Transitioning your DMARC policy from p=none to an enforcing policy like p=quarantine or p=reject is a critical step in enhancing your email security and protecting your brand from spoofing and phishing attacks. While p=none provides valuable insight into your email ecosystem, it offers no enforcement against fraudulent emails. The decision to switch should be based on a thorough understanding of your email flows, consistent monitoring of DMARC reports, and a readiness to manage potential deliverability impacts.
Key findings
Security imperative: DMARC p=none provides no protection against malicious actors actively exploiting weak DMARC policies for phishing and impersonation, making an enforcing policy essential.
Phased approach: The transition from p=none to p=quarantine and then to p=reject is a recommended journey, allowing for careful monitoring and adjustment at each stage.
Potential for mail loss: Moving to an enforcing policy can inadvertently block or quarantine legitimate emails if all your sending sources are not properly authenticated with SPF and DKIM. In some cases, senders have reported losing up to 20% of their mail. Learn more about how to implement DMARC p=reject safely.
Informed decision-making: The transition should only occur after thoroughly analyzing DMARC reports from the p=none phase to ensure all legitimate email flows are accounted for and properly authenticated.
Continuous monitoring: Even after moving to an enforcing policy, ongoing monitoring of DMARC reports is crucial for identifying any unforeseen issues or new sending sources.
Key considerations
Understanding mail flow: Identify all legitimate email sending sources for your domain, including third-party senders and marketing platforms.
DKIM signing: Ensure that all your legitimate email is properly DKIM signed and passes DMARC alignment.
Indirect mail flows: Be aware of mail forwarding, mailing lists, and other indirect flows that can break DMARC authentication. These emails may be lost once an enforcing policy is active. More details on DMARC use cases.
Timeline for transition: The monitoring phase with p=none can take weeks to months, depending on the complexity of your email infrastructure. You can learn more about switching DMARC in increments.
Report analysis: Utilize DMARC reporting tools to gain clear insights into authentication results and identify any issues before moving to enforcement.
Email marketers often approach DMARC enforcement with a mix of enthusiasm for security and caution regarding deliverability. The consensus points towards moving beyond p=none due to its lack of protection, but emphasize the importance of meticulous preparation and monitoring. They highlight the need for clear guidance on DMARC report interpretation to make informed decisions about policy changes.
Key opinions
Proactive security: Marketers generally agree that moving to p=quarantine or p=reject is a necessary step to protect brand reputation and prevent email spoofing. You can explore how to use DMARC p=reject to combat email spoofing.
Gradual transition preferred: Many advocate for a cautious, phased rollout, starting with p=none for monitoring, then to p=quarantine, and finally p=reject.
Monitoring is key: The crucial step before any enforcement is a prolonged period of DMARC reporting under p=none to identify all legitimate email streams.
Complexity of reports: Many express a need for better, more accessible resources on how to effectively interpret raw DMARC reports without relying solely on commercial services.
Key considerations
Loss of legitimate mail: Marketers must prepare for the possibility of legitimate emails being quarantined or rejected if not all sending sources are fully aligned.
Thorough audit: Conduct a comprehensive audit of all email sending services and ensure they are properly configured for SPF and DKIM. This includes understanding the impact of DMARC on your overall email deliverability.
Resource allocation: Allocate sufficient time and resources for the monitoring and adjustment phases, which can extend over several months for complex setups.
Understanding report nuances: Develop the ability to discern between legitimate authentication failures (e.g., forwarding) and actual spoofing attempts within DMARC reports. This is a critical skill for managing your DMARC policy. More information from Sendmarc on DMARC policies.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks suggests that marketers need a comprehensive guide on DMARC policy transitions, specifically from p=none to p=quarantine to p=reject.
11 May 2024 - Email Geeks
Marketer view
Marketer from DuoCircle suggests that the transition phase between p=none and p=reject should ideally involve resting on the p=quarantine policy as an intermediate step.
15 Jan 2025 - DuoCircle
What the experts say
Industry experts concur that while p=none is a necessary starting point for DMARC deployment, it should never be the final policy. They emphasize the significant security risks associated with remaining at p=none and highlight the complexities of ensuring all legitimate email traffic is properly authenticated before moving to enforcement. Expert advice consistently points to the indispensable role of robust DMARC reporting in guiding this transition.
Key opinions
Monitoring is not enforcement: Experts stress that while p=none provides data, it offers no protection, leaving domains vulnerable to exploitation by bad actors.
Data-driven decisions: The transition to enforcement must be based on comprehensive DMARC reporting that confirms all legitimate mail flows are fully authenticated via SPF and DKIM. Understanding and troubleshooting DMARC reports is crucial.
Legitimate mail loss: There is an acknowledged risk of legitimate mail being lost or quarantined, especially due to indirect mail flows like forwarding, when moving to an enforcing policy.
Commercial reporting tools: Many experts suggest that freely available DMARC reporting tools are often insufficient for the in-depth analysis required, making commercial DMARC monitoring services a necessity.
Foundational knowledge: A solid understanding of email authentication basics (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) is a prerequisite for a successful and safe transition to enforcement.
Key considerations
Comprehensive mail flow mapping: Before any policy change, ensure all legitimate mail sources are identified and their DMARC alignment status is confirmed.
Phased implementation strategy: Consider a gradual approach (e.g., fractional enforcement or policy increments) to minimize risks while gaining confidence in your DMARC setup. You can find a guide to safely transitioning your DMARC policy.
Long-term monitoring commitment: The process from p=none to p=reject can take several months, requiring consistent attention to DMARC reports.
Stay informed: Keep up to date with evolving threat landscapes, such as nation-state actors targeting weak DMARC policies. More information on this from Spam Resource.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks suggests that deciding whether to enforce DMARC is the primary question, as moving to enforcement can lead to a significant portion of mail being lost, which varies based on infrastructure and recipient demographics.
11 May 2024 - Email Geeks
Expert view
Expert from Spam Resource suggests that maintaining an up-to-date DMARC policy is crucial for effectively combating the ever-evolving threats of phishing and spoofing.
15 Jan 2025 - Spam Resource
What the documentation says
Official documentation and technical guides outline DMARC as a critical component of email security, emphasizing its role in controlling unauthenticated messages. They generally advocate for a structured progression from a monitoring policy (p=none) to more stringent enforcement policies (p=quarantine, p=reject) to maximize protection against impersonation and phishing.
Key findings
Policy enforcement: DMARC enables domain owners to explicitly instruct receiving mail servers on how to handle emails that fail SPF or DKIM authentication.
Role of p=none: The p=none policy is primarily for data collection and understanding email flows, without taking any action against unauthenticated mail.
Quarantine vs. reject: Both p=quarantine and p=reject provide enforcement, with p=reject being the strongest policy for blocking unauthenticated messages. You can refer to when to use these DMARC policies.
Domain security: Progressing to an enforcing policy is crucial for preventing domain impersonation and enhancing trust in your email communications.
Key considerations
Authentication alignment: DMARC relies on SPF and DKIM alignment; successful implementation of an enforcing policy requires these mechanisms to be correctly configured for all legitimate sending sources. A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM can assist.
Incremental deployment: Most documentation recommends a gradual transition, allowing for monitoring and adjustments at each stage to avoid unintended mail blocking.
DMARC aggregate reports: These reports are vital for understanding how your email is being authenticated and whether it passes or fails DMARC checks, providing the necessary data for policy changes. For an overview, see DMARC.org.
Technical article
Documentation from DMARC.org states that DMARC enables domain owners to specify that their emails are protected by SPF and/or DKIM, and to instruct receiving email servers on how to handle messages if neither of these authentication methods passes.
15 Jan 2025 - DMARC.org
Technical article
Documentation from Postmarkapp.com states that DMARC offers complete control over email delivery for a company's domain, facilitating actions such as rejecting or quarantining unauthenticated messages.