to discern fraudulent messages from legitimate ones. This issue highlights a gap between technical necessity and user accessibility, leaving many recipients vulnerable to sophisticated phishing attacks. Understanding why and how headers are rewritten is crucial for both senders and recipients, even if the end-user primarily relies on more obvious visual and contextual cues.
Key findings
- Header rewriting: Email Service Providers (ESPs) often rewrite email headers to ensure compliance with authentication protocols like DMARC, SPF, and DKIM, particularly for senders who do not have their own domains properly configured.
- User confusion: This rewriting can make it difficult for ordinary users to distinguish between genuine emails (that have legitimate, but unfamiliar, sending domains) and phishing attempts (where the from address is spoofed).
- Sender responsibility: Senders are often notified by their ESPs about authentication requirements and the implications of header rewriting, but these warnings are frequently overlooked.
- Focus on content cues: Most users rely on non-technical cues to spot phishing, such as unexpected emails, suspicious grammar, unusual formatting, or requests for sensitive information. The Federal Trade Commission offers guidance on recognizing phishing scams.
Key considerations
- User education: While technical solutions exist, the most effective defense for end-users lies in practical education focusing on common red flags within the email body and links, rather than complex header analysis.
- Sender awareness: Senders must prioritize understanding and implementing proper email authentication to ensure their legitimate emails are not mistaken for phishing. This can prevent Gmail from marking legitimate emails as phishing.
- Service provider role: ESPs need to balance authentication requirements with user clarity, potentially by offering clearer visual indicators for authenticated emails.
- Combined approach: A multi-layered defense combining technical authentication, user education, and consistent messaging from ESPs is essential to combat phishing effectively.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often face a conundrum where their efforts to send legitimate, authenticated emails are complicated by email service providers rewriting headers. This practice, while necessary for deliverability and compliance with large mailbox providers like Gmail and Yahoo, can inadvertently make their campaigns appear suspicious to the average recipient. Marketers are keen to understand how their emails are perceived by recipients, recognizing that most users do not delve into technical header details but instead rely on more superficial indicators like the sender's name and the overall professionalism of the email.
Key opinions
- Recipient perception: Many marketers believe that average recipients do not scrutinize sending addresses or domains as closely as deliverability professionals do. They are more likely to notice if an email is unexpected or if the grammar and formatting appear off.
- Hidden complexity: Senders, especially smaller ones or political campaigns using third-party services, often remain unaware that their email headers are being rewritten behind the scenes.
- Legitimate but suspicious: A common observation is that even legitimate emails sent through major ESPs can end up looking suspicious due to extensive domain rewriting, leading to recipient distrust.
- Focus on red flags: Marketers and security experts advise users to focus on evident red flags, such as generic greetings, urgent demands, or calls for sensitive information, as primary indicators of phishing attempts. This is echoed by the IT Governance Blog.
Key considerations
- Educating recipients: Marketers must help educate their subscribers on how to identify legitimate emails, perhaps by reinforcing their brand identity and expected sending practices.
- Proactive sender steps: It is crucial for marketers to ensure their email sending practices align with authentication standards. They should actively configure their own DMARC, SPF, and DKIM records where possible, to minimize the need for extensive header rewriting by ESPs and build domain reputation.
- Transparency from ESPs: ESPs should continue to provide clear communication to their users about how emails are sent and authenticated, especially when header modifications occur.
- Beyond headers: Given that many recipients don't check headers, marketers should focus on maintaining a consistent brand voice, professional design, and clear calls to action to build trust and signal legitimacy.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks suggests that some emails might appear legitimate or stem from compromised accounts, making identification difficult for the average user. This uncertainty can lead to users incorrectly trusting or discarding emails.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks observes that legitimate senders, like political candidates using services, often have their headers rewritten, which can confuse recipients expecting a direct address. This creates a disconnect between the apparent sender and the actual sending domain.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts understand the intricate balance between ensuring emails are authenticated and preventing them from appearing suspicious to end-users. They emphasize that header rewriting by ESPs is often a necessary measure to comply with the strict requirements of major mailbox providers (like Google and Yahoo), especially concerning authentication standards. The challenge lies in this technical necessity clashing with the intuitive understanding of email recipients. Experts advocate for both robust technical authentication at the sender's end and practical, user-centric education on identifying phishing.
Key opinions
- Compliance necessity: Experts acknowledge that ESPs rewrite headers due to stringent requirements from major mailbox providers, ensuring emails pass critical authentication checks.
- Sender education gap: While ESPs provide notifications about authentication and potential header changes, senders frequently overlook or ignore this crucial information.
- Authentication importance: Robust email authentication, particularly DMARC, is seen as vital for preventing spoofing and improving legitimate email deliverability, even if it introduces complexity in sender display.
- User-friendly indicators: Experts agree that for the average user, simple, actionable advice on common phishing indicators is more effective than teaching complex header analysis. This sentiment is reinforced by Fortinet's cyberglossary on phishing email analysis.
Key considerations
- Proactive sender setup: Senders should proactively configure their own domain's SPF, DKIM, and DMARC records to establish their identity clearly and minimize ESP intervention, thereby making their emails less likely to be flagged as phishing. This applies to internal emails too, helping to prevent phishing warnings for internal communications.
- Simplified user indicators: Mailbox providers could potentially offer more intuitive, non-technical visual cues to users about an email's authentication status, rather than relying on users to inspect complex headers.
- Continuous threat evolution: Phishing tactics constantly evolve, necessitating ongoing education and adaptation from both security systems and end-users.
- Balancing security and usability: The email ecosystem must continuously strive to balance the need for strong authentication and security with the practical realities of user experience, especially when it comes to identifying suspicious emails.
Expert view
Deliverability expert from Email Geeks points out that email service providers typically inform senders about authentication requirements, suggesting that senders often overlook these critical notifications. This means the information is available, but not always absorbed.
Expert view
Deliverability expert from Email Geeks notes that service providers often rewrite headers to comply with major mailbox providers' authentication requirements, such as those from Yahoo and Google. This is a technical necessity for modern email delivery.
What the documentation says
Official documentation and cybersecurity research often delve into the technical mechanisms behind email headers, authentication protocols, and phishing detection. While these resources are invaluable for understanding the underlying technology, they frequently present information from a system-level or forensic perspective, which is not directly applicable for the average email user. Documentation emphasizes the role of DMARC, SPF, and DKIM in validating sender identity and how email filtering systems leverage these and other signals to classify legitimate versus malicious emails.
Key findings
- Header inspection: Technical documentation confirms that analyzing email headers, particularly fields like 'Received', 'Authentication-Results', and 'Return-Path', can reveal critical forensic information about an email's true origin and path, essential for detecting sophisticated phishing. Intezer's analysis of phishing emails highlights this.
- Authentication protocols: Standards like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC are foundational for email security, enabling receiving mail servers to verify the legitimacy of a sender and detect spoofing attempts.
- Filtering mechanisms: Email security solutions use a combination of header analysis, content scanning, and sender reputation checks to identify and mitigate phishing threats, often quarantining or flagging suspicious messages.
- Human factor: Despite technical safeguards, documentation often implicitly acknowledges the human element as a weak link, emphasizing that even well-authenticated emails can trick users if the content is convincing.
Key considerations
- Accessibility of information: While technical documentation is thorough, its language and depth are typically unsuitable for non-technical users seeking to identify phishing. Tools like email header analyzers can bridge this gap for those willing to learn.
- Layered defense: Effective phishing prevention relies on multiple layers of defense, from robust email authentication (like DMARC implementation) at the server level to continuous user training and awareness.
- Proactive security measures: Organizations should implement and enforce strict DMARC policies to prevent their domains from being exploited in phishing attacks, thereby protecting their brand and recipients.
- Adaptive strategies: As phishing tactics evolve, security systems and user education must also adapt to new methods, such as sophisticated social engineering or advanced spoofing techniques.
Technical article
Documentation from Intezer explains that inspecting email headers can reveal techniques used by threat actors to make phishing emails appear legitimate, providing forensic information about the email's origin and path. This deep dive is often necessary for incident response teams.
Technical article
Technical guide from Keepnet Labs confirms that email header analysis is a viable method for detecting phishing emails, as headers contain crucial clues about an email's true source and routing. These clues are often invisible in standard email clients.
Related resources
15 resources
Related pages
Why do emails get a phishing warning in Gmail and how to prevent it?
Why do email From and To addresses sometimes match, and is it a spoofing attempt?
How to prevent Gmail from marking emails as phishing due to linked login pages?
How can a phishing email pass SPF and DKIM authentication checks?
Why are my emails triggering Gmail phishing warnings and how can I fix it?
How can email senders and users prevent and identify phishing emails?
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
The benefits of implementing DMARC
Why Your Emails Are Going to Spam in 2024 and How to Fix It
How To Comply With Outlook's New Sender Requirements
