Summary
The choice between SPF ~all (softfail) and -all (hardfail) is a long-standing debate in the email deliverability community. While -all might seem more secure on the surface, its practical utility for preventing spoofing and ensuring deliverability is often outweighed by the risks and complexities it introduces. Modern email authentication relies more heavily on DMARC for robust policy enforcement and brand protection.
Key findings
- Limited impact on deliverability: Many email providers treat -all and ~all similarly, or they simply don't enforce a strict hardfail policy, significantly reducing the practical difference between the two for inbox placement.
- Spoofing protection: SPF -all alone does not adequately prevent spoofing because SPF primarily checks the MAIL FROM address, which can differ from the visible FROM header (display name). DMARC, with its alignment requirements, is the more effective solution for combating spoofing.
- Increased bounce risk: A strict -all policy can lead to legitimate emails being bounced if the SPF record is not perfectly maintained or if mail is forwarded without proper Sender Rewriting Scheme (SRS) implementation.
- DMARC's superiority: DMARC offers a more robust framework for email authentication and policy enforcement, allowing domain owners to specify actions for unauthenticated mail (none, quarantine, reject) and receive reports on authentication failures.
Key considerations
- Operational overhead: Implementing -all can increase support requests due to legitimate emails being rejected, particularly for organizations with complex sending infrastructures or frequent IP changes.
- Evolving standards: As DMARC adoption grows, the reliance on SPF's hardfail mechanism for policy enforcement diminishes. DMARC provides a more intentional and report-driven approach to mail policy. Learn more about the differences between DMARC, SPF, and DKIM.
- Incomplete SPF records: Many small businesses and even large corporations frequently forget to update their SPF records when changing email hosts or Email Service Providers (ESPs), making -all a risky choice that can break legitimate email streams.
- DMARC p=reject strategy: For true spoofing protection, the recommended approach is to ensure a valid SPF ~all record, implement DKIM for all sending sources, and then gradually transition your DMARC policy to p=reject. Our guide on how to safely implement DMARC p=reject offers a detailed strategy. The SPF RFC (RFC 7208) provides technical specifications on its mechanisms.
What the email marketers say
Email marketers often weigh the theoretical benefits of strict SPF policies against the very real risks of impacting legitimate email delivery. Their perspectives are primarily shaped by practical experience with various ESPs, DNS providers, and the diverse reactions of mailbox providers.
Key opinions
- Deliverability focus: Many marketers prioritize deliverability over the perceived, yet often unproven, additional security of -all, preferring the softer ~all to minimize bounce risks for valid emails.
- Spoofing solution: Marketers generally agree that DMARC's p=reject policy is the definitive answer to spoofing concerns, as it offers a more comprehensive and actionable approach than SPF alone.
- Practicality over strictness: Given that many mailbox providers do not strictly honor -all, its actual effectiveness in preventing unwanted mail is limited, leading marketers to question its real-world benefit.
- Challenges with DNS: The complexities and limitations of certain DNS providers in handling SPF and DKIM records (e.g., character limits, underscore issues) make rigid policies like -all more prone to accidental misconfigurations that impact legitimate sending.
Key considerations
- Monitoring: Regardless of the SPF policy chosen, continuous monitoring of email deliverability and bounce logs is crucial to identify and address any issues promptly. This includes leveraging tools like Google Postmaster Tools.
- Business risk: For businesses, especially small ones, the risk of legitimate emails being rejected due to an imperfectly maintained -all record often outweighs the minimal additional security benefit it might offer over ~all.
- ESP instructions: Some ESPs provide SPF records with -all by default, which can lead to accidental hardfail implementation by users unaware of the implications.
- Testing strategies: Marketers recommend testing different authentication configurations, including SPF ~all versus -all, using seedlists to observe real-world behavior across various ISPs. This helps in understanding how to diagnose deliverability issues.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks notes that major players like Google and Elon Musk's companies often use ~all, implying that a softer SPF policy is sufficient even for large entities. This suggests that strict hardfail policies may not be universally adopted or considered necessary by all major senders. Their reasoning often points to the complexities of managing dynamic IP infrastructures.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks contends that while -all might appear more secure, the real debate lies in how ISPs like Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, and Comcast treat these authentication configurations. They emphasize the need for ecosystem-wide data to understand the actual impact on deliverability.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts emphasize a nuanced understanding of SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. They often highlight the practical limitations of SPF's hardfail policy (-all) in real-world scenarios, particularly when compared to the comprehensive capabilities of DMARC for policy enforcement and abuse reporting. Their insights often come from extensive experience managing large-scale email systems and dealing with diverse ISP behaviors.
Key opinions
- Limited enforcement of hardfail: Many email providers either ignore -all or treat it as a softfail (~all) due to the high support overhead caused by legitimate mail failing, making its impact inconsistent.
- SPF's inherent limitations: SPF is easily broken by forwarding, and it does not prevent all forms of spoofing, particularly those that use a different MAIL FROM domain than the visible FROM header.
- DMARC as the primary policy mechanism: Experts strongly advocate for DMARC as the superior mechanism for defining email sending policy and protecting against spoofing, given its alignment requirements and comprehensive reporting capabilities.
- User error and complexity: The implementation of -all is risky because end-users often fail to include all legitimate sending IPs, leading to unintended rejections. ~all offers more leniency for these common misconfigurations.
Key considerations
- Diagnostic value: While -all might generate a bounce for unauthenticated mail, DMARC reports provide much richer, actionable data for diagnosing and resolving authentication issues. You can check your DMARC reports using a free DMARC record generator tool.
- DNS provider quality: The quality of DNS editors varies significantly, with some preventing correct SPF and DKIM record implementation (e.g., character limits for TXT records, refusal of underscores in CNAMEs). This can inadvertently lead to SPF failures, especially with -all.
- Evolution of standards: The email ecosystem has moved beyond strict reliance on SPF hardfail, with DMARC now being the cornerstone of strong domain authentication. This evolution helps address the historical challenges that prevented SPF from being universally enforced. Explore advanced email authentication concepts.
- Strategic implementation: For brands concerned about spoofing, the strategic path involves a well-configured SPF ~all record alongside robust DKIM implementation and a DMARC policy set to p=reject. An email expert from SpamResource notes that email providers are increasingly relying on DMARC for policy enforcement.
Expert view
Email expert from Email Geeks explains that the choice of SPF policy, whether -all or ~all, doesn't make a significant difference for spoofing because a bad actor can use any domain for the MAIL FROM while still spoofing the FROM header. This highlights a fundamental limitation of SPF for comprehensive spoofing prevention.
Expert view
Email expert from Email Geeks clarifies that an IP address failing SPF when the policy is -all means the email should be rejected according to the RFC (Request for Comments) specification. This technical adherence, however, often leads to complaints from senders who don't expect such strict enforcement.
What the documentation says
Email authentication documentation, particularly RFCs, provides the foundational rules for SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. While SPF specifies the ~all (softfail) and -all (hardfail) mechanisms, the evolution of email security has led to DMARC becoming the primary protocol for expressing sender policy preferences concerning unauthenticated mail. Understanding the original intent and current real-world application is key.
Key findings
- SPF record definition: An SPF record specifies which IP addresses are authorized to send email on behalf of a domain. The -all mechanism explicitly states that any mail not originating from an authorized IP should be rejected, while ~all suggests a softfail (allowing delivery but marking as suspicious).
- RFC compliance: According to SPF RFC 7208, an SPF -all result means that mail from a non-authorized IP should be considered a hardfail, indicating rejection. A ~all result is a softfail, meaning the mail should be treated with suspicion but not necessarily rejected.
- DMARC policy enforcement: DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) leverages SPF and DKIM authentication results. It allows domain owners to set policies (p=none, p=quarantine, p=reject) for mail that fails DMARC checks, providing a more direct and reportable method for anti-spoofing than SPF alone.
- DNS TXT record limits: Standard DNS TXT records are limited to 255 characters per string. Longer SPF or DKIM keys (e.g., 2048-bit DKIM) may need to be split into multiple concatenated strings within a single TXT record to comply with this limit.
Key considerations
- Alignment requirement: For DMARC to pass based on SPF, the domain in the MAIL FROM (or Return-Path) must align with the domain in the FROM header. This alignment is crucial for DMARC's anti-spoofing capabilities, which SPF -all by itself does not provide.
- Domain vs. IP reputation: While SPF focuses on IP authorization, email deliverability and spam filtering also heavily rely on domain reputation, which DMARC helps build and protect through consistent authentication.
- Transition to DMARC: Documentation increasingly supports the view that DMARC is the preferred protocol for controlling unauthenticated email traffic. SPF ~all paired with an enforcing DMARC policy is generally recommended for optimal security and deliverability. DMARC RFC 7489 provides further details.
- Multiple SPF records: The SPF specification clearly states that a domain must only have one SPF TXT record. Multiple SPF records will invalidate the SPF authentication, leading to deliverability issues.
Technical article
Documentation from RFC 7208 (SPF) describes the -all mechanism as a hardfail, meaning that if the client IP address does not match any allowed mechanisms, the result is fail. The message should be rejected or discarded.
Technical article
Documentation from RFC 7208 (SPF) defines the ~all mechanism as a softfail, which indicates that the client IP address is not authorized, but the receiving server may still accept the message. It suggests that the message should be treated with suspicion, but not necessarily rejected.
Related resources
14 resources
Related pages
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
How to implement DMARC p=reject policy safely to avoid email deliverability issues?
What is the full form of SPF in email?
Why your emails fail: expert guide to improve email deliverability [2025]
Boost email deliverability rates: technical solutions from top performing senders
How to safely transition your DMARC policy to quarantine or reject
Why your emails fail at Microsoft: the hidden SPF DNS timeout
Does a subdomain used for sending emails need its own SPF record?
How to fix the 'SPF unauthorized mail is prohibited' error
How to comply with outlook's new sender requirements
