Is it worse for bulk senders to have DMARC fail or not have DMARC at all?
Michael Ko
Co-founder & CEO, Suped
Published 28 May 2025
Updated 17 Aug 2025
9 min read
For bulk senders, navigating the complexities of email authentication has become more critical than ever. Recent changes from major mailbox providers like Google and Yahoo, and upcoming requirements from Microsoft, mean that DMARC is no longer optional. But what happens when DMARC doesn't quite work as intended? It's a question I frequently encounter: is it worse for bulk senders to have DMARC fail, or to not have DMARC at all?
Many small to medium-sized businesses, in an effort to comply, have implemented DMARC records with a `p=none` (policy of none) setting. This policy is designed for monitoring, allowing emails to be delivered even if they fail authentication, while still generating valuable DMARC reports. The intention is to gather data before moving to stricter enforcement policies like quarantine or reject.
However, a common pitfall arises when these senders rely solely on their Email Service Provider's (ESP) DKIM signature without ensuring proper domain alignment. When this happens, DMARC validation fails, often without the sender's knowledge because they aren't monitoring the DMARC reports. It highlights a critical gap between merely having a DMARC record and having a correctly configured and actively monitored one. This leads directly to the core dilemma.
Major mailbox providers, including Google and Yahoo, have significantly tightened their email authentication policies for bulk senders. As of February 2024, if you send over 5,000 emails per day to their users, you are required to have DMARC in place, along with SPF and DKIM. This isn't just a recommendation; it's a mandate designed to combat spam and phishing, fundamentally altering the landscape of email deliverability. Microsoft is following suit with similar requirements by May 2025.
The core purpose of DMARC is to tell receiving mail servers how to handle emails that claim to be from your domain but fail SPF or DKIM authentication checks. It adds a crucial layer of protection, verifying that messages are indeed from the purported sender and have not been tampered with. This verification is vital for maintaining sender reputation and ensuring email deliverability. Without DMARC, your domain remains vulnerable to spoofing, which can severely damage your brand's trustworthiness and lead to your legitimate emails being marked as spam or blocked.
For bulk senders, complying with these requirements is non-negotiable. Failing to implement DMARC, SPF, and DKIM correctly will lead to significant deliverability issues, with emails likely being rejected or sent straight to the spam folder. This means that even if you send legitimate mail, it might not reach its intended recipients simply because it lacks the necessary authentication signals. Understanding DMARC, SPF, and DKIM is paramount to ensuring your messages land in the inbox.
DMARC failure versus absence
When comparing a DMARC failure to not having DMARC at all, the answer isn't always straightforward, but generally, having DMARC fail can be more detrimental. When a domain has no DMARC record, mailbox providers apply their default spam filtering algorithms. These algorithms rely on a multitude of factors, and while the absence of DMARC is a negative signal, it's just one among many.
However, when a DMARC record exists but the email fails DMARC authentication (meaning it doesn't pass SPF or DKIM alignment), it sends a stronger, more explicit negative signal. It suggests that the sender has attempted authentication, but the email couldn't be verified, which can be interpreted as either a misconfiguration or a malicious attempt like spoofing. This active failure can be seen as more suspicious than merely not having a policy in place, potentially leading to more aggressive filtering or even rejection by the receiver.
In essence, a DMARC failure indicates a broken authentication setup. This is often worse because it shows a clear disconnect between the stated policy (even `p=none`) and the actual email stream. It's a loud signal to mailbox providers that something is wrong, whereas no DMARC is more of a silent, passive missed opportunity. Mailbox providers might even employ 'implicit DMARC', attempting to understand sender intent, which is harder when explicit authentication fails.
Scenario: no DMARC record
Your domain has no DMARC record published. Mailbox providers assess your emails based on overall domain reputation, SPF, DKIM (if present), and content.
Compliance: Fails to meet Gmail and Outlook bulk sender requirements as of 2024/2025.
Spoofing risk: Domain is completely unprotected against unauthorized use.
Deliverability impact: Emails may still be delivered for non-bulk senders but are more prone to spam folders for bulk senders due to absence of authentication.
Scenario: DMARC record exists but fails
Your domain has a DMARC record, but emails consistently fail SPF or DKIM alignment checks. This means authentication was attempted but not passed.
Compliance: While a record exists, the failure to authenticate means the email still doesn't fully comply with best practices and can be seen as problematic.
Trust signal: A failed DMARC (even with `p=none`) implies either misconfiguration or a potentially illegitimate sender trying to authenticate.
The primary issue with DMARC failure, particularly for those using `p=none`, is the hidden impact it can have. While `p=none` allows emails to pass through regardless of authentication status, consistently failing DMARC without monitoring the aggregate reports (`rua`) means you're unaware of critical authentication issues. This is a missed opportunity to identify and fix problems, leaving your domain vulnerable and your deliverability at risk. It also means you're not getting the full benefits of DMARC's reporting capabilities, which are essential for understanding your email ecosystem.
Many email authentication tools and hosting providers now automatically set up a DMARC record, often with a `p=none` policy, sometimes without adequately educating their users. While well-intentioned, this can lead to a false sense of security. Senders might believe they are compliant, but if their emails consistently fail DMARC because of misconfigured SPF or DKIM alignment, their emails are still at risk. A DMARC record must be correctly configured to align with SPF and DKIM for it to truly pass.
Moving to stricter policies like quarantine or reject without prior monitoring and fixing issues can lead to legitimate emails being blocked. This is why a phased approach to DMARC implementation, starting with `p=none` and diligent report analysis, is crucial. If DMARC is set up to fail, but you are not actively monitoring and addressing the underlying issues, you're essentially flying blind.
Understanding the 'p=none' trap
A DMARC record with a policy of `p=none` is intended for monitoring. It tells receiving servers not to take any specific action on emails that fail DMARC checks, but to send reports back to the sender. This allows you to collect data on your email traffic and identify legitimate sources that are failing authentication.
However, relying on `p=none` as a permanent solution or without actively analyzing the reports is a critical mistake. While it prevents immediate rejections, consistent failures under this policy still signal to mailbox providers that your domain has authentication issues. This can degrade your sender reputation over time and result in emails landing in spam folders, even without a formal reject policy in place. The primary value of `p=none` is the reporting. Without analyzing the reports, the policy becomes a 'figleaf' DMARC record offering no real benefit.
Ultimately, for bulk senders, having DMARC fail consistently is worse than having no DMARC at all. It signals a broken authentication process, which can be interpreted by mailbox providers as either a legitimate sender with severe misconfigurations or a malicious actor attempting to spoof your domain. This leads to a more immediate and negative impact on deliverability.
The mandate from Google, Yahoo, and soon Microsoft for DMARC implementation means that not having DMARC is no longer an option. Therefore, the focus must shift from simply having a record to ensuring its proper configuration and ongoing monitoring. If you're a bulk sender, a DMARC failure will cause significant deliverability issues, often resulting in your emails being sent to spam or rejected outright.
The solution is not to avoid DMARC, but to implement it correctly. Start with a `p=none` policy, but critically, ensure you are receiving and analyzing DMARC reports. These reports will highlight any sources sending email on your behalf that are failing authentication, allowing you to identify and resolve misconfigurations with your SPF and DKIM records. Once your DMARC alignment is consistently passing, you can then incrementally move to stronger policies like `p=quarantine` and eventually `p=reject`.
Views from the trenches
Best practices
Actively monitor DMARC aggregate reports (RUA) even with a p=none policy to identify and fix authentication failures.
Ensure SPF and DKIM records are correctly configured and aligned with your DMARC record to pass authentication.
Gradually transition DMARC policies from p=none to p=quarantine and then p=reject once you confirm legitimate emails pass authentication.
Common pitfalls
Setting a p=none DMARC policy and then failing to monitor the reports, leaving authentication issues unaddressed.
Relying solely on an ESP's DKIM signature without ensuring your domain's alignment, leading to DMARC failure.
Implementing DMARC without understanding the impact of authentication failures on your email deliverability.
Expert tips
Consider a dedicated DMARC monitoring solution to simplify report analysis and quickly pinpoint authentication failures.
Regularly check your domain's DMARC status to ensure ongoing compliance and optimal deliverability.
If using third-party services to send email, ensure they support DMARC alignment for your domain.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks says that a DMARC failure is worse than not having DMARC at all, but both scenarios will have increasingly negative impacts on deliverability.
December 2, 2023 - Email Geeks
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks says that many hosting or domain providers now set up DMARC records by default, which can be both helpful and problematic if customers lack proper education.
December 2, 2023 - Email Geeks
The path forward: proper DMARC implementation
For bulk senders, the choice between a DMARC failure and no DMARC at all is increasingly moot. With new requirements from major mailbox providers, having DMARC is becoming a baseline for deliverability. While having no DMARC might seem less problematic on the surface (no explicit failure signal), it immediately places you out of compliance with essential sender guidelines, leading to emails being rejected or sent to spam.
However, a DMARC record that consistently fails authentication, even with a `p=none` policy, indicates a broken system. It sends a stronger negative signal to receivers, potentially eroding your sender reputation faster. This is because it shows an attempt at authentication that couldn't be validated, raising suspicion. The critical takeaway is that merely publishing a DMARC record isn't enough; it must be correctly configured and its performance actively monitored.
The path to optimal deliverability for bulk senders involves full compliance with email authentication standards. This means implementing DMARC with SPF and DKIM, ensuring proper alignment, and consistently reviewing your DMARC reports. It's about building trust with mailbox providers, which ultimately ensures your legitimate emails reach the inbox. Don't just have DMARC, ensure it works correctly and transition your policy safely.
Google and 
Yahoo, have significantly tightened their email authentication policies for bulk senders. As of February 2024, if you send over 5,000 emails per day to their users, you are required to have DMARC in place, along with SPF and DKIM. This isn't just a recommendation; it's a mandate designed to combat spam and phishing, fundamentally altering the landscape of email deliverability. Microsoft is following suit with similar requirements by May 2025.
Gmail and 
Outlook bulk sender requirements as of 2024/2025.
