What are the requirements for RUA and RUF in DMARC policies?

Key findings

• RUA is primary: RUA reports are strongly recommended for DMARC monitoring, providing an overview of all email authentication activities for your domain, whether compliant or not.
• RUF is secondary: RUF reports, while offering forensic details on DMARC failures, are less commonly implemented due to privacy concerns and the difficulty of sanitizing personal data within them. Many mailbox providers do not send them.
• Not explicitly required: Neither RUA nor RUF addresses are technically required for a DMARC policy to be valid, but without RUA, you are essentially flying blind regarding your email authentication status.
• Future trends: Industry discussions suggest that future requirements may increasingly emphasize the necessity of RUA reports for better visibility and compliance, though specific mandates beyond current recommendations are not yet set.

Key considerations

• Policy monitoring: RUA reports are essential for monitoring your DMARC policy’s effectiveness, especially when moving towards stricter policies like p=quarantine or p=reject.
• Data privacy: When considering RUF reports, be mindful of potential personal data leakage and ensure compliance with privacy regulations like GDPR.
• Subdomain impact: For dedicated subdomains with a p=reject policy, some argue that RUA may be less critical if you are absolutely certain of all mail streams originating from it, but generally, it's still advised for comprehensive visibility.
• Report parsing: Manually parsing DMARC reports can be challenging due to their XML format. Using a DMARC monitoring solution is highly recommended for efficient analysis and actionable insights.

Key opinions

• RUA is a must-have: Many marketers view RUA reports as absolutely crucial for understanding email authentication performance and identifying unauthorized sending sources.
• RUF reports are rare: A common sentiment is that very few mailbox providers actually send RUF reports, making them less reliable for comprehensive monitoring.
• Avoid flying blind: The phrase "why fly blind" often comes up, emphasizing the importance of receiving RUA data to track DMARC compliance and detect potential spoofing attempts.
• Simplicity for subdomains: For dedicated subdomains with p=reject, some marketers suggest that RUA might be less critical if the mail stream is highly controlled and understood.

Key considerations

• Client advice: Marketers providing DMARC advice to clients typically recommend prioritizing RUA for visibility, as it covers 99.9% of necessary information.
• Resource allocation: Implementing DMARC parsers for RUA reports requires resources, which can be a barrier for some senders, leading to a preference for simpler setups like dedicated subdomains with a reject policy.
• Understanding reports: A common challenge is that marketers often lack the technical expertise or inclination to interpret raw DMARC reports effectively, highlighting the need for user-friendly DMARC platforms.
• Adoption trends: The general trend suggests that RUA reports will become even more pivotal as email platforms continue to enforce stricter authentication requirements to combat spam and phishing. Learn more about understanding DMARC reports.

Key opinions

• RUA reports are sufficient: Experts generally agree that RUA (Aggregate) reports provide the necessary information for 99.9% of DMARC-related situations.
• RUF challenges: RUF (Forensic) reports are often not sent by receivers due to the risk of leaking personal data, and attempts to strip this data often render the reports useless.
• Data privacy is key: The privacy implications, particularly regarding GDPR and sharing recipient data with third-party domains, are significant reasons for the sparse adoption of RUF.
• Policy progression: DMARC policies are expected to become more stringent over time, making comprehensive RUA reporting even more critical for monitoring and compliance.

Key considerations

• Vendor partnerships: Access to RUF reports may sometimes be possible through specialized DMARC vendors who have forensic feed partnerships with major providers, bypassing common recipient limitations.
• Transparency vs. privacy: The balance between gaining detailed forensic insight and protecting personal data is a constant challenge for RUF implementation, as sharing data with entities that have no prior relationship with the recipient raises significant privacy questions.
• Dedicated subdomains: While RUA is generally always recommended, some experts discuss situations where highly controlled subdomains with a reject policy might function without needing RUA, assuming complete certainty of all mail flows.
• Starting point: It is widely agreed that even if current requirements are minimal, setting up DMARC with RUA is the entry point for future, potentially stricter, authentication mandates. For more information, see this comparison of RUA vs RUF.

Key findings

• RUA purpose: DMARC documentation defines RUA reports as aggregate feedback, providing daily XML summaries of email authentication results (SPF, DKIM, and DMARC) across various receivers.
• RUF purpose: RUF reports, or forensic reports, are designed to provide anonymized copies of individual messages that fail DMARC authentication, including headers and possibly portions of the message body.
• Privacy constraints: The RFCs acknowledge the sensitive nature of forensic reports and recommend careful consideration of privacy, leading to practices like redaction or suppression of sensitive information.
• Flexibility in reporting: DMARC policy allows administrators to specify different mailto URIs for RUA and RUF, or to omit one or both, providing flexibility in how reports are received. Find more in this list of DMARC tags and their meanings.

Key considerations

• Implementation challenges: While documented, the practical implementation of RUF reports faces significant hurdles related to privacy regulations (e.g., GDPR) and the technical challenge of effectively anonymizing email content, which often leads to poor data quality.
• Report content: RFC 7489, which defines DMARC, details the XML schema for RUA reports, including information on message volume, SPF/DKIM authentication results, and policy application, providing comprehensive data for analysis.
• Handling reports: Documentation implicitly suggests the need for automated systems to process these reports due to their volume and complexity, reinforcing the importance of DMARC reporting platforms for practical use. This is also covered in understanding and troubleshooting DMARC reports.
• Limited RUF utility: Even though RUF is defined, its real-world utility is often less than intended due to the privacy concerns that frequently prevent senders from receiving complete or useful forensic data. See this resource on RUF reports.