Summary
XS4ALL, a Dutch internet service provider (ISP), employs a particular DMARC enforcement policy that diverges from the standard interpretation when DKIM signatures are absent. Specifically, if an email relies solely on SPF for DMARC authentication and the sender's DMARC policy is set to p=quarantine or p=reject, XS4ALL will disregard this policy and treat it as p=none. This means the messages will not be rejected or quarantined, even if they fail DMARC based on SPF alone. This behavior highlights the importance of implementing both SPF and DKIM for robust email authentication, rather than relying on a single method.
Key findings
- DMARC policy override: XS4ALL specifically ignores p=quarantine or p=reject for DMARC failures if a DKIM signature is absent, treating the policy as p=none.
- Reliance on SPF alone: Senders whose DMARC authentication hinges solely on SPF without a DKIM signature will find their strict policies overridden by XS4ALL.
- Impact on deliverability: This behavior can lead to emails, that would otherwise be rejected or quarantined under a strict DMARC policy, still reaching the inbox at XS4ALL if they lack DKIM and rely only on SPF.
- Domain reputation: The absence of a DKIM signature may also negatively affect the domain's reputation with XS4ALL, even if SPF passes.
Key considerations
- Implement both SPF and DKIM: To ensure consistent DMARC enforcement across all ISPs, it is crucial to implement both SPF and DKIM for email authentication. This provides redundancy and strengthens your domain's authentication posture, especially when adopting a DMARC p=reject policy.
- DMARC policies are requests: Remember that DMARC policies are recommendations to receiving mail servers, and individual ISPs retain the right to interpret and enforce them as they see fit. This behavior by XS4ALL is an example of such a variation.
- Monitor DMARC reports: Regularly review your DMARC aggregate reports to identify how different ISPs are handling your emails, particularly those that might be relying solely on SPF.
- Understand ISP specifics: Be aware that different ISPs may have unique approaches to DMARC enforcement, as detailed in various discussions among email professionals. For more on DMARC implementation, you can refer to resources like this article on implementing SPF, DKIM, and DMARC.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often focus on achieving DMARC compliance to protect their brand and ensure deliverability. However, the nuances of how specific ISPs like XS4ALL implement DMARC, particularly their stance on DKIM signatures, can introduce unexpected challenges. Marketers generally prioritize getting their emails to the inbox, and deviations from standard DMARC enforcement mean that even with a strong stated policy, actual delivery behavior might differ, potentially impacting email deliverability rates and domain reputation.
Key opinions
- Need for DKIM: Marketers recognize that relying solely on SPF for DMARC can be insufficient, emphasizing the importance of a robust DKIM setup to ensure policies are honored.
- ISP autonomy: There's an understanding that ISPs have the final say in how they interpret and apply DMARC policies, which can sometimes override the sender's explicit wishes.
- Reputation impact: A lack of DKIM can negatively affect a domain's reputation with certain ISPs, regardless of SPF alignment.
- Forwarding concerns: Some marketers deliberately avoid DKIM with p=reject if they specifically do not want messages to be forwarded, due to how forwarding can break SPF and DKIM authentication.
Key considerations
- Comprehensive authentication: Ensure both SPF and DKIM are correctly configured and aligned for your domains to maximize compliance and reduce unexpected policy overrides.
- Policy enforcement expectations: Understand that DMARC policies are suggestions. Monitor how different recipients apply your DMARC policy, particularly when moving to p=quarantine or p=reject.
- Domain reputation management: Proactively manage your domain reputation by ensuring all authentication mechanisms are in place and functioning correctly.
- Strategic DMARC implementation: For comprehensive guidance on implementing DMARC, including DKIM signatures, marketers can consult detailed guides such as Mailgun's DMARC explained: five steps to email authentication.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks states that the absence of a DKIM signature appears to negatively impact domain reputation, even if SPF authentication is in place.
Marketer view
Marketer from a Reddit forum highlights that even with a strong DMARC policy, the lack of DKIM can mean that recipient servers, such as XS4ALL, might override the intended enforcement and treat messages as if they had a p=none policy.
What the experts say
From an expert standpoint, XS4ALL's DMARC enforcement policy reveals a critical aspect of email authentication: the ultimate discretion of the receiving mail server. While DMARC provides a framework for senders to publish policies for domain authentication, ISPs retain the authority to interpret and apply these policies based on their own internal algorithms and risk assessments. This particular behavior by XS4ALL underscores the necessity of robust authentication practices, especially the concurrent use of SPF and DKIM, to ensure consistent policy enforcement and mitigate potential DMARC failures that could impact deliverability.
Key opinions
- ISP-specific interpretations: Experts acknowledge that ISPs can and do implement DMARC with their own specific rules, such as XS4ALL's requirement for a DKIM signature to enforce a p=reject policy.
- DKIM's crucial role: The case of XS4ALL highlights that DKIM is not merely an option but a critical component for full DMARC policy enforcement, especially when relying on strict policies.
- Domain reputation impact: Even if a message passes SPF, the absence of DKIM can still negatively influence an ISP's internal reputation scoring for a domain.
- Transparency benefits: Experts appreciate ISPs like XS4ALL publicly stating their specific DMARC behaviors, as it helps senders configure their authentication more effectively.
Key considerations
- Comprehensive DMARC alignment: Always strive for DMARC alignment with both SPF and DKIM. This dual approach provides a more robust authentication posture, as detailed in this guide on implementing DMARC with Postfix.
- Understanding ISP nuances: Recognize that DMARC policies are requests, and recipient domains have discretion. This means senders cannot assume universal, strict enforcement of p=reject policies.
- Troubleshoot authentication failures: If DMARC authentication fails even when SPF and DKIM appear to pass, investigate potential issues like missing DKIM signatures or forwarding scenarios. Learn more about why DMARC authentication can fail.
- Strategic DMARC rollout: When rolling out DMARC enforcement, consider the implications for forwarded emails and potential DKIM issues with various ISPs.
Expert view
Deliverability expert from Email Geeks explains that XS4ALL's DMARC enforcement is unique: they will not reject messages for DMARC failure if there is no DKIM signature. This means if a sender relies on SPF for DMARC and has a p=quarantine or p=reject policy, XS4ALL will ignore it and treat it as p=none.
Expert view
Expert from Spam Resource suggests that ISPs often implement their own nuanced rules for DMARC, particularly concerning the interplay between SPF and DKIM. This can result in policies being softened or ignored if both authentication methods aren't robustly present.
What the documentation says
Official DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) documentation, like RFC 7489, defines the protocol as a way for domain owners to publish a policy that informs receiving mail servers how to handle email that fails SPF and/or DKIM authentication and alignment. While it outlines policies such as p=none, p=quarantine, and p=reject, it also acknowledges that these policies are recommendations. ISPs ultimately decide how to enforce them based on their own internal algorithms, reputation systems, and local policies. This inherent flexibility allows for variations, like XS4ALL's approach, which prioritize the presence of a DKIM signature for full policy enforcement.
Key findings
- DMARC policy interpretation: DMARC policies are suggestions to receiving mail servers, which can interpret and apply them with their own discretion, leading to variations like XS4ALL's behavior.
- DKIM and SPF for alignment: DMARC relies on either SPF or DKIM (or both) to align with the From: domain. The absence of one method, particularly DKIM, can lead to less strict enforcement by some ISPs.
- Authentication redundancy: Official guidance often promotes using both SPF and DKIM to provide stronger authentication and resilience against issues like forwarding.
- Reporting mechanisms: DMARC includes reporting features (rua and ruf tags, see list of DMARC tags) designed to provide senders with visibility into how their emails are being handled and authenticated by various recipients.
Key considerations
- Dual authentication setup: To achieve maximum DMARC enforcement and consistent deliverability, ensure both SPF and DKIM are correctly configured and aligned with your organizational domains.
- Monitor reports closely: Use DMARC aggregate reports to detect deviations in policy enforcement by different mail servers and adjust your sending practices accordingly.
- Understand policy nuances: Be aware that a p=reject policy is a strong recommendation, but not a guarantee of rejection without proper supporting authentication, as shown by XS4ALL.
- Benefits of DMARC: Implementing DMARC with both SPF and DKIM offers numerous benefits, including improved brand reputation and protection against spoofing. Explore the full benefits of DMARC.
Technical article
RFC 7489 (DMARC) states that receiving DMARC-compliant mail receivers are expected to apply the policy indicated by the sender's DMARC record, but ultimately, they are free to apply local policy.
Technical article
RFC 6376 (DKIM) defines a mechanism by which email senders can cryptographically sign email messages, providing a verifiable assurance that the message content has not been tampered with in transit and that the sender is authorized to send on behalf of the domain.
Related resources
2 resources
Related pages
How to implement DMARC p=reject policy safely to avoid email deliverability issues?
Why does DMARC authentication fail when SPF and DKIM pass, and how can it be fixed?
How does DMARC work, why implement it with SPF and DKIM, and what tools are available for DMARC record creation?
What are the best practices for setting DMARC policy, particularly p=reject?
How to troubleshoot DMARC failures and their impact on email deliverability?
How to use DKIM to sign emails with different header from domains to comply with DMARC?
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
Boost Email Deliverability Rates: Technical Solutions from Top Performing Senders
