Summary
While it might seem counterintuitive, an email can still achieve DMARC authentication pass even if its SPF alignment is bad. This occurs because DMARC only requires either SPF or DKIM to align with the email's From (RFC5322.From) header domain for a pass. If DKIM aligns, a misaligned SPF record won't necessarily lead to a DMARC failure. However, relying solely on DKIM for DMARC authentication due to persistent SPF misalignment (e.g., different domains for the From header and Return-Path) can introduce deliverability risks, especially when forwarding is involved or if your DKIM signature somehow fails. It is generally considered best practice to achieve both SPF and DKIM alignment to ensure robust email authentication and optimal inbox placement.
Key findings
- DMARC passing mechanism: DMARC passes if at least one of SPF or DKIM aligns with the RFC5322.From domain. Therefore, bad SPF alignment does not automatically mean DMARC will fail if DKIM alignment passes.
- Return-path vs. from header: Sending emails where the Return-Path (SPF's authentication domain) differs from the From header (RFC5322.From) domain can result in SPF passing, but not aligning for DMARC.
- Risk with a single alignment: While DMARC may pass, relying on only one authentication method (DKIM in this case) leaves your emails vulnerable. If that single method fails, the DMARC policy will apply, potentially leading to rejection or quarantining. For example, some forwarding scenarios can break SPF authentication, making DKIM critical. Learn more about how email forwarding and DMARC policies affect delivery.
- Soft failures vs. hard failures: Many receiving servers, including Microsoft, tend to move DMARC failures to the spam folder rather than outright rejecting them, especially for a p=none or p=quarantine policy. However, a p=reject policy will lead to rejection.
- Monitoring is key: It's crucial to closely monitor your DMARC reports to identify any legitimate mail being rejected or sent to spam due to authentication failures or alignment issues. This helps in troubleshooting DMARC failures.
Key considerations
- Best practices: While not strictly required for a DMARC pass, aligning both SPF and DKIM with the RFC5322.From domain is a recommended best practice for optimal deliverability and to mitigate risks associated with single points of failure. This also enhances your sender reputation.
- Future-proofing: Mailbox providers (MBPs) are continuously tightening security and deliverability requirements. Ensuring full alignment offers better resilience against future changes and helps avoid unexpected delivery issues.
- Understanding alignment: Ensure you understand the difference between SPF passing and SPF alignment in the DMARC context. SPF alignment means the domain in the Return-Path header (used by SPF) matches the domain in the From header (used by DMARC).
- DMARC policy impact: The impact of SPF misalignment when DKIM passes depends heavily on your DMARC policy. A p=none policy will only monitor, while p=quarantine or p=reject could lead to significant delivery issues if DKIM alignment also fails for any reason.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often encounter scenarios where DMARC passes despite SPF alignment issues, typically because DKIM successfully authenticates the email. The consensus among marketers is that while DMARC's flexibility can prevent immediate rejection, relying on a single authentication method (such as DKIM alone) is not ideal for long-term deliverability. They emphasize the importance of monitoring DMARC reports to catch any unexpected issues, especially when dealing with various email service providers and forwarding scenarios. Many advocate for achieving full alignment for both SPF and DKIM to bolster sender reputation and ensure consistent inbox placement.
Key opinions
- Primary concern: The main concern for marketers is ensuring emails consistently reach the inbox, and some believe that as long as DMARC passes (due to DKIM), SPF alignment issues may not immediately lead to severe deliverability problems.
- DMARC flexibility: Marketers appreciate that DMARC's design allows for a pass if either SPF or DKIM aligns, providing a safety net if one method experiences a temporary glitch or if a legacy system causes SPF misalignment.
- Monitoring is critical: Even with DMARC passing, marketers stress the necessity of diligent monitoring of DMARC reports. This helps in identifying edge cases, such as emails being unexpectedly sent to the spam folder, or specific recipient domains that might have stricter enforcement, as discussed in our guide on understanding and troubleshooting DMARC reports.
- Potential for hidden issues: While DMARC may show a pass, some marketers express concern that misaligned SPF could still subtly impact sender reputation over time, even if it doesn't trigger an immediate DMARC failure.
Key considerations
- Future deliverability risks: While SPF misalignment might not break DMARC today, a single point of failure (DKIM) could become problematic if DKIM signatures are broken or if email forwarding interferes. This is a common issue that can lead to emails going to spam.
- Sender reputation impact: Even if DMARC passes, a consistent lack of SPF alignment might be seen as a less robust authentication setup by some mailbox providers, potentially influencing overall sender reputation in the long run. Mailgun highlights the crucial role of authentication protocols in protecting emails from spoofing and improving deliverability.
- Complexity of DMARC: Understanding why DMARC passes or fails is crucial, especially when SPF and DKIM reports differ. It can be complex to trace issues without proper alignment knowledge. This is addressed in how to debug DMARC authentication failure.
- Policy enforcement: If a marketer moves to a stricter DMARC policy (quarantine or reject), SPF misalignment becomes a critical issue if DKIM also fails, leading to emails being flagged or blocked. It's important to safely transition your DMARC policy.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks explains that their coworker believes bad SPF alignment is not an issue if DMARC, SPF, and DKIM still show as passed in email headers, even if the From and Return-Path headers are from different domains. They are questioning the long-term viability of this approach.
Marketer view
Marketer from Reddit suggests that many email service providers handle SPF misalignment by ensuring DKIM alignment, effectively bypassing the immediate deliverability issue for DMARC. However, this relies heavily on the strength and consistency of DKIM.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts agree that SPF misalignment (where the Return-Path domain differs from the RFC5322.From domain) does not inherently cause a DMARC failure if DKIM alignment passes. DMARC is designed to pass if either SPF or DKIM aligns. However, they strongly emphasize that while this setup might seem fine on the surface, it carries risks. Relying solely on DKIM for DMARC validation (due to SPF misalignment) can lead to deliverability issues in scenarios like email forwarding, or if the DKIM signature is somehow invalidated. Experts advocate for achieving both SPF and DKIM alignment as a best practice to build a robust sender reputation and ensure consistent inbox placement, highlighting that consistency is key.
Key opinions
- DMARC flexibility: Experts confirm that DMARC passes if either SPF or DKIM aligns with the From header (RFC5322.From). Therefore, SPF misalignment does not automatically prevent a DMARC pass if DKIM aligns.
- Good practice: While not strictly required for a DMARC pass, it is considered good practice to have SPF align with the RFC5322.From domain for DMARC purposes. This provides redundancy and strengthens authentication.
- Forwarding issues: SPF authentication is known to break with email forwarding. If only DKIM aligns and an email is forwarded, the SPF failure could lead to a DMARC failure if DKIM is also compromised or not aligning. Microsoft TechCommunity discusses how emails may be delayed or flagged and DMARC might fail if both SPF and DKIM checks cannot be completed.
- DMARC policy impact: If a domain uses a p=reject or p=quarantine DMARC policy, a combined failure of both SPF and DKIM alignment can lead to legitimate emails being rejected or sent to spam, even if SPF passed initially without alignment.
- Consistency is key: Experts emphasize the importance of consistency across all authentication mechanisms to ensure optimal deliverability and reduce the risk of unforeseen issues.
Key considerations
- Misconceptions: There can be a misconception that if SPF passes in the header, it automatically aligns for DMARC. Experts clarify that SPF must align with the RFC5322.From domain for DMARC to count it as an aligned pass.
- Spam folder placement: Even with a DMARC pass due to DKIM, a misaligned SPF could still contribute to emails landing in the spam folder, as some mailbox providers (e.g., Microsoft) might use it as a signal for reputation, even if they don't explicitly reject the email based on DMARC policy.
- Robust authentication: For the most robust email authentication, domains should aim for both SPF and DKIM alignment. This redundancy provides better protection against spoofing and phishing, and improves overall deliverability. This is part of the broader discussion on how SPF, DKIM, and DMARC work.
- Monitoring DMARC reports: Regularly checking DMARC reports is crucial to understand how your emails are being treated by receiving servers. These reports provide invaluable insight into authentication outcomes, including details on SPF and DKIM alignment. Our tool for DMARC monitoring can assist with this.
Expert view
Expert (wise_laura) from Email Geeks states that SPF misalignment (in the DMARC sense) generally does not matter for email delivery if DKIM aligns with the RFC5322.From header, allowing DMARC to pass.
Expert view
Expert from SpamResource.com suggests that while DMARC provides flexibility, relying on a single passing authentication method (DKIM) leaves a domain vulnerable to deliverability issues if that method fails, especially with forwarding.
What the documentation says
Official documentation for DMARC (RFC7489) explicitly states that for DMARC to pass, an email must pass either SPF or DKIM authentication, AND the domain used for that authentication (the Return-Path for SPF or the d= tag for DKIM) must align with the RFC5322.From header domain. This means SPF can pass its check (i.e., the sending IP is authorized by the Return-Path domain's SPF record), but if the Return-Path domain does not align with the RFC5322.From domain, SPF will not contribute to a DMARC pass. Documentation often highlights the importance of alignment for robust authentication and to prevent spoofing, even if DMARC's flexibility allows for a pass through the alternative mechanism.
Key findings
- DMARC alignment requirements: DMARC explicitly requires either SPF or DKIM to achieve identifier alignment with the RFC5322.From domain for the overall DMARC check to pass. This is a core tenet of the DMARC specification (RFC7489).
- SPF and DKIM independence: Documentation confirms that SPF and DKIM are independent authentication methods. An SPF record might correctly authorize a sending IP, but if the domain in the Return-Path (Mail From) header doesn't match the From header (RFC5322.From), SPF will not align for DMARC, even if it technically 'passed'.
- Relaxed vs. strict alignment: DMARC allows for both relaxed and strict alignment. Relaxed alignment permits subdomains to align with the organizational domain, offering more flexibility, while strict alignment requires an exact match. This is relevant for SPF alignment options.
- Importance of both: While DMARC only needs one to pass, best practices in documentation often recommend configuring both SPF and DKIM for alignment to provide redundancy and strengthen email authentication against various attack vectors and forwarding scenarios.
Technical article
Documentation from eSecurity Planet indicates that DMARC passes if either SPF or DKIM alignment checks pass, supporting both strict or relaxed alignment modes.
Technical article
Documentation from 101domain Blog states that an email can pass basic SPF authentication but still fail DMARC if the necessary alignment is not met for either SPF or DKIM.
Related resources
12 resources
Related pages
Why does DMARC authentication fail when SPF and DKIM pass, and how can it be fixed?
What does it mean when SPF is not aligned in a DMARC report and how does it affect deliverability?
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
How to concisely explain DMARC passing and identifier alignment?
How to troubleshoot DMARC failures and their impact on email deliverability?
Why do my emails go to spam due to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM alignment failures?
Does SPF alignment with aspf=strict provide email deliverability benefits over aspf=relaxed?
How to safely transition your DMARC policy to quarantine or reject
Understanding and troubleshooting DMARC reports from Google and Yahoo
Why Your Emails Are Going to Spam in 2024 and How to Fix It
