Summary
Managing DMARC reports effectively is crucial for maintaining email deliverability and protecting your domain from spoofing and phishing. While it's common to receive a significant volume of these reports, particularly aggregate (RUA) reports, the exact number can vary widely based on your domain's email traffic and the number of receiving mail servers that support DMARC reporting. Understanding what to expect and how to process these XML-formatted reports is key to leveraging DMARC data without being overwhelmed.
Key findings
- Aggregate reports (RUA): These are the most common DMARC reports and provide an overview of your domain's email traffic, including pass/fail rates for SPF and DKIM, and DMARC alignment. You should expect one report daily from each participating Mailbox Provider (MBP) you send mail to.
- Forensic reports (RUF): Also known as failure reports, these provide granular details about individual emails that fail DMARC authentication. However, RUF reports are not widely adopted by Mailbox Providers due to privacy concerns and potential for very high volume, so expect to receive very few, if any, of these.
- Volume variability: The number of reports you receive daily depends directly on your email sending volume and the number of email recipients across different ISPs that support DMARC reporting. High-volume senders can easily receive hundreds of reports daily.
- No fails in RUA: If your DMARC aggregate reports show no failures, it typically indicates that your legitimate email traffic is properly authenticating and aligning. Failures in RUA reports only appear if there's a problem with DMARC alignment, often suggesting unauthorized sending or misconfiguration.
Key considerations
- Automated processing is essential: Manually sifting through hundreds of XML reports daily is impractical. Implementing an automated solution to parse and visualize DMARC reports is crucial for effective monitoring and action. You can explore options for DMARC reporting services.
- Focus on RUA data: The aggregate reports are your primary source of information for understanding your email ecosystem, identifying legitimate sending sources, and detecting potential spoofing attempts. The raw XML reports contain comprehensive data for this analysis, as detailed in this RFC on DMARC.
- Monitor for unexpected sources: One of the main benefits of DMARC reporting is identifying all entities sending email on behalf of your domain, including those you might not be aware of (shadow IT). Ensure you have a clear understanding of DMARC implementation best practices.
- Set up a dedicated mailbox: Designate a specific email address (or alias) for DMARC reports that is capable of handling high volumes and is not your primary inbox. This prevents your regular communications from being swamped.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often find themselves at the forefront of DMARC report management, as they are directly impacted by deliverability outcomes. Their primary concern is usually the practical implications of DMARC policies on campaign performance and how to interpret the reports to ensure legitimate emails reach the inbox. The sheer volume of incoming reports can be a significant hurdle, leading to a strong preference for streamlined, actionable insights over raw data.
Key opinions
- Report volume can be high: Many marketers are surprised by the number of DMARC aggregate reports they receive, especially for domains with significant email activity. This high volume is expected and often indicates widespread DMARC participation by recipient servers.
- Focus on aggregate reports: Marketers prioritize aggregate (RUA) reports because they provide the necessary data to verify SPF and DKIM alignment for their sending services, which is critical for deliverability. Forensic (RUF) reports are rarely seen and not typically relied upon.
- Desire for simplicity: The raw XML format of DMARC reports is not user-friendly, leading marketers to seek automated parsing solutions that can present the data in an easily digestible format.
- Concern for legitimate mail: A primary worry for marketers is ensuring that DMARC implementation does not negatively impact the deliverability of their legitimate email campaigns. Reports help confirm proper authentication and prevent unexpected blocks.
Key considerations
- Implement DMARC gradually: Marketers often prefer starting with a DMARC policy of p=none to gather reports and assess their email ecosystem before moving to enforcement policies like quarantine or reject.
- Leverage reporting tools: Utilizing DMARC reporting tools is highly recommended to automate the parsing, analysis, and visualization of the incoming XML reports. This enables marketers to quickly identify issues and optimize their sending practices.
- Monitor for third-party senders: DMARC reports are invaluable for identifying all third-party services that send email on behalf of your domain, ensuring they are properly configured for SPF and DKIM. This is part of a broader strategy for email deliverability.
- Understand authentication failures: Even with proper setup, occasional authentication failures can occur. Marketers need to understand how to troubleshoot DMARC failures to prevent impact on deliverability.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks notes that receiving over 150 DMARC report emails daily, even without failures, can seem excessive, prompting concerns about setup correctness, especially when expecting more RUF than RUA reports. This volume can be surprising for new DMARC implementers.
Marketer view
Email marketer from The 101domain Blog states that daily DMARC reports are a standard practice for tracking whether emails from a domain pass DMARC, with these reports also summarizing authentication results. This regular monitoring is key for domain health.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts emphasize that DMARC reports are a fundamental component of a robust email security and deliverability strategy. They highlight the necessity of processing these reports programmatically due to their volume and the complexity of the raw XML format. Experts also stress the critical insights gained from aggregate reports for identifying and mitigating unauthorized use of a domain, while noting the practical irrelevance of forensic reports for most use cases.
Key opinions
- Automated solutions are mandatory: Experts universally agree that manual review of DMARC reports is unsustainable. Automated parsing and analysis tools are essential for extracting actionable intelligence.
- Aggregate reports provide critical visibility: These reports offer a comprehensive view of all email traffic (both legitimate and fraudulent) using your domain, crucial for identifying all sending sources and their authentication status.
- RUF reports are rare and often unhelpful: Due to various factors, including privacy concerns and high volume, forensic reports are seldom sent by Mailbox Providers, meaning they offer limited practical value for most DMARC implementations.
- Reports validate DMARC policy: Reviewing reports is the only way to confirm that your DMARC, SPF, and DKIM configurations are working as intended and that your emails are achieving proper alignment.
Key considerations
- Understand the XML structure: While tools simplify things, a foundational understanding of the XML structure of DMARC reports helps in interpreting specific data points and troubleshooting.
- Identify unauthorized senders: Reports are crucial for detecting email spoofing or phishing attempts using your domain, allowing you to move towards stricter DMARC policies like p=reject with confidence.
- Daily monitoring is best: While not requiring constant attention, a daily or at least frequent review of summarized DMARC data helps in quickly identifying and responding to new threats or configuration issues.
- Optimize for all subdomains: Reports provide data for your organizational domain and its subdomains. Ensuring proper authentication for all subdomains is a key part of comprehensive DMARC coverage, helping to interpret DMARC reports effectively.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks agrees that very few mail providers send RUF (forensic) messages these days, so expecting a high volume of them is generally unrealistic. This is an important clarification for those setting up DMARC.
Expert view
Expert from Spamresource suggests that the raw volume of DMARC aggregate reports can be overwhelming, making automated parsing and analysis tools indispensable for effective monitoring. Manual processing is simply not feasible given the scale.
What the documentation says
Official DMARC documentation and related technical resources consistently highlight the purpose and structure of DMARC reports, emphasizing their role in domain authentication and security. They specify the types of reports (aggregate and forensic), their XML format, and the data points they contain. The documentation generally points to the necessity of programmatic processing due to the machine-readable nature and potential volume of these reports, positioning them as a feedback mechanism for domain owners to improve their email posture.
Key findings
- Standardized format: DMARC aggregate reports are generated in a standardized XML format, designed for automated parsing rather than human readability.
- Daily frequency: Mailbox Providers typically send aggregate reports once every 24 hours (or at least daily), summarizing the previous day's email activity for the reported domain.
- Data included: Reports detail incoming mail server IPs, sending volumes, SPF and DKIM authentication results, DMARC alignment status, and the policy applied to emails (e.g., none, quarantine, reject).
- Purpose of reports: The primary purpose is to provide domain owners with visibility into how their domain is being used, enabling them to identify and address legitimate sending sources and block malicious ones.
Key considerations
- Configure rua tag correctly: The rua tag in your DMARC record specifies the email address where aggregate reports should be sent. Ensure it points to an address dedicated to receiving and processing these reports.
- Understand report limits: Some Mailbox Providers may limit the number of reports sent or consolidate multiple reports into a single daily email, impacting the perceived volume of daily reports.
- Plan for data storage and analysis: Given the volume, documentation advises having a system in place to store and analyze the incoming XML data to make it usable. This is crucial for realizing the benefits of DMARC.
- Refer to official specifications: For the most authoritative information on DMARC reporting, consult the official DMARC RFC (RFC 7489) or related standards documents. For instance, Sendmarc highlights maximizing DMARC reporting for IT professionals.
Technical article
Documentation from Sendmarc states that DMARC provides invaluable reports containing data that can be leveraged by domain owners to fortify their email ecosystems against cyber threats. These reports are a cornerstone of email security.
Technical article
Documentation from Mailgun explains that DMARC involves organizing an email program to prevent spoofers from impersonating a domain, with daily reports being a critical component of this ongoing process. This emphasizes the operational aspect of DMARC.
Related resources
9 resources
Related pages
How to implement DMARC p=reject policy safely to avoid email deliverability issues?
What are the best practices for DMARC implementation, including tag definition and tool recommendations?
How to interpret DMARC reports for unrecognized email sending sources and low volume DMARC failures?
List of DMARC tags and their meanings
DMARC record and policy examples
The benefits of implementing DMARC
Simple DMARC examples: how to start with a p=none policy
How to safely transition your DMARC policy to quarantine or reject
Understanding and troubleshooting DMARC reports from Google and Yahoo
Boost Email Deliverability Rates: Technical Solutions from Top Performing Senders
