Implementing DMARC with a p=reject policy is the most stringent way to combat email spoofing and phishing attacks that abuse your domain. When a receiving server encounters an email claiming to be from your domain, but it fails DMARC authentication, a p=reject policy instructs that server to reject the email outright. This prevents the spoofed email from reaching the recipient's inbox, thereby protecting your brand's reputation and your recipients from malicious content.
However, moving to p=reject requires careful planning and continuous monitoring to ensure that legitimate emails are not inadvertently rejected. Any email that does not properly authenticate via SPF or DKIM, and fails DMARC alignment, will be blocked. This includes emails sent by third-party services, mailing lists, or even misconfigured internal systems. A phased approach, starting with p=none for monitoring, then p=quarantine, and finally p=reject, is generally recommended to mitigate these risks.
Email marketers often approach the idea of a p=reject DMARC policy with a mix of enthusiasm for security and trepidation about potential deliverability issues. Their primary goal is to ensure legitimate marketing and transactional emails reach the inbox reliably. While they recognize the benefit of stopping brand spoofing and protecting their sender reputation, the fear of accidentally blocking their own emails due to misconfigurations or third-party sending nuances is a significant concern. Marketers typically rely on DMARC reports to gain visibility into their email ecosystem before considering stricter policies, often starting with p=none to monitor and refine their authentication.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks notes a sudden increase in spoofing. They explain that they hadn't previously observed emails spoofing their domain, but recently received numerous complaints about emails they didn't send, which were using their sending domain. This situation prompted their immediate inquiry into DMARC's effectiveness.
Marketer view
Marketer from Reddit suggests switching to p=reject yielded immediate positive results. They note a noticeable reduction in phishing attempts after implementation, affirming its value for brand protection. However, they emphasize that the transition period necessitated diligent monitoring of DMARC reports to prevent any unintended loss of legitimate email traffic.
Email deliverability experts consistently advise extreme caution when considering a p=reject DMARC policy. Their collective wisdom emphasizes that while p=reject is the most effective defense against domain spoofing, its implementation is fraught with potential pitfalls if not executed meticulously. Experts stress that a deep understanding of your email ecosystem, robust authentication for all sending sources, and continuous monitoring of DMARC reports are non-negotiable prerequisites. They frequently point out the complexities introduced by mail forwarders and mailing lists, which can inadvertently cause legitimate mail to be blocked under a strict DMARC policy.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks advises caution against immediate p=reject adoption. They strongly recommend against changing directly to p=reject without thorough preparation, implying the significant risks associated with such a hurried implementation.
Expert view
Expert from Spamresource.com states that many organizations adopt p=reject too quickly, often without a comprehensive understanding of their email ecosystem. This premature move can result in a substantial loss of legitimate email. They emphasize the critical need for meticulous analysis of DMARC aggregate reports prior to enforcement.
Technical documentation on DMARC policies consistently defines p=reject as the most aggressive and effective enforcement option for DMARC. It explicitly instructs receiving mail servers to decline (reject) any email that purports to be from a domain, but fails DMARC authentication. Documentation emphasizes that this policy offers the highest level of protection against domain spoofing and email-based fraud. However, it also critically highlights the prerequisite of having all legitimate email streams correctly authenticated with SPF and DKIM and achieving DMARC alignment. Without this foundational setup, legitimate mail can be inadvertently blocked, making thorough preparation and ongoing monitoring indispensable for successful implementation.
Technical article
Documentation from RFC 7489 specifies that the DMARC p=reject policy instructs receiving mail servers to discard messages that fail DMARC authentication checks for the organizational domain. This policy provides the highest level of protection against email fraud and spoofing attempts, ensuring that unauthorized emails are not delivered to recipients.
Technical article
Documentation from M3AAWG Best Practices recommends a prerequisite for deploying p=reject. They state that organizations should possess a thorough understanding of all legitimate email sending sources linked to their domain, including third-party senders and internal applications. Comprehensive DMARC reporting analysis is identified as essential for this crucial preparatory step.
14 resources
How to implement DMARC p=reject policy safely to avoid email deliverability issues?
When should you use DMARC p=none, p=quarantine, or p=reject policies?
How to safely transition your DMARC policy to quarantine or reject
What are the best practices for setting DMARC policy, particularly p=reject?
How does DMARC work, why implement it with SPF and DKIM, and what tools are available for DMARC record creation?
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
Why do businesses need DMARC, and what are the real costs of implementation and maintenance?
How to troubleshoot DMARC failures and their impact on email deliverability?
Understanding and troubleshooting DMARC reports from Google and Yahoo
Why Your Emails Are Going to Spam in 2024 and How to Fix It