What are the new DMARC RUA requirements for 2024?

Key findings

• Initial enforcement: Gmail and Yahoo began enforcing DMARC for bulk email senders (those sending over 5,000 emails per day) in February 2024.
• RUA status: The rua tag, which enables the receipt of DMARC aggregate reports, is strongly recommended by providers for monitoring, even if not explicitly a hard requirement for all policies.
• Phased adoption: Many senders can start with a DMARC policy of p=none, but the long-term goal for mailbox providers is to encourage progression to stricter enforcement policies like p=quarantine or p=reject.
• Microsoft's timeline: Microsoft is set to implement similar DMARC requirements for high-volume senders by May 5, 2025.

Key considerations

• Beyond basic compliance: Simply setting a p=none policy without actively monitoring DMARC reports (via rua) significantly limits the security and deliverability benefits of DMARC.
• ESPs' evolving role: Email Service Providers (ESPs) are increasingly expected to handle DMARC record management and reporting on behalf of their clients, especially for those sending large volumes. This is becoming a crucial aspect of DMARC setup best practices.
• DNS record complexity: For many senders, configuring and editing DNS records for DMARC can be challenging. This highlights the need for user-friendly tools or expert assistance for DMARC implementation.
• Future policy tightening: Senders should proactively work towards understanding their DMARC reports and aligning their mail streams, as stricter enforcement policies are anticipated from mailbox providers. More information on Microsoft's requirements can be found on their Tech Community blog.

Key opinions

• RUA's hidden value: Some marketers feel that DMARC is incomplete without proper rua setup, emphasizing the importance of monitoring to truly understand authentication gaps.
• Client burden: A common sentiment is that most clients do not understand DMARC record tags or the need to read reports, placing a significant burden on ESPs.
• DMARC vendor opportunity: The new requirements are expected to boost the business for DMARC reporting and management services due to increased demand for compliance and monitoring.
• High volume cost: For very high-volume senders, the sheer amount of DMARC reporting data could incur substantial costs for processing and storage.
• Future tightening: Many foresee DMARC requirements becoming even stricter over time, potentially based on sending volume, leading to mandatory p=quarantine or p=reject policies.

Key considerations

• Blind spots with no RUA: Operating with an enforcement policy like p=reject but without an rua tag means lacking visibility into potential authentication failures, similar to sending without RUA reports.
• Automatic report deletion: Some marketers may set up rua tags but configure auto-deletion for reports, which while compliant on paper, misses the strategic advantage of DMARC monitoring.
• DNS record updates: The difficulty of setting up and editing DNS records for DMARC remains a significant hurdle for many clients, requiring detailed guidance or direct assistance from their email service providers.
• Preparing for stricter policies: Marketers recognize that the current requirements are just the first step, and preparing for future, more stringent DMARC policies is essential for long-term deliverability. Understanding Gmail and Yahoo's new authentication rules is key.

Key opinions

• Value of RUA: Experts stress that DMARC's reporting ('R' in DMARC) is crucial; without it, senders miss vital insights into their authentication performance and potential abuse.
• Ecosystem improvement: These new requirements are seen as fundamental for improving email security and user trust globally.
• Beyond literal interpretation: Experts caution against simply meeting the minimum requirements (e.g., p=none) without understanding the strategic importance of continuous monitoring and eventual enforcement.
• Shared domain implications: Increased authentication complexity may push more senders to use shared ESP domains, shifting the reputation management burden to ESPs, a trend that receivers and senders must adapt to.
• Industry responsibility: It's imperative for ESPs and DMARC tool providers to innovate and simplify DMARC implementation and reporting, making it as seamless as other DNS record management.

Key considerations

• Proactive monitoring: Even with a p=reject policy, experts advocate for publishing an rua tag to receive alerts about DKIM or SPF failures.
• Gradual policy hardening: The current p=none policy is a starting point, encouraging senders to protect their mail by monitoring reports before transitioning to stronger policies. This aligns with advice on safely transitioning DMARC policy.
• Domain owner responsibility: If you send bulk emails, DMARC compliance is a critical aspect of owning a domain, similar to other essential DNS records. Senders are encouraged to proactively address DMARC, DKIM, and SPF updates.
• ESP innovation: ESPs must enhance their offerings to manage DMARC records and reporting seamlessly for their customers, streamlining the authentication process. More on this can be found on Yahoo's Postmaster Blog.

Key findings

• Bulk sender definition: Google and Yahoo define bulk senders as those sending 5,000 or more messages to Gmail or Yahoo addresses within a 24-hour period.
• Authentication requirement: Bulk senders are required to implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC for their sending domains.
• RUA as a best practice: Documentation recommends setting up the rua tag to receive aggregate reports, providing visibility into DMARC authentication results.
• Policy flexibility: A DMARC policy of p=none is acceptable for initial compliance, allowing senders to gather data and ensure proper configuration before moving to stricter policies.
• Domain alignment: Proper DMARC alignment of the From header domain with SPF and DKIM authenticated domains is crucial for passing DMARC checks.

Key considerations

• Report analysis: Snders are encouraged to actively analyze their DMARC reports to identify legitimate sending sources that may not be properly authenticated and to detect unauthorized use of their domain. For more information, refer to Yahoo's Best Practices.
• Gradual progression: The recommendation is to start with p=none and gradually move to p=quarantine or p=reject once confident that all legitimate mail streams are properly authenticated.
• Understanding report-uri: The rua tag specifies where aggregated DMARC reports should be sent, which is crucial for monitoring. For more about this, check DMARC tags and their meanings.
• Adhering to guidelines: Consult official postmaster pages (e.g., Yahoo's FAQs) for the most up-to-date and comprehensive information on DMARC and other email sending requirements.