What information is contained in DMARC RUA and RUF reports?

Key findings

• RUA reports: Aggregate reports (RUA) provide statistical data on DMARC authentication results, including SPF and DKIM pass/fail rates, sending IP addresses, and message counts for emails purporting to be from your domain.
• Privacy limitations: RUA reports are designed to preserve privacy, meaning they do not include the full recipient email address or the content of individual messages. They focus on aggregate domain-level information.
• RUF reports: Forensic reports (RUF) contain more detailed information about individual messages that failed DMARC authentication. This can include redacted headers, body snippets, and sometimes URLs or attachments, though specific sensitive information is typically excluded for privacy reasons.
• Scarcity of RUF: Despite their potential detail, RUF reports are rarely sent by most mailbox providers due to privacy concerns and the potential for exposing sensitive data. This makes RUA reports the primary source of DMARC feedback.
• Microsoft's RUA data: Unlike other large mailbox providers, Microsoft's RUA reports uniquely include the envelope_to and envelope_from domains (but not the local parts of addresses) in the identifiers section.

Key considerations

• Interpreting RUA: Focus on understanding the aggregate trends in your RUA reports to identify legitimate sending sources and unauthorized usage of your domain. You can learn how to interpret DMARC reports effectively.
• RUF limitations: While RFC 7489 specifies RUF reports, their practical absence means relying on them for forensic analysis is generally not feasible. Most DMARC strategies revolve around RUA data.
• Privacy vs. utility: The design of DMARC reporting balances the need for domain owners to gain insight into authentication failures with the crucial requirement to protect recipient privacy. This balance explains the limited detail in RUA reports and the rarity of RUF reports.
• Setting up reports: Ensure your DMARC record correctly specifies the rua tag with an email address to receive aggregate reports. You can use a free DMARC record generator to assist with this setup. For further details on DMARC reporting standards, refer to the official DMARC RFC 7489 documentation.

Key opinions

• Focus on aggregate data: Marketers primarily use RUA reports to gain a comprehensive overview of their email traffic, helping to identify legitimate sending sources and monitor overall authentication performance.
• Privacy expectations: Many marketers expect DMARC reports to be devoid of personally identifiable information, such as exact recipient email addresses or email content, in line with privacy best practices.
• Limited RUF utility: There's a general consensus that RUF (forensic) reports, while potentially offering more detail on failed messages, are rarely received and therefore provide little practical value for day-to-day email marketing operations.
• Brand protection focus: The main benefit seen by marketers in DMARC reports is their ability to reveal unauthorized use of their domain, which is crucial for preventing phishing and maintaining brand reputation.
• Microsoft-specific data: Marketers note that Microsoft's RUA reports offer slightly more identifying domain-level information (envelope_to/from domains) compared to other providers, which can be a point of discussion regarding data granularity.

Key considerations

• Report analysis: Marketers should utilize tools and services to analyze raw RUA reports into an easy-to-read format, extracting actionable insights without needing to delve into complex XML files. This helps with overall DMARC monitoring.
• Understanding limitations: It is important for marketers to understand that DMARC reports are not designed for granular tracking of individual recipients or email content. Their purpose is primarily for domain authentication and abuse detection.
• Proactive policy adjustment: Regularly reviewing RUA reports allows marketers to incrementally adjust their DMARC policy from monitoring to enforcement (quarantine or reject) safely, ensuring legitimate emails aren't impacted.
• Adoption of RUF reports: While scarce, marketers should be aware that RUF reports could hypothetically provide detailed insights into specific email failures. However, they should not base their DMARC strategy around receiving them frequently.

Key opinions

• Content exclusion: Experts confirm that DMARC reports, particularly RUA, are strictly designed not to include the actual content of emails, prioritizing user privacy.
• RUF's potential for detail: While RUF reports *could* provide more identifying information about individual messages (e.g., specific recipient addresses or headers), this is rarely seen in practice.
• Near absence of RUF: A strong consensus among experts is that almost no mailbox providers send RUF reports, largely due to significant privacy concerns and potential data exposure.
• Microsoft's RUA distinction: Experts highlight that Microsoft's RUA reports are notable for including envelope_to and envelope_from domains (but not local parts), providing a bit more context than other RUA reports.
• Privacy vs. analytics balance: DMARC's reporting mechanism is seen as a compromise between providing domain owners with essential authentication data and safeguarding recipient privacy.

Key considerations

• Actionable RUA data: Despite RUA reports not containing sensitive data, they are still highly valuable for identifying unauthorized sending sources and monitoring the health of your email authentication setup (SPF and DKIM). This data is essential for maintaining strong DMARC, SPF, and DKIM alignment.
• Monitoring authentication results: Regularly reviewing DMARC aggregate reports is crucial to identify and troubleshoot issues like SPF TempError or DKIM failures, which can affect deliverability.
• Policy enforcement: Experts recommend a phased approach to DMARC policy enforcement, moving from p=none (monitoring) to p=quarantine or p=reject only after thorough analysis of RUA reports. For more details, consider the SpamResource article on DMARC reporting.
• Data aggregation services: Given the technical nature of RUA reports, using a DMARC analysis service is often recommended to efficiently process and visualize the data for easier interpretation.

Key findings

• RUA structure: RFC 7489 specifies that RUA reports are XML formatted documents containing statistical data, including the reporting organization, dates, policy published, and records of authentication results (SPF, DKIM, and DMARC outcomes) for various sending IPs.
• RUF content: The documentation outlines RUF reports as containing more detailed, forensic information about individual messages that failed DMARC authentication, including email headers and potentially parts of the message body, typically with redactions for sensitive data.
• Privacy emphasis: A core principle emphasized in the DMARC specification is the protection of user privacy. This often translates to aggregate data in RUA and heavy redaction or non-delivery of RUF reports.
• Reporting intervals: RUA reports are typically generated and sent periodically, often daily, summarizing all traffic for the reporting period.

Key considerations

• Compliance and requirements: Understanding the documentation helps ensure your DMARC record, including rua and ruf settings, complies with established standards. This includes being aware of the requirements for RUA and RUF in DMARC policies.
• Policy definitions: The documentation clearly defines how DMARC policies (p=none, p=quarantine, p=reject) interact with reporting, influencing what data is gathered and how it's used for enforcement.
• Understanding RFCs: For a comprehensive and authoritative understanding of DMARC and its reporting mechanisms, consulting the DMARC.org resources and the relevant RFCs (Request for Comments) is essential.
• Impact of policy changes: Changes to your DMARC policy (e.g., moving from p=none to p=quarantine) are directly reflected in the reports, providing feedback on the impact of these enforcement decisions. It's also important to consider new DMARC RUA requirements for 2024.